this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
163 points (96.6% liked)

Selfhosted

40707 readers
396 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm going to move away from lastpass because the user experience is pretty fucking shit. I was going to look at 1pass as I use it a lot at work and so know it. However I have heard a lot of praise for BitWarden and VaultWarden on here and so probably going to try them out first.

My questions are to those of you who self-host, firstly: why?

And how do you mitigate the risk of your internet going down at home and blocking your access while away?

BitWarden's paid tier is only $10 a year which I'm happy to pay to support a decent service, but im curious about the benefits of the above. I already run syncthing on a pi so adding a password manager wouldn't need any additional hardware.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sk@hub.utsukta.org 35 points 2 months ago (1 children)

vaultwarden syncs your passwords locally so even if your server is down the passwords remain available on your device. And it is a wonderful password manager, you can share passwords with your family, have TOTPs, passkeys.

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Fully agreed.

Accessing Vaultwarden through a VPN gives me peace of mind that it can't be attacked.

Another great thing about Bitwarden is that it's possible to export locally cached passwords to (encrypted) json/csv. This makes recovery possible even if all backups were gone.

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

A VPN? you still need a reverse proxy/domain to use it don't you?

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You can forward a Wireguard port, exposing it to the internet.

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Hmm, interesting, how would I start doing this?

I use a Synology NAS BTW, so it already gives me a Synology subdomain to mess around.

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, Bitwarden browser plugins require TLS, so I use DNS challenge to get a cert without an open port 80/443.

The domain points to a local IP, so I can't access it without the VPN.

Having everything behind a reverse proxy makes it much easier to know which services are open, and I only need to open port 80/443 on my servers firewall.

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

DNS challenge? It is the 1st time I read about it.

I suppose in your LAN you need no VPNs then?

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Accessing Vaultwarden through a VPN

Hmm maybe I should move mine to my VPN. Currently I have it publicly accessible so I can access it from systems where I can't run other VPNs for security reasons (work systems). I use a physical token with FIDO2 (Yubikey) for two factor authentication though, so I'm not too worried about unauthorized access.

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Vaultwarden is one of the few services I'd actually trust to be secure, so I wouldn't worry if you update timely to new versions.

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I hope it gets security audited one day, like Bitwarden was.

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because they use the official apps/web-vault, they don't need to implement most of the vault/encryption features, so at least the actual data should be fine.

Security audits are expensive, so I don't expect it to happen, unless some sponsor pays for it.

They have processes for CVEs and it seems like there wasn't any major security issues (altough I wouldn't host a public instance for unknown users).

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 2 months ago

That's a good point. I didn't consider the fact that all the encryption is done client-side, so that's the most important part to audit (which Bitwarden has already done).