Selfhosted

60934 readers

874 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:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

368

PSA: the bitwarden clients got an upgrade that makes them incompatible with vaultwarden (github.com)

submitted 1 day ago by Wispy2891@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If you got the automatic updates on the bitwarden clients, they will show an empty vault if you are selfhosting vaultwarden.

It seems to be an accidental bug in the bitwarden clients that are assuming that they're talking with official servers

It's fixed with the latest release of the vaultwarden server that was published a few minutes ago

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 62 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I found this comment on what happened by dani-garcia, one of the main devs:

The short version is that around 8-ish years ago, Bitwarden changed the way the vault items were structured, and Vaultwarden added some backwards compatibility fields to ensure both old and new versions of the clients worked.

These backwards compatibility fields were supposed to be a temporary measure, but for at least the next three years the clients still required them, until we eventually forgot to keep track of them. At some point between 2021 and today, the clients stopped requiring these backwards compatibility fields, but Vaultwarden was still sending them.

This wasn't a problem until Bitwarden decided to use the backwards compatibility fields in a completely different way, which caused the clients to crash.

Found here: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/discussions/7473

[–] JordanZ@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There’s a reason you don’t do things like that…

Apparently nobody in that software team has heard about Knight Capital. They reused a flag and that coupled with a deployment failure that only lasted ~45 minutes caused an over 400 million dollar loss nearly bankrupting the entire company. Ultimately they ended up combining with another company.

The immediate cause of the incident was a deployment failure that left one of eight servers running outdated code, creating an inconsistency in how the system interpreted incoming instructions. The new software reused a flag associated with a legacy function known as “Power Peg,” which had been disabled but not removed from the codebase, and on the unpatched server this flag activated obsolete logic that continuously generated child orders in response to parent orders that the system did not correctly recognize as already filled.

More details

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago

I hadn't heard of this one before, thanks for posting.