Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Is it a _fundamentally_ bad idea? The connected syncing feature of Bitwarden is one of my favorite things. I can save a password on one device, and its automagically available on others all while staying encrypted (and audited).


Agreed but it is worth keeping in mind that Bitwarden's implementation of sync is probably a lot more sophisticated than KeepassXC; and is probably the main reason why one would use Bitwarden. I am a former user of Keepass and I never knew it had network functionality so I think it makes sense to provide two packages -- one containing the main keepass functions which which 99% of users will use and the othrer for the 1% using the exotic functions. This is in line with how Debian handles many other packages such as vim, exim, etc so it is not at all surprising for the typical Debian user.


KeePassXC has no sync implementation.

The functions related to Internet are:

- getting the favicon for a specific entry (needs to be ran manually with an option to download via a DuckDuckGo proxy)

- checking entries against HIBP (needs to be done manually in a submenu with a giant notice)

Also this is about KeePassXC not KeePass which is a completely different project. There is also KeePassX, KeePassDX, KeeWeb, KeePass-electron and so on and so forth.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: