• treadful@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just about every centralized service will be breached at some point. At least they have a cybersecurity team and everybody got notified and can act accordingly. If you choose another just because they haven’t been hacked, it’s just a matter of time. I think they’re still a viable option, just be ready to react to notices like these.

        Personally, I chose the self-hosted route, but that comes at the cost of maybe never knowing if you get breached until its too late.

        • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have migrated to bitwarden years ago, but still curse myself why I didn’t immediately delete my lastpass account back then before the breach.

        • _number8_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          using passwords you can remember instead of An8sdfd8h4indf!id8 just because it’s harder to brute force

          • Haha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m interested in vaultwarden, what do you think about self hosting it?

            • Revan343@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’ve never tried it, but from what I’ve read it isn’t too difficult; it is something I’d like to eventually get set up. I expect you’d want either a static IP address or a dynamic DNS service to access it remotely.

              You can also self-host the main bitwarden implementation, vaultwarden is just generally preferred because it’s much lighter-weight, mostly because it’s written in Rust instead of Typescript

            • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s super easy to self host (assuming you’re familiar with docker), doesn’t take too much server resource, and will give you access to features normally gated behind bitwarden subscriptions. Way better then the official self-hosted version. The main disadvantage is while it’s open source, the code hasn’t been audited yet, which might be a deal breaker for people obsessed with security.

        • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you are worried about people getting ahold of your vault if the company has a breach, then keepass and come up with you own system of syncing the file. It’s a local file so is always under your control.