• evulhotdog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I personally would never recommend someone to self host a password manager. There’s a lot of things that can go wrong, and any number of them could cause you to lose your passwords or at least access to them when you need them. There’s a lot of value in paying $10/yr for Bitwarden, to have a clear mind, and know that your information is safe, and accessible.

    • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      The value in self hosting is your passwords aren’t exposed to the internet at all, and can only be accessed over VPN from outside the house.

      If you care about security and you know how to run a network properly, then it’s definitely worth doing.

      In terms of things that can “go wrong”, the first rule of homelab is “Back your stuff up”, and the second rule of homelab is “Back it up again”

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

        The issue he/she is taking about is reliability of personal infrastructure. Its never run a password manager without HA, and since I’m not going to run servers in HA, I suppose I’m sticking to pen and paper for the important ones

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve used Keepass along with dropbox/onedrive/nextcloud (changed over the years) for a decade now and never had a problem. I keep a backup copy of my database on a flash drive in case I somehow lose all my devices. Takes like 5 minutes to set up.

    • wolf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would not self host a password manager, simply because I don’t want running something like that on a 24/7 online server.

      Still, if I needed to run a password manager on a server, I would rather self host it than use a hosted service from someone else.

      In my opinion, running such a service commercially is a much harder problem than self hosting it and has a much bigger attack surface.

      This is IMHO what many people do not understand about hosting as a service vs. self hosting: The full time DevOps/Admins etc. people who work at the hosting service are hopefully better than me at hosting stuff. At the same time the problem they have to solve is so much harder than self hosting, that even if they are 10x as good as me, running my own little service with a firewall, rate limiting and monitoring should at least not be less secure.

      • saigot@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In my opinion the risk of something killing my server and wiping my passwords out is much much scarier than the prospect of a semi competent company hosting them getting hacked. Like several orders of magnitude scarier.

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

          Fair enough!

          As I said, I would not host it myself.

          My solution is much simpler and more redundant: A KeepassXC file backed up to different physical locations and 2 different cloud providers.

          If I ever forget my password, I am totally screwed. :-P … but OTOH an event which would lead to the deletion of all of my backups at the same time would be extinction - level. ;-)