- Bitwarden (audit results)
- KeePassXC (audit results)
Neither is better as they offer different things. Both are audited by third parties.
I use Bitwarden and recommended it to all my friends and family. It's e2ee and you can have them on all your devices, it has autofill, password generators, and username generators. It's pretty neat.
I also have some friends who use keepassxc. There are mobile clients out there for it as well but it's meant as a completely offline password storage.
Keepass files can be synced via Cloud Storage. I keep mine in my Nextcloud account.
How do companies like Bitwarden make money? Its a free service, but as we all know nothing in this life is free.
Mostly business customers https://bitwarden.com/products/business/
I pay for premium and it’s nice to be able to use TOTP.
It's a freemium model.
There is a feature limited free version. Then a full featured version people pay for.
In this case, there's also a business version with per-user billing.
KeePassXC
Why specifically KeePassXC instead of KeePass?
Lack of 3rd party audit. Only KeePass 1.x was audited independently.
Less support for KP on Linux. Needs Mono to run. More importantly, AFAIK, it won't interface with a browser extension (on Linux). So KP is more Windows oriented.
1000% bitwarden. LastPass gets breached too often and have bait and switched users that were using the free version. Jump ship if you're using them, export them and import into bitwarden.
Something to keep in mind is that security isn't just about preventing attackers from accessing it. If that was the only criteria, then the most secure thing would be a flash drive buried in concrete.
Security is also about accessibility.
To that point, I believe the best password manager is subjective. That being said, I'm going to throw out a recommendation for 1Password. If you use it right, it balances security with convenience really well.
I have been using 1Password for a few years now, coming from LastPass before the whole bait-and-switch thing they did. I love 1Password, but I am curious how it stacks up to BitWarden since everyone in this thread keeps mentioning them.
The most secure thing to do would be to host your own server. You can do this with Bitwarden. Remember though that if you lose your server, you lose your passwords. You can also just use Bitwarden and their cloud service. It's free and open source.
The most secure thing to do would be to host your own server.
That is assuming that you believe you are more secure than say Bitwarden the company, especially if you are hosting publicly.
Availability is really important too when literally all your passwords are in there
Or use something like KeePassXC that uses a database file, no internet required (other than downloading software).
I can't really host my own server right now (maybe later when i have my own place) and after a bit of research bitwarden is the best free option but somehow it have 3.4 ish rating in my region
Depends on your definition of secure.
A pen and paper can't be hacked
Just thinking out loud. If your paper record is actually QR codes, then you could scan them into your device as you need them. So you wouldn't have to type some long, complicated sequence by hand.
KeepassXC should be secure enough, you can even use a hardware key.
But make sure to use version 2.54 or newer.
Bitwarden with YubiKey
Use bitwarden but never heard of YubiKey. Quick search on google gave me nothing. What is it?
I use it as my 2nd facor authentication.
Why should I use bitwarden instead of Google's password manager?
I use google password for my not so important account (shitpost account or burnable). Thing to remember, google is an advertisement company
Permanently Deleted
Keepass. Bitwarden for more convenience.
Permanently Deleted
Bitwarden has a free tier on their service where you can share passwords with a single person. It's not much in that regard but it's all some people need.
Keepass
Any known password manager is a target.
If you have a Linux PC you can create a partition encrypted with LUKS and save the passwords in txt files. Even this solutions has a small risk because when you open a file it might end up in the cache. But it is still safer than Keepass.
Downside. It might take a little bit more than few clicks to access to your passwords. But I suspect that the concern over too many clicks is inflated by the big corporations looking to dumb down their users.
I like the idea of a locally stored and locally encrypted password manager because when your passwords are on somebody else's server with 10s of thousands of other people, that server becomes an attractive target for hacks. Who would bother hacking my computer just for one set of passwords?
But with something hosted, they do (probably, do your research) have professional security experts working to protect their database.
I like them being locally encrypted, but them being not (exclusively) locally stored is very important if you want to keep using those accounts after your hard drive fails.
google keep but dont label ur passwords so the hackers cant use them (and neither can u)
Not using one. Anything and everything that is connected to the internet in any way what-so-ever has at the very least some level of insecurity and vulnerability.
I'm sorry, what? By that logic why even have passwords at all!
I Used to think like this but having multiple different accounts with multiple different password on different site is tiring. Just for this week i forgot my password on 3 different site which apparently i already change 1 of those site password last week. Now i second guessing myself every time i try to log in on a site
