I have been using LastPass for 10 + years and have been looking for a suitable alternative to LastPass. Now I have migrated from LastPass to BitWarden, but after importing the vault of LastPass, I found that there are too few types of BitWarden. This bothers me. Should I stop maintaining my vault in BitWarden and continue to maintain my vault in LastPass until BitWarden implements more types or user-defined types
Bitwarden, can you please respond in regard to increasing to 4 Types beyond the 4 currently available. The ideas presented within this community represent an excellent user defined requests, these will benefit the system to allow it to become the top password management service
We absolutely plan on expanding. It’s on our near term to-do list.
Yay, thanks @tgreer! Any idea roughly when we could expect this to make it into the apps and extensions; sometime this year?
Hopefully this year. It’s prioritized on the backlog, but no ETA just yet.
Just wanted to chime in, I’m also very interested in this.
Just wanted to note with the “Software Keys” (assuming that’s the same as “Cryptographic Keys”), it’d be even better if it could have some features similar to Keybase like pushing/pulling/syncing keys to the system.
Currently, we’d have to export and upload it, or download and import it. It’d be great to just have the CLI and “push” or “pull” keys from Bitwarden to
Just wanted to say while this is still being developed that a British English version for the bank account entry type would be much appreciated. For example, we call checking accounts ‘current accounts’ and routing numbers are called ‘sort codes’ (and have the format XX-XX-XX). It’s not a huge deal but makes a noticeable difference in how comfortable the software feels to use for UK-based users
P.S. Also, we don’t use the term social security number here, and instead each have a ‘National Insurance’ number, which is the British equivalent. It’d be awesome if this was available in Bitwarden too!
Hello all - appreciate the input and feedback on this! I’m Gina, a product manager at Bitwarden. We are looking to get moving on this quick and wanted to receive guidance from the community. For new item types, do we foresee any need for autofill or would providing data structure (i.e. the default, out-of-box templates) suffice?
do we foresee any need for autofill or would providing data structure (i.e. the default, out-of-box templates) suffice?
No auto-fill needed for me for those other templates. I only use autofill for website logins, addresses, credit card details.
I would like, though, if Bitwarden would work on the similar request which lets us create our own templates, rather than this one which appears to just give us additional hardcoded templates. Developing the custom system first would make it easier to accomplish this one, or could make this one unnecessary.
Custom fields would be a lot more useful in these situations if they could at least be made to persist across folders or organizations. As it stands, they aren’t anything like a reasonable solution for the people in this thread who are looking for a more robust secure vault to store their sensitive data. There’s also the fact that among their limited options, they only offer three field types (text, hidden, boolean) so there are a number of scenarios that custom fields simply can’t be expected to cover at all. I would like to be able to use drop-down menus to define frequently repeated data, multi-select fields for tagging, different options and alternatives for URIs to accomodate things like AWS endpoints, IP addresses, Active Directory locations, or network shares. A date field would be great for passwords that expire. I would love to have a single entry for services like Github where I can store multiple API keys, and associate them with specific endpoints or actions.
This is all just limitations of the custom fields themselves. It doesn’t even begin to address the completely understandable need most people have for predefined templates and/or custom templates so that they can not only conveniently store more and better types of data, but also so that they can scale up with that convenience and have the peace of mind to know that the software they just distributed to dozens of their staff will be adopted and used effectively to protect their company data. It isn’t so easy to explain to every single person, especially when half of them are remote workers who might not be native English speakers, that in order to accomplish proper data protection and records collections they have to go through an iterative process of creating multiple custom fields, many of which have to be misused for purposes other than their original ones, and then clone an entry every time those fields are needed–and not only expect them to follow these steps, but to do so consistently over time and under the pressure of deadlines without making mistakes!
This might seem like it’s petty, or that predefined fields and the ability to create templates wouldn’t actually save that much time, but as @tgreer has made abundantly clear they are going after the enterprise market with Bitwarden, which means any feature that will save a user 5 minutes has the potential to save more than two full-time weeks worth of productivity for an organization with 1000 users. All this is to say, if you don’t want the feature, then don’t vote for it. But please stop telling the people who are here to ask for it that it’s unnecessary. Given that it is the #4 most voted for feature request, you’re clearly in the minority with that opinion.
With that out of the way, here’s a question for @tgreer – Given this entire program is more of less just a CRUD database (albeit with top-notch UI design and very effective form-filling function) it seems to me that compared to many of the features currently sitting on the backlog and roadmap, this should be a relatively easy feature to implement. Certainly compared with HIPAA compliance, biometrics support, “enhanced integration capabilities”, and expanded SaaS options sticking a few more rows into the database schema should be a comparative walk in the park. I know that’s probably an oversimplification, but among the calculus that goes into what features your team will be working on and when, certainly the relative difficulty and effort involved has to weigh on those decisions? This is crowd-pleasing, critically needed, long awaited, frequently requested, and it’s fairly straightforward, easily tested, and carries little risk. It’s also a glaring omission to your product when lining it up next to your competitors, and there are several people in this thread who have already chosen to use another service simply because Bitwarden lacks this basic ability. I understand what it is to have a heavy workload and limited time and resources, so I very much appreciate the hard work that you and everyone of the contributors to Bitwarden have put into it. I don’t mean to nag, it just seems like maybe after 3.25 years it might be time to finally tee this one up to bat?
Thanks for everything!
S. Davis // Native IT
Thank you very much for your detailed reply. While I can agree with or at least accept most of your statements I cannot with this:
Please let me explain why:
While it is not possible to vote “against” a feature it is possible to see that even impressive 520 votes (as of the moment I am writing this) do not represent the majority of the Bitwarden users worldwide or just those that are registered in this forum.
Furthermore let me say that I am not against this feature request in general. The intention of my answer(s) is completely different: Use the methods that already exist to solve the problem(s) you have now.
While the future may provide better methods than Custom Fields it cannot be adding an unlimited amount of predefined item types resulting in making this unmanagable. An example: The social security number may be very important for US citizens. But it is not for the remaining population of this world. The same is true for something like the size and favorite brand of my socks.
My (currently) favorite idea would be something like self created data types (just a different name for a Custom Field) but that could be used across all items. In short: Create only once (and perhaps even fill it with data only once) but reuse as often as you wish throughout Bitwarden; enhanced by an option to change its name (and/or content) in a single place for all items in which it was used.
I truly believe that this could bring both worlds together.
I think offering the standard range of pre-defined item types, as most other password managers do, is much needed, but if that were combined with the ability to also create your own item types (choose the fields, and assign a title and icon to the type), that’d be really powerful and adaptive to (almost) everyone’s needs. It would solve the issue you mention @Peter_H of potentially being too US-centric (a British user, for example, could create a National Insurance Number item type instead of having to use the Social Security Number one), and could enable some really great organisation.
Perhaps the way it could work from a UX perspective is that when you want to introduce a new item type to your vault, you go to make one and are presented with the choice to either pick from a pre-made template (SSN, WiFi, Passport etc.) or create a custom one from scratch. Then in the future that’ll simply be presented as a type to choose from when creating a new entry, and will also be listed under the Item Types list in the main vault view. An Item Types management interface would be needed (maybe similar to the current Folder management one?) to edit, delete and create new item types.
This is not even close to reality, almost all password managers out there have different data templates, never felt overwhelmed. I’m not familiar with the concept of “correct” or “favorite” when it comes to data entry. It’s all about appropriate or not - I either want to save a credit card, thus using a credit card template, or I want to save a social security number, in which case I obviously would use the social security template. Not sure what the point was there, but I can assure you 10000% there’s no such thing as confusing unless bitwarden comes up with something silly like one credit card template per card type: visa, mastercard, european visa, european mastercard, black mastercard, gold mastercard… you get the point.
I don’t buy it, sorry. In fact, I doubt bitwarden itself has a clue about the interest of this feature. There’s too many variables going into this - people who don’t bother registering to voice opinion, people who simply move on to a solution that is appropriate for their use, people who are complacent and just waiting for it to come to fruition, people who want the feature but can’t or won’t vote, and so on.
For example I’ve been watching bitwarden for 2+ years specifically for this feature so it can finally be called a password manager. To me this is alpha software at this point - auto-fill works most of the time, UI is glitchy, confined, inconsistent, unpolished, web UI is just as awkward.
No autofill necessary, maybe for credit card number/expiration dates but those fields have a knack of being wildly different across implementations. I don’t personally find that a necessary feature, but others may feel differently.
There is no mechanism to help with this, it’s extremely awkward, custom fields don’t appear by default you have to click to see, it’s just awful. If I were to employ your opinion and take it 1 step further, I could very well say “I can use notepad as my password manager”. Doesn’t mean I should, but, yes, anything that I can type into and save data can act as any type of data entry system you’d ever need.
Exactly, which is why they’re called templates. I don’t use everything available to me in my current password manager, but I’m definitely not offended by the existence of foreign templates or templates I won’t ever need.
There’s always that one person to go against the grain . This isn’t “discuss the merits of predefined item types and/or their global applicability and what you can do now with rudimentary data entry”.
With so much hyperbole and vitriol, I find it hard to take your position seriously.
Thank you @Peter_H for making a clear and rationally argued point. I am glad to see some (rational) discussion and debate about new features as it can only improve how the software develops and evolves.
I’ll also add a general opinion: If one can’t defend their position without personally directed attacks and anger, I don’t feel like they are helping. And it’s not just in this thread, so I don’t mean to direct this comment at any one person - I mean it in the more general sense.
If there ever was a more off-topic comment… (well, outside of this one )
Thank you all for the feedback! We do agree that making item types usable is a multi-pronged effort: providing more out-of-box templates, having the ability to create your own templates, and then being able to modify the existing templates as well. If we don’t see autofill as a need, that makes the initial ask simpler but something we are looking at holistically so we can ensure a great user experience. This is a high priority for the Product team to design well and launch as soon as possible. More to come here!
Sounds good - many thanks for taking all the feedback on board Gina!
Hey folks! Quick survey regarding Item Types and templates:
Survey Link - it’ll be open until next Friday.
Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback!
Thanks - I could understand the concept but found the Maze site pretty poor - it seemed to ignore most mouse clicks and couldn’t see how to edit the item type. No mention of tags either, just folders