I don’t want to self host, or use the cloud, I want to have full local offline password manager. without signing up for any account.
Welcome to the community StoopidoMan. Are you wanting to have a password manager on a single machine, without any sharing to other devices?
If so, then does not the inbuilt password manager in your OS suffice?
If you have more than one device, then somewhere there needs to be a repository for the encrypted passwords, accessible by all those devices. That repository can exist on one of your machines, “self hosting”, or somewhere else, “the cloud”.
I think I need your plan clarified.
1 Like
If so, then does not the inbuilt password manager in your OS suffice?
No because I want more features like comments or date when the account was created, and not to be tied to an eco system of a device/company. Also, be able to have all the passwords in one encrypted container which I can copy off of my device to another device.
and from what I say you can’t check Bitwarden without creating an account or using an account on a self hosted server, and I am not server hosting smart.
self hosting
not interested in it, but I am curious, is it like installing the normal version of Bitwarden on PC and then pressing a button to start the self hosting service, or is it more complicated than that?
You should probably look into a password manager like KeepassXC, then. Trying to do something like this with Bitwarden would be like forcing a square peg into a round hole.
P.S. I changed your topic title to be more reflective of what you’re requesting — original title was: “Full local offline mode (now self hosting or cloud hosting)”.
2 Likes
Not mainstream enough, and no support for Android and IOS
Bitwarden seems like the only option but sadly it is not offline
If you plan to access your passwords from multiple devices, why are you against a cloud-based solution like Bitwarden, which makes syncing across devices painless?
If you plan to access your passwords from multiple devices, why are you against a cloud-based solution like Bitwarden, which makes syncing across devices painless?
not looking to access same passwords from multiple devices.
If you want different passwords on different devices, that would be another strike against Bitwarden for your use-case.
@StoopidoMan What you seek sounds to me like KeePassXC as well. I used to use it before Bitwarden. And there are apps with which you can use the KeePassXC database file on Android and iOS (Documentation and FAQ – KeePassXC).
2 Likes
I am sorry , but I am stoopid, and so far I can only trust Bitwarden and Keepass. And I know KeepassXC/XD is a fork of Keepass. but I don’t know how popular they are and to me the more popular means the more secure and more maintain it is. I am trusting my whole digital existence on this software.
Sadly I see that Keepass which is perfect is not officially supported on Android and IOS, and i don’t know how to trust the unofficial IOS/Android releases.
if you have any input on this, I would really appreciate. but i will investigate further more.
An extra tidbit for OTHERS who will find post not for you @Nail1684 so DO NOT READ FURTHER:
I just tested Keepass today and it is awesome, there is a portable version, easy to download and test and the search feature is smart, you can search passwords, AND you can create custom fields such as “Account was created on” and even search by the value of those custom fields… it really is awesome. I wish if it was as easy to test bitwarden, but I read somewhere that there is a portable version, so I will test it and hopefully at least on windows it has an strictly offline use feature.
You can get a portable version of the Bitwarden Desktop app for Windows here. However, you will still need to register an account before you can do any testing, and you should be aware that the Bitwarden apps only run in off-line mode if the device is disconnected from the internet when you launch the app, and that while in off-line mode, the app is read-only (i.e., you will not be able to add or modify any vault contents).
I am sorry , but I am stoopid, and so far I can only trust Bitwarden and Keepass. And I know KeepassXC/XD is a fork of Keepass. but I don’t know how popular they are and to me the more popular means the more secure and more maintain it is. I am trusting my whole digital existence on this software.
I understand that logic. But it has it’s limitations, I think. For example LastPass was or is still very popular but as far as I know they had some security issues. Sometimes the “underdog” is better than “the popular”.
As far as I know: KeePassXC is developed by a small community of enthusiasts (The Team – KeePassXC), it is open source and in active developement - you can see everything on GitHub (GitHub - keepassxreboot/keepassxc: KeePassXC is a cross-platform community-driven port of the Windows application “Keepass Password Safe”.). Unfortunately I have no definite source, but I think there are some who regard KeePassXC as more secure than KeePass, for one reason because KeePassXC does NOT allow the use of additional Plugins, which could compromise security.
Sadly I see that Keepass which is perfect is not officially supported on Android and IOS, and i don’t know how to trust the unofficial IOS/Android releases.
if you have any input on this, I would really appreciate. but i will investigate further more.
In the link I send you in my previous post, the KeePassXC team said something about the apps…
An extra tidbit for OTHERS who will find post not for you @Nail1684 so DO NOT READ FURTHER: I just tested Keepass today and it is awesome, there is a portable version, easy to download and test and the search feature is smart, you can search passwords, AND you can create custom fields such as “Account was created on” and even search by the value of those custom fields… it really is awesome. I wish if it was as easy to test bitwarden, but I read somewhere that there is a portable version, so I will test it and hopefully at least on windows it has an strictly offline use feature.
I know the advantages of KeePass/KeePassXC. I still use KeePassXC as a “fallback” option for some passwords of mine.
The thing is: Bitwarden is literally a cloud-based = NOT offline-password manager. If you so much want Bitwarden, my advice would be: think about using an online-password manager. Because - offline or online: the security not only depends on that decision.
Not a comprehensive list, but I would at least recommend:
- a very strong master password (personally I would use at least an estimated entropy of 128 bits, to have some “added future-resistance”)
- 2FA for your password database (with KeePassXC you can add a security key, e.g. a YubiKey - with Bitwarden you can add FIDO2-2FA with a security key as well)
- hashing algorithm can be changed to Argon2 (again, both in KeePassXC and Bitwarden possible)
- …
Cheers!
Thanks, not interested.
If I had that need for wholly off-line I think I would use one of the good existing solutions like KeePassXC (as already frequently referenced) with Strongbox or StrongBox Zero on iOS, Android being SEP.
The alternative here is for people to switch between on-line and off-line (but not self-hosted) implementations of a single product, which sounds to me like asking someone else to cater for one’s own lack of problem definition or testing. I do not see the switch being needed more than once, so not much payoff in the coding and support.
A design strength of Bitwarden lies in its secure use of cloud sync. While I am in a position to host my own instance I could see no identifiable (real) security improvement at all, just more maintenance effort, so I pay my $10 very happily for premium.
2 Likes
Why @anon54069917 comment removed!?
@anon54069917 I total agree with you. I wish if they would make that a feature.
1 Like
I was getting too much backlash and the Reddit post wasn’t productive anymore and was also locked by the Bitwarden Team because of how out of hand the discussion was going.
So, I decided it wasn’t worth it for all the negativity. As I wanted it to be a post for recognition of the feature, but it got out of hand from what the post was supposed to be. My fault as I could have handled myself better.
So, I then decided to deleted the Reddit post and the Bitwarden forum comment. As it seems the Bitwarden Community is not in favor of this feature at the moment.
Sorry,
I still hope the feature gets made or thought about though.
As I did vote for it.
2 Likes
Here I re-wrote my previously deleted comment. To explain the feature a little better.
I believe Bitwarden users would benefit from a fully offline mode.
If it were to be implemented, it should be under an advanced setting. With a warning saying that if turned on. That it would be up to the user to keep backups. As if users want to change devices, or if their device gets lost or stolen, there is no way to recover that vault without some form of backup.
Now for my reasonings for why it should be considered:
The reason being is that some users do not trust the cloud. Even though Bitwarden is really secure because of the zero knowledge architecture and the vault being fully encrypted, even though with all that security there is no way of knowing that a data breach would never happen in the future as nothing is 100% secure.
If a data breach were to happen to Bitwarden’s servers then hackers could store users’ vaults for later decryption. That means any credentials stored like notes, crypto wallets, or whatever else in the vault that can’t be changed like passwords. May be able to be used in the future by these hackers to gain access or learn valuable information on their target.
Granted it could take years with all the encryption used for the vaults and also if the user has a strong master password. But cyber security is always evolving and we can never know what the future holds in a decade. That is why Bitwarden should have a future proof option.
Having a fully offline mode could give these users another option. For a secure method that is not in the cloud.
As, with a fully offline mode with no cloud syncing, a user could have more control over how their vault is stored and how they decide their backups.
As in having three options.
-
Data stored on Bitwarden servers.
-
Self Hosting
-
Fully Offline
This would give more choice to the user and more choice is usually better than having less choice.
That would also disable one attack vector. Which is data being stored on Bitwarden’s servers. Or a server in general.
Now does that eliminate all other avenues of attack? No. As there is phishing, malware and other sorts of attacks that can go on for hackers to get a vault copy.
At least then you are not beholden to Bitwarden servers and their security apparatus for servers. Or a user’s maintenance of their own self-hosted server.
If anything were to happen. It would be the user’s fault for not securing their system and not Bitwarden fully.
Unless an exploit comes from the software itself. But even then that would still be on the user for visiting shady sites and doing things they aren’t supposed to. By not practicing good cyber security hygiene.
With a user having the choice of a fully offline mode, they then can determine how they want to store their data. Either by physical USB, physical SSD, or hard drive without the cloud.
With a sense of security knowing that their data isn’t in Bitwarden’s servers.
Which means it is up to the user to determine their threat model and how they perceive individual security.
Lastly, this would also be a competitive product towards Enpass and the popular but small community of the open source alternative KeePass. As, Bitwarden’s interface is more modern and easy to use compared to KeePass.
@anon54069917
NEVER, again, NEVER let online users force you to go quiet. That might be why most consumer voice are not heard.
I hate these new in-ear earbuds, I liked the old style, it doesn’t have a good noise isolation, but I prefer it because it let my ear breath and is objectively more comfortable, and I am no audiophile, but They are getting harder and harder to find from mainstream brands.
Here is the surprise, literally every person in my life hate it too, but tolerate it since it is hard to find, so they just buy those earbuds that have a rubber tip that needs to be shoved deep in there. Eventually when it is not sold or too expensive to buy, I will bite the bullet and buy it. but they are horrible in hot climate.
And guess what when I ask online, I get down voted, but I don’t care, it is just some random people with lots of time, or trolls, or sometimes passionate employees who live in antarctic and they personally use the over ears headphones.
Don’t listen dear netizen, just drop the bomb and Ignore. and you don’t need to be defensive either.
I have one device, why would I risk my security by having my data on someone else’s computer AKA Bitwarden servers. It is objectively more secure to have it locally. Simplicity =more security.
I may use the online feature in future but for now I have no need for it so why add the complexity.
about other offline alternative, I rather use a mainstream password manager that is under more scrutiny and have better UI/UX.
but I doubt Bitwarden would implement this because they make money from being online, and I get it, in this case there are less people like us, but I hope this subscription trap ends. I am willing to pay USD 50 for the premium option of having it offline.
Lastly, I recently learned just don’t argue. Think of it like this, it is preference I like it sweet(offline) if you like it salty (online) that’s your thing. you can state your opinion and if you attack, I will ignore it.
Lastly, most people I know would be better off for them to have it online even though about 90% percent of them have one device because people don’t wanna backup manually.
companies should cater to minorities taste but charge more and state the reason you charge more because you have to maintain extra code that are used by 10%.
Now having said that, in case of bitwarden, I don’t understand why not implement it because the code/tech is already there… But i am not a developer so I don’t know, but if they said that adding this feature will cost them labor for a minority and that why they are charging extra for a license, I would gladly pay it.
And Bitwarden make a blog why it is commercially not feasible to have it offline.
PS: Attack me, I am too stoopid to care unlike poor @anon54069917
1 Like
@anon54069917 I didn’t fully read your comment, but I am sure we are on the same page. I am too hungry. but happy to see you back.
I will add my idea solution:
- Bitwarden would have offline standalone installer that I can download and keep for future use.
- during installation it would ask me for fully offline and confirm that no data is sent to Bitwarden.
- The fully offline option would provide a feature for the main PC act as “server” and sync with other fully offline devices like my phone but on LAN (Local WIFI). so this way I would open bitwarden on my pc and sync with my other devices. (the self host, if I remember correctly was too complicated for me)
- that would give me more peace of mind. because my data is controlled by me.
- Lastly, Bitwarden is open source so if they just decided to shut down then I will not worry about my password database not being read and I like that, but if it happened I would export my password and wait for an alternative. I am old enough to be trapped in ecosystems and subscriptions etc. so that why I take great consideration before I commit to a software.
1 Like
I did find an alternative to Bitwarden named Buttercup.
You can check it out. It has official apps on Windows, Linux, MacOS, Android, and iOS and it is fully open source.
It also supports a fully offline vault, though that feature is in beta.
You can also sync it with your preferred cloud provider.
It also supports custom fields.
Although it does not look as pretty as Bitwarden on Mobile, it is functional though.
I am personally waiting for it to get a few more updates for the fully offline mode to become stable and for some UI design tweaks. Then I may switch over to Buttercup to make it my main password manager.
Here is their website:
And here is an award they have won: