Installation Issues

Ask the Community Password Manager
1

Trying to follow the guide on the Bitwarden Help website to install on a Raspberry Pi 4B.
When I attempted to install it for the first time, it installed certbot with no issues. It’s not until it attempted to install something else that it hits a roadblock.

Command Output:

bitwarden.sh version 1.39.4
Docker version 20.10.4, build d3cb89e
docker-compose version 1.21.0, build unknown

(!) Enter the domain name for your Bitwarden instance (ex. [bitwarden example link]): [redacted]

(!) Do you want to use Let’s Encrypt to generate a free SSL certificate? (y/n): y

(!) Enter your email address (Let’s Encrypt will send you certificate expiration reminders): [redacted]
Using default tag: latest
latest: Pulling from certbot/certbot
801bfaa63ef2: Pull complete
7678dd7631a2: Pull complete
4c6139ab40d8: Pull complete
ff5ef8cd8062: Pull complete
cefde9442c97: Pull complete
75077d3d5c26: Pull complete
5f56a95649c4: Pull complete
70db9e70bd0b: Pull complete
1369e8589892: Pull complete
a00c3b290f52: Pull complete
4c657d1c5eac: Pull complete
8410fa093244: Pull complete
f6479610343a: Pull complete
dcb91cb8d361: Pull complete
Digest: [redacted]
Status: Downloaded newer image for certbot/certbot:latest
docker.io/certbot/certbot:latest
WARNING: The requested image’s platform (linux/amd64) does not match the detected host platform (linux/arm/v7) and no specific platform was requested
docker: Error response from daemon: driver failed programming external connectivity on endpoint certbot ([redacted]): Error starting userland proxy: listen tcp4 0.0.0.0:80: bind: address already in use.

I originally thought the error was caused by the webserver I had running at the time due to the last line:

docker: Error response from daemon: driver failed programming external connectivity on endpoint certbot ([redacted]): Error starting userland proxy: listen tcp4 0.0.0.0:80: bind: address already in use.

So I stopped that and attempted it again, but I get a similar result.

Command Output:

bitwarden.sh version 1.39.4
Docker version 20.10.4, build d3cb89e
docker-compose version 1.21.0, build unknown

(!) Enter the domain name for your Bitwarden instance (ex. [bitwarden example link]): [redacted]

(!) Do you want to use Let’s Encrypt to generate a free SSL certificate? (y/n): y

(!) Enter your email address (Let’s Encrypt will send you certificate expiration reminders): [redacted]
Using default tag: latest
latest: Pulling from certbot/certbot
Digest: [redacted]
Status: Image is up to date for certbot/certbot:latest
docker.io/certbot/certbot:latest
WARNING: The requested image’s platform (linux/amd64) does not match the detected host platform (linux/arm/v7) and no specific platform was requested
standard_init_linux.go:219: exec user process caused: exec format error

So It obviously wasn’t that, or there is another issue.
I used sudo, so it has all the permissions it needs, so I’m honestly stumped on why it’s installing the amd64 version rather than the armv7 one.
Also I don’t know what the “exec format error” is about, so that would also be helpful.
Please help me out. Thanks.
Also sorry if the issue is glaringly obvious. I’m still learning Linux.

2

If this is for Bitwarden official, it won’t work on Rpi at the moment as parts of the server containers won’t run on ARM.

1 Like
3

Thank you for the reply. Is support for Raspberry Pi planned?

4

Not as an explicit feature, no, but we do have some improvements on the backlog that should remove the x86/64 requirement.

5

Oh wow, I wish this info was clear on the installation guides. It really seemed like raspian, while requiring some work around (eg installing compose via pip), was supported considering how often it is mentioned. Guess this was a couple of hours and a raspberry pi gone to waste. Gotta admit this is the first time I have been really disappointed with this product. Not very clear at all. Seems like an obvious use case too.

6

Hi @dapperman28, welcome to the forums!

We do mention the requirements here: Install and Deploy | Bitwarden Help & Support - but there are definitely a lot of RPi articles/questions around using other Bitwarden-based forks that run on ARM.

Getting the official codebase to run on ARM is on our radar though - stay tuned :+1:

2 Likes
7

So @dapperman28 - you don’t bother to read the System Requirements and then go on to blame Bitwarden for your mistake? To be fair, this is definitely not the fault of the product or its documentation.

8

Yes I would say that the info provided there isn’t extremely clear. Maybe supported OSes? Removing info related to raspian from the site? Appreciate your attitude David, you seem like a real nice guy.

9

Hey.
Not sure if I’m allowed to mention it here but tbh I don’t really care.
But maybe try Vaultwarden?
It’s a version of BW rewritten mostly in Rust.
It is a bit less featured then normal Bitwarden, but it only needs one Docker container, and it might work. I never tried hosting it on a Pi though, so it may not work either, but it’s worth a try.
Here’s the GitHub for it if you’re interested

3 Likes
10

Appreciate it! Looks promising though I am a bit apprehensive about using a fork considering the value of the data that we’re storing and considering that I’m also actively paying BitWarden. I think if I go that route I’ll be looking for alternatives. I feel like theres a lot of limitations on self hosting considering its one of BW biggest appeals.

11

For future reference, here is what is in the BW help docs so it is very clear to anyone else reading this thread:

Screen Shot 2021-09-16 at 12.23.28 PM
Screen Shot 2021-09-16 at 12.23.28 PM755×622 55.3 KB