@grb, I don’t think that your suggestion should be an alternative. Rather, I think it has use regardless, because, as you’ve since stated, it allows a user to image multiple accounts that the internal synchronisation server necessarily cannot service.
You should submit it as a separate FR.
Someone should… I may or may not get to it.
Suggestion: Transfer all BW-extension’s settings to the server.
I think it’s quite logical to get an extension already configured for yourself after entering your password and logging into your account.
I didn’t make it up.
This is how the Yandex-keyboard for Android works. Yandex is a large structure . It has many services. And of course, his Yandex-browser remembers the settings of his user after logging into the account too.
Now BW opens clean, when you install and log in to your account. It’s too simple and not interesting.
Not only because I’m lazy to put settings one time. The second reason is multiple browsers. And it is an extension in each of them.
Of course, I want to get the same settings in all browsers at once. Without copying all the jackdaws by hand.
@serega_da I moved your post into this corresponding feature request.
It 's a strange topic name. The topic should sound: “Sync ALL BW-Settings”.
I think it makes no sense for BW-programmers to separate the settings.
This is even more difficult and unnecessary work.
Fair point, and we should think about that.
But interestingly enough, you suggested
(emphasis my edit)
… and your topic title: “BW-Setting to Server”
This. 100%.
I use browser profiles to maintain separation between accounts. (Looking at you M365). This is on the same machine, never mind across machines. At work (yes only J1. 3 different WORK m365 accounts). Compounding that, we have to use different/non-persistent machines, and resetting settings every time for every machine AND every profile is, umm, tedious.
I was only looking for generator settings sync, but all setting synced would be awesome.
I also saw a post for adding a generator setting for a specific site, which would be handy too.
Though a 6 year old thread does not make me think this will be implemented. Or it is really hard to implement.
When there is a browser update or Bitwarden is updated often the settings of the plugin are reset. It would be handy when you set your settings that a files of the settings is stored on the Bitwarden server. And when you login with Bitwarden app/extension that these settings are retrieved. This way your autofill settings are all setup.
Before posting, learn how to make a feature request, or view the roadmap.
@liudger Welcome to the forum!
I merged your request with this existing feature request to the same topic.
Proposal: Please add the ability to sync all Bitwarden browser extension settings across a user’s devices and browser profiles.
Problem: Whenever the extension is installed on a new computer or a new browser profile, all settings must be configured manually. This is a tedious process, especially for users who work across multiple machines.
Use Case: A common setting that needs to be reconfigured is keyboard shortcuts. For instance, I constantly change the “Autofill the last used login for the current website” shortcut to CTRL + SHIFT + F or CTRL + ALT + F. Having this and other preferences sync automatically would save time and improve consistency.
Somewhat related topic:
@AndyDaSilva52 I moved your post into this existing feature request on the same topic.
I disagree with the attached post. The developers have introduced a new strategy - different settings for corporate clients. Which can be changed by the administrator remotely.
I roughly estimate the amount of work - it is necessary to overcome all types of protection from external threats so that the administrator’s actions reach the internals of BW . And this greatly moves this topic away from completion.
And I don’t understand the idea of different settings. I don’t understand how desktop and mobile settings can be different if they have the same design. If a user sees the same number of checkboxes on both desktop and mobile, it means that all the settings are the same for him. Therefore, I don’t understand why, because of one post, it is necessary to slow down the solution to this entire 7-year-old topic.
If developers start with a solution for server module administrators, then we will never wait a solution.
As I see it: I configured BW in one browser, and ALL its settings were immediately saved on the server. And all other copies of BW (conditionally, I have 4 browsers on my desktop, and 4 browsers on my mobile. Not because I’m so selective, because I’m too lazy to choose which one is better. The first one that opens is the best).
And imagine how many times I configure this BW because the developers cannot upload these 10 kb to the server.
The principle is the same as the synchronization server in many browsers. There is no need to invent anything new, everything has already been invented a long time ago. Synchronization elements (Bookmark, Notes , even History for different clients ! , RSS , calendar , mail-settings, …. ) are the same for all user browsers, including browser and mobile.
Bitwarden already has a password-server, which means you can use the same mechanism for UI-settings.
I can roughly show how everything works. Approximately
The BW developer creates any setting with any name. And it saves up in Local Storage. Nothing does not need to be created, it already exists.
There is only no synchronization-server so that all BW clients of one account take these settings and configure their UI based on them.
And these settings remain permanent until you completely remove the browser. Along with your OC. And are saved after changes and reboot.
Users ask that the same principle be on the server, and not in the Local Storage of each of the 8 browsers.
@serega_da, your phrasal isn’t comprehensible to me. Consequently, are you, summarily, stating that the preferences are, currently, stored in the local browser storage, but should be stored in the server, because they’re so small?
If so, I agree. However, I simultaneously doubt that the reason that this has required so much time to remediate is because those implementation details elude the developers.
Rather, implementing a MediaWiki “Global Preferences”-style opt-[in/out] synchronisation system, as the banner states is desired:
As users expressed here and in other feature requests, some settings shouldn’t be forcibly synced, best way to implement a “sync” would be an option where the clients (the different BW apps) could override every “centrally and synced setting” so that it would still be possible to have different settings in the BW apps, if needed.
…is difficult.
I can’t think for corporate sector administrators. I don’t know what their tasks are. They probably need “different settings“.
There is an example of a famous browser. There, too, 1-2 people expressed a desire to have separate Bookmarks for different devices. Their goal was this: at work one bookmarks, at home - another. They were hinted that if the user is too lazy to do this on their own, then they should not blame their problems on the developers. Nobody forbids you to create 2 folders and place bookmarks for different purposes in them, respectively.
The idea of separate bookmarks immediately died, and the simplest, fastest and most reliable option was implemented. And now I see bookmarks saved on desktop on mobile. I can see my desktop browsing history on my phone. Which is as convenient as possible.
@rokejulianlockhart tell me which “different settings” you are interested in? This is not Bookmarks, not History. Setting – these are technical parameters of BW, which you, an ordinary user, should not be interested in. As did me. I need the same settings everywhere. I can’t imagine a scenario for “different settings” in BW.
@serega_da, I’m not. That’s a quotation. I even informed you where I cited it from.
A filesystem-equivalent bookmark tree is inapplicable here, because what you’re describing is the organisation of the Windows Registry, with the synchronisation overrrides of firefox about:config.
The premise of what I stated is that federating preferences is difficult, so look at the code required to implement that MediaWiki extension.
Just because you cannot imagine it, doesn’t mean there is no use-case for which customized settings would be preferrable.
Some obvious example is what if you have enabled biometric unlock, but some of your devices do not support biometrics? Or if you have set a non-numeric PIN for unlocking clients on a computer, and now you cannot unlock with PIN on a mobile device (mobile apps only support numeric PINs)?
Some additional examples were mentioned earlier in this thread:
@grb, in that case, the application could intelligently fall back to another authorisation method when the relevant hardware is unavailable (unless, for a user, that would mean an attack vector if someone maliciously removed certain hardware).
Perhaps, a more foolproof example would be enabling the OLED theme for a device with an OLED display, versus the regular dark mode for a device with an LCD display. Certainly, the application could detect the display type, but some people require less contrast regardless of display type and HCM enablement, so this wouldn’t be desirable.
Android-15 supports. Both a numeric code and a password. Essentially the same thing.
If you lose your phone, you lose the phone, not the BW app. Don’t force BW developers to protect your phone. To protect it, there is a screen lock that does not affect WB. And in terms of the strength of protection, it is probably more serious than BW protection.
When I talked about the same BW settings, I was talking about the UI. There are 2-3 blocking settings. They can be taken out separately and stored in Local Storage.
I continued this topic because there was one post about the corporate sector. It is much more difficult and longer for developers to work there. But posts for 7 years were ignored. And nevertheless, that one post is recorded in the header.
I have already said and shown that “save in Local Storage” already works. You don’t have to explain to me what already works. And this is not the merit of the BW developers, this is the merit of the Chromium developers. Let me repeat: I have 8 browsers, and I have to do the same BW configuration steps 8 times. It is even possible to reduce my requirements to 4 browsers (2 * desktop + 2 * mobile). 4 sets of identical clicks – is this normal?
