• net00@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    2 months ago

    There’s a big difference. You trust entities like bitwarden/lastpass/etc to properly encrypt the data, protect your master key, and trust their entire architecture behind the scenes.

    When you encrypt the keepass DB that’s all done by you locally with a open source client. No one knows your master key, and you get a simple encrypted file. You can hand that file to hackers if you want, will be useless without the key.

    I put one of the copies of my keepass on onedrive, and syncs perfectly across all devices.

    Companies can enshiffity at a moments notice.

    • Dark ArcA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I do not trust bitwarden to encrypt my data anymore than anyone trusts keypass to encrypt my data.

      They’re both open source and they both do the encryption locally; you’re plainly mistaken.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Except for the part that it’s not a question of trust (being open source), there’s no third-party architecture to trust (it can and should be self-hosted), the data on the server are also encrypted client-side before leaving your device, sure.

      Oh, and you also get proper sync, no risk of desync if two devices gets a change while offline without having to go check your in-house sync solution, easy share between user (still with no trust needed in the server), all working perfectly with good user UI integration for almost every systems.

      Yeah, I wonder why people bother using that, instead of deploying clunky, single-user solution.