In the latest episode of “they will always sell you out” - they sold you out! Who would’ve thought.
Hoping for a good alternative client to appear, the writing is on the wall. Vaultwarden can’t exist without “leeching” off of Bitwarden.
You must log in or register to comment.
- godsammitdam@lemmy.zipEnglish6 days
Has Vaultwarden said anything yet? I imagine that, if necessary, given that bitwarden’s client is still open, at the point they choose to try and close it, we, the users, can fork it and establish it for vaultwarden, correct? Or, maybe even the vaultwarden team will think about forking it themselves and making a light client as well to pair with the current server.
But Vaultwarden can exist without “leeching” they just haven’t needed to yet. That’s more symbiotic than parasitic. The parasite class just took over Bitwarden after all.
- 6 days
Not to my knowledge. As far as forks go, that’s true. However, Vaultwarden would need to become an independent team, and even if they don’t take over maintaining the client, someone else would need to become independent. While it can work, it can also lead to very nasty, longstanding bugs or security issues due to scale, budget, and effort. I see this a lot with Apple apps for example - smaller developers understandably don’t want to deal with Apple’s crap and costs, and everyone suffers in the end.
If you look at the current state of the cybersecurity world, it’s not kind to open-source developers. AI-generated BS is dredging up vulnerabilities on all sides. So security is also a big concern. Someone like Bitwarden has a lot of budget to swing.
Vaultwarden itself is incredibly good, but not perfect:
~~https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-26012.~~
Edit: Bad example, point is security is a concern with a smaller team.