I would like to throw out Bitwarden out there. Cross platforms, works on everything and can be self hosted if you so desire.
While the Bitwarden apps are not as "pretty" as 1Password's I find them a little simpler to use. Obviously UI design is highly subjective though so your thoughts may be very different :)
Anyway yes I highly recommend Bitwarden. Kyle and the team have built and continue to run a top class product that costs 1/3 the price of 1Password.
Edit: To clarify I use Bitwarden solely for personal use. I cannot fairly compare Bitwarden and 1Password for multiuser/shared vault use.
I am on macOS Catalina although that shouldn't matter. I suggest you contact support https://bitwarden.com/contact/
Could it be a device issue? I highly recommend you report it to Bitwarden as Android can be a real pain in the ass to test with so many different devices out there with all kinds of strange OEM "optimisations" to the OS.
Maybe its a syncing related issue, try contacting support.
For the longest time bitwarden has been broken in the firefox's private browsing after mozilla deprecated some apis due to security concerns. They've given alternatives but they are just refusing to fix it, to the point of basically saying mozilla needs to fix the issue. What's sad is a similar mechanism is used in their chrome extension. Someone even raised a working PR that the CTO wasn't fully happy with, and asked for changes (which is fair), but the PR hasn't moved since, so I'd have expected the Bitwarden employees to take it and fix it up.
It's absolutely ridiculous to still not have this fixed years later.
By contrast, I was a 1Password customer at the time this change got introduced, and they'd pushed out a fix not long after.
I will be trying to Linux client, and if it's good enough, I'm certainly switch away.
I switched to 1Password from KeePass after 5 or so years because I just got tired of maintaining the data locally and keeping it in sync on my devices that I need the passwords on. I just backup the 1Password database locally now to calm some paranoia.
1) Their insistence on 1PasswordX- I want a desktop app, I want tight integration, the browser extensions work just fine if I need something quickly. 2) Poor/no support for key management- storing ssh keys as an encrypted notes is a bad work around.
Right Click on the field > Bitwarden > Autofill
Otherwise it pops up bitwarden in their top right and says it isn't available in private mode for this browser
```
The Bitwarden browser extension does not completely function in Firefox’s private browsing mode. This is a known issue specific only to Firefox. You will see a message indicating so when you try to open the Bitwarden popup window in a private window. We have discussed the problem with Mozilla, however, they seem unable to fix it so that extensions like Bitwarden can function entirely in private mode. ```
https://bitwarden.com/help/article/extension-wont-load-in-pr...
An individual raised a working PR to fix this that got reviewed and some changes were requested. The individual must have abandoned the PR or something because it hasn't moved since. I would have expected Bitwarden devs to pick this up and get it merged, and address the PR changes themselves since OP isn't addressing the issues.
1password used to have a peer to peer sync mode that I loved. No need for a server anywhere. You would open it on your Mac and then open it on your phone and if they were on the same network they would self discover. Too inconvenient, perhaps, for most users, but for the paranoid like me, it was ideal -- no servers involved at all.
(Technically, wifi sync I believe still exists IF you use 1password on Mac with a old style local vault, but it's basically unsupported. Mine just stopped working and I switched to 1password.com.)
Personally, I'd trust one of my servers far more than a client shouting "yo someone send me a file to overwrite my db with" over multicast on the local starbucks wifi...
It also doesn't have to be exposed to the internet. You can have it accessible behind wireguard for instance.
I have it, a DNS server, cloud storage, etc on my home lan, and use wireguard to access it on the go.
In principle, you could store your Bitwarden database on a public torrent at no risk to your security :)
So, if you do trust the Bitwarden software in the first place, self-hosting it shouldn't be any more dangerous than using the managed service, because the server security isn't really a critical part of the defence model. And self-hosting allows you to build from source, if you're inclined to paranoia (Even though the worst a malicious server could do is delete your database).
That said, I have still bothered to set up strict fail2ban rules on my BW instance, because why not.
Unless you use the web client, and a lot of Bitwarden's functionality is only available via its web client (including critical functionality like changing your master password).
Reading between the lines it sounds like being able to build from source or see and install the source gives some assurance you can’t get via third party and the strong files give some assurance over me being a bad sysadmin. That’s either a sweet spot or uncanny valley depending on your perspective. :)
Not that much, given that basic accounts are free. I guess that in addition to the building from source option, self-hosted Bitwarden (or at least Bitwarden-rs) includes all enterprise features for free.
The two most useful ones are probably sharing selected passwords with other users / groups, and attaching encrypted files to logins.
I wouldn't bother setting up a server and domain solely for it, but if you already have a personal webserver with a reliable backup strategy, since Bitwarden_rs barely uses any resources and is super easy to install, you might as well throw it in.
That's my case - I was already running a personal Nextcloud and Fediverse instance, so adding Bitwarden was like five lines of docker-compose and four of Caddyfile.
If you mean they may have a vulnerability, they've gone through a few security audits.
If you mean you can't adequately keep your own server secure, then pass it.
I have the exact opposite feeling. I would not selfhost email but I would selfhost a password manager and my files behind WireGuard, like many have said.
I have almost moved from cloud hosting to home server. This perfectly reasonable for non critical services that don’t require more than 90% availability. The simplicity of such a setup nowadays is a breeze of fresh air. Debian stable, WireGuard, syncthing, ssh, git, ... all are low maintenance and works fine with Linux and iOS clients.
Note that I use syncthing for the casual read only "important documents", such as ID copies, tax documents, ebooks, etc. I don’t sync photos, movies and such. Most editable documents are in git repos.
I sometimes work on my iPad, and then I use a ssh client or the ish app (a shell, with vim, etc).
I have used this setup for years, and it’s just low friction, low maintenance for me. I have thought about using an own cloud/nextcloud setup, but it’s just too much work for little value. Like running gitlab instead of ssh and git.
Use bitwarden-rs if you're planning on self-hosting.
bitwarden_rs on the other hand, works just fine, never had an issue with it or incompatibility with the browser extensions or mobile apps.
The official one uses MS SQL server and takes quite a bit of memory (which I call it a hidden monthly cost as I need to be using a bigger cloud instance) but this one only takes so little, you can host it on any cheap VPS and it has been working just fine against official clients for years.
I see some of the newer premium features, particularly around SSO are under a noncommercial visible source license of their own devising though
I mention this because my work uses 1PW and I don't like it at all. Not the browser extension. Not the desktop app.
Bitwarden is well worth checking out.
is a very worthwhile password manager. I like the UI.