Hacker News Reader

Comment by sliken | Hacker News Reader

As as self-hoster, I recommend vault warden. Supports 2fa, written in rust, works pretty well, is easy to backup, and you can use bitwarden's phone client.

I'm curious why other self hosters think it's a bad idea.

View on HN

> and you can use bitwarden's phone client

What will you use when this stops working in the near future?

You use Keyguard (https://github.com/AChep/keyguard-app).

May be worth submitting this to the front page

>The source code is available for personal use only.

Not sure how switching from a "FOSS with some proprietary source-available components" client, that can be forked mostly intact if need arises, to a full proprietary source-available client, that author can make closed source at any point with no forks being possible, is an improvement.

Why does everyone act like this hypothetical (and however likely) future is something that needs to be acted on now?

I'll just export my vault and move to KeepPass or something else?

Because people don't trust themselves to do proper backups as if this is some kind of black magic or something.

I've been self hosting Vaultwarden for me and my wife for years without issue. People like to tell others what they should and shouldn't do because they want to feel superior to others, I suppose.

It's especially strange since self hosting is, aside from the 'fun' aspect of it, about personal control. So this tsk tsk'ing from others about self hosting a password manager is especially ridiculous.

I moved to the cloud for a simple reason: if I die tomorrow people who depend in the service are screwed. And this is an important service, like email or digital archives.

I'm confused, so you are self hosting it for other people?

Yes I was - for me and my family (and a few friends)

Yeah I have no problems letting family and friends use cloud services. I keep the self hosted stuff for myself.

Presumably, it's a memory hog. What is your RAM usage?

For me, vaultwarden's RSS is ~45 MB, with ~13MB of that being shared. I have it running as a secondary thing on a 512 MB machine and don't notice it's there. Is there a reason you presume it's a memory hog?

I'm surprised, actually. I expected at least an order of magnitude more. In my humble opinion, this is still a lot of memory -- probably an order of magnitude (or even two) more than what is realistically required for the task. But this is just my own philosophy, and I do realize that the days of careful memory utilization are long gone.

Thanks for sharing.

For me, RSS 35 MB, SHR 23 MB. The vaultwarden executable is 38 MB (typical Rust executable that links Rust code statically, and only dynamically links libssl.so and libc.so dynamically).

So probably its RSS usage is just mostly its own executable code?

I think the memory hog you're thinking of is the official Bitwarden self-hosted backend. Vaultwarden is pretty light on resources.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com