Selfhosted

[–] TVA@thebrainbin.org 18 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Updated mine, but, realistically, I don't think most of us are directly exposing our VaultWarden instances to the internet ... I can't imagine I'm all that weird by only exposing it over VPN for remote use.

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] TrumpetX@programming.dev 11 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Isn't that there point though? Remote synchronizing?

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] mpramann@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

That's why most use a VPN.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] TrumpetX@programming.dev 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)

I understand why some would do this. It's definitely a more secure setup, but I highly doubt "most". I like having passwords on my work laptop. I couldn't sync there with a VPN, for example. My wife, kids and parents aren't going to run VPNs on their phones, etc.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] mpramann@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 7 months ago

Vaultwarden is specifically used for self hosting. Setting up a Wireguard VPN on your server at home can be tricky in specific instances. Most of the time it's dead simple though. Installing a Wireguard Client on your mobile devices is as simple as scanning a QR code. And to be fair: If you're going to expose the Vaultwarden instance to the internet why not just use the official Bitwarden service then? I'm sure they can handle security better than someone who has trouble setting up an VPN server.

parent

[–] MCHEVA4EVA@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

I have it exposed with a 2FA it seems fairly safe.

parent

[–] oyzmo@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

True! Good and relative safe on my Tailscale network. The only thing I`m brave enough to expose to the big and scary internet/botnet is my little Pi running Headscale, and I've put that on a separate network.