• Llewellyn@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    They created the client. In theory, they can have some backdoors. And since you store your files on their side, risk is greater, imo

    • soul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      This is where your lack of understanding of the open source thing is readily apparent to everyone arguing with you. If it was backdoored, many people would be calling that out. In fact, this was one of the exact reasons at the heart of the original concerns leading to this story.

      The fact that the source is available means that we can see exactly how the data is encrypted, allowing assurances to be made independently.

      If nothing else, I trust Bitwarden MORE because of that and I’m happy to pay them for their services since it helps find further development.

      • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 days ago

        If it was backdoored, many people would be calling that out.

        In theory. And not necessarily soon. Don’t forget the context of this thread: we compare bitwarden with keepass, which does not offer to you your password base on their server side.