I have no such issue with the AppImage, the Bitwarden website, nor any of the browser extensions. Noticed something was off when my Bitwarden desktop app failed to sync, so I logged out, logged back in, uninstalled, reinstalled, rebooted — nothing I do helps. Went to bed, got up, same thing even after freshly installing Bitwarden using sudo snap install bitwarden
Bitwarden support says there is nothing wrong with the current snap, which was apparently released April 8.
I put in my e-mail address, then my password, then wait for my 2FA code, then the Debian spiral symbol just keeps going and going forever. Can’t reach the database.
The AppImage, meanwhile, works perfectly and as expected.
The snap is officially verified by Bitwarden and is in my understanding the best Bitwarden desktop app version for Linux. The Flatpak is unverified and not official. Not sure what you mean about giving the snap root access to my pass database. Obviously the Bitwarden desktop application needs full access to my pass database?
I’m a Linux amateur to be sure, but all snap programs require sudo to install. They have restricted permissions and are heavily sandboxed. The sandboxing is why the database was not syncing until the Bitwarden engineer provided the command line fix.
What are you suggesting? I trust Bitwarden with my password database based on following the Bitwarden security model where my password is never sent to Bitwarden and the database is locally decrypted.
As far as I can tell the snap is superior to the Flatpak, the deb, and the AppImage.
Of those, only the deb and the AppImage also are officially verified and sanctioned by Bitwarden.
I choose the snap over the Flatpak for added legitimacy. Similarly I choose the snap of Brave and Chromium over any other version.
At the GitHub link I cited, a computer science professor named Peter Drake admits to using the snap of Bitwarden.
I use the AppImage because there’s less to fail. An update can break a snap or snaps in general. It can be very bad if your password manager doesn’t work. [edit] The original post would appear to be a case in point.
You don’t need to worry about that. It’s just that some linux users hate some pieces of software and it’s safe to ignore such users. For example, there was a time (back in the era of KDE 1.0) that some linux users really hated KDE because it wasn’t “really free”. Now linux users mostly hate, systemd, canonical and everything that canonical made (eg ubuntu and snaps) and also nvidia
PS: No pun intended, I just wanted to clarify to you (since you are “a Linux amateur”) that there’s nothing to worry about
Except that snap has had malware, multiple times, one that stole peoples bitcoin wallet.
Happened last time this year if I’m not mistaken.
But other than that, sure.
I just prefer to use something maintained by a FOSS community (flatpak, that has NOT let malware into the repos) rather than something a corporation like Canonical creates and keeps walled in (but STILL lets malware in).
On a side not about bitwarden.
I use my distros repositories and therefore only let bitwarden have access to the database, no need to use flatpak or snaps, but if bitwarden does not exist in your distros repo, sure, use snaps or flatpak, but again, one of them has on multiple occations delivered malware instead of the correct software.
But you guys do you.
Bitwarden had security ussues in the past, so you may need to reconsider your whole approach, because it seems to me that you are just negatively biased against snaps wiithout any objective argument
That’s not uniquely related to Bitwarden. It’s a flaw inherent in autofill on page load. I’ve always had that disabled. Since I’ve been a Bitwarden user it’s always been disabled by default.
Yeah! my point is that you can’t just pick a random incident that happened to some software and make it a big deal because all applications have potentially security issues and flaws.
