On the contrary. If there's one thing you should self-host is definetly password manager.
replyWhy, you can of course self-host it, too, but the infrastructure should be entirely separate.
replyI don't see much reason not to self-host a properly built password manager like Vaultwarden or something similar? The clients keep a local encrypted copy of the vault, so the server only needs to be up for syncing. If it went down for a week, you probably wouldn't even notice unless you were saving new logins. And even if the server got hacked, everything on it is encrypted. Why do you think it should not be selfhosted?
replyyou just listed all the reasons why you don't need to self host yourself
replyThanks, on these topics I feel like I’m fucking crazy for not wanting to self host.
replyIf you believe that the technology works, that encryption is happening and that the decryption is only happening on your local machine then why in the fuck would I host this myself?
You need to believe that it does not work when they do it, but does work when you do it.
I have not seen any evidence of that.
Can’t relate. If you’re worried about you’re own reliability to keep it online, just keep paper backups
replyWhat? Why not?
replypassword managers should not involve hosting at all, use something file-local, keepass(xc) or alike
replyIt should be something like, well, git (but likely not directly git): something that replicates easily, so that you'd have a remote copy accessed via internet ("hosted"), and local copies where you see fit.
replypass can use git
replyKeepass people always in these topics with ”offline rules!! … now let me tell you how I use it with a copy on my phone and sync it with Dropbox and a backup on a git repo”
reply