I like programming and anime.

I manage the bot /u/mahoro@lemmy.ml

  • 0 Posts
  • 7 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • I understand this change by Bitwarden, but I wish they gave us the option to turn this off or at least given us more time before forcing this on us.

    There’s a lot of comments talking about how this increases security, which is true. But it also increases the risk of account lockout. This is especially true in two scenarios: traveling and incapacitation.

    Traveling - for those of us who travel frequently, we carry all of our belongings with us. This makes us particularly vulnerable to account lockouts. We can’t securely store backup devices or documents in easily accessible locations. We can’t easily rely on trusted friends or family because they are so far away. Also, internet accounts are more likely to lock us out anyway because we are logging in from a different country, which is suspicious behavior.

    Incapacitation - god forbid, if there comes a time when we are permanently or temporarily incapacitation, it becomes important for our loved ones to access accounts. When we are in the hospital, it’s important that our loved ones get access to our personal accounts. I personally have advanced directives and have worked with an estate lawyer to make sure that my Bitwarden account becomes available. I also have instructions for immediate trusted family on how to access my vault if I were ever in the hospital. With this short notice, I need to scramble to get all of that updated and provide a way for them to access the account without my 2FA devices.

    The above scenarios are based off of my real experience. These are real and likely risks that I have to account for. Security is not just making sure that outside bad actors CANNOT gain access, but it also means that the right people CAN get access at the right time.


    What am I going to do? I’m weighing my options.

    1. I believe the self-hosted version of Bitwarden does not require this. This comes with its own set of risks though.
    2. Pay for premium, which comes with lockout support - I need to see if this can take care of both use scenarios above.
    3. Turn on 2FA and memorize the recovery code. While viable, since I will only use the recovery code once, I’m likely to forget it.
    4. Change the email to a non-2FA email address, only used by Bitwarden, with a strong but easily memorable password. This email must allow access from foreign countries without lockout (gmail is out). I’m actually strongly considering this.

  • This is being purposefully obtuse. Choosing to force users to memorize a recovery code increases the likelihood of lock outs.

    There is a real risk of account lockout, especially for those of us who travel frequently. Lockouts are a significant risk when you need to carry all your belongings and devices.

    There are also some of us who also think about what happens to us when we are incapacitated and a loved one needs access to our passwords. In a situation, it’s important to balance security vs expediency to access critical information. This new policy disrupts that.

    At the very least, I wish Bitwarden would have given us more time to force this policy. I have to scramble to make changes to my estate planning documents and get in contact with my lawyer to change my advanced healthcare directives.



  • Dude, if you’re being obtuse on purpose because you have an ax to grind against Rust, try a different approach. You’re not getting anywhere, clearly by the fact that no one agrees with you.

    If you don’t like that Rust has a restricted trademark, then call that out instead of trying to label the software and it’s license as non-free. It’s literally called out in my source that name restrictions ipso facto does not violate freedom 3.

    But if you genuinely believe that the implementation of the Rust language and it’s trademark is burdensome to create a fork, and you want people to believe you, then you gotta bring receipts. Remember, the benchmark that we both quoted is that it “effectively hampers you from releasing your changes”. It being “not a piece of cake” doesn’t cut it.

    Hint: Google Rust forks since their existence also undermines your claim.

    Good luck.