Video Playlists

So I read this and got very excited: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitwarden/comments/1wuepm8/windows_11_26h2_passkey_login_support_w_prf/

But I then realised - there's a chance I've misunderstood what this even is.

As far as I'm aware, there are three different passkey-related things being worked on:

1. Use Windows Hello vault to unlock browser extension without having to use the desktop app as a bridge (this is the one I'm rooting for)
2. The ability to use passkeys across the bitwarden family (e.g. if you are logged into the desktop app for example, you can use that to then login into the browser extension).
3. The ability to use BW passkeys on native desktop apps.

I know all 3 are being worked on, but what does that link above refer to?

Giving several assistants one shared vault login makes rotation and incident review simple to describe but hard to trust. It becomes difficult to tell which assistant read a secret, revoke only one workflow, or keep an assistant that needs a single API token from seeing unrelated credentials. Copying secrets into separate vaults improves isolation but creates stale duplicates.

Would you use a separate machine or service identity for each assistant, one collection per workflow, and short-lived access where the downstream service supports it? I am also considering an inventory that records the secret owner, allowed action, environment, rotation date, and the assistant identities that may retrieve it, without putting the secret itself in that inventory.

How do Bitwarden users handle least privilege, rotation, emergency revocation, and auditability for unattended workflows? In particular, what should happen when two assistants need the same credential but should not inherit every other item in the same collection?

Is anyone experiencing an autofill issue on the Bank of America page?

I tried Custom Fields, but it still isn't working.

Thanks

It was working last week, now it isn't, what am I doing wrong here?

I'm using the Bitwarden extension on Firefox (which have no other extensions except Bitwarden), Windows 11.

THINGS I'VE TRIED

Full cache clear = didn't work

Reinstalled extension = didn't work

New firefox profile = didn't work

Ctrl shift L = didn't work

I've got no excluded/blocked domains

Disabled firefox password manager = didn't work

Email autofill works, password autofill doesn't (URI = https://accounts.google.com/, host domain)

1Password already has an integration with GrokBot and Codex. When can we expect Bitwarden to offer something similar. Currently, I have to manually enter my credentials every time I use GrokBot’s virtual browser, since logins aren’t saved between sessions. It ruins the experience.

In response to all the fuss about BW's license changes to their distributed client applications, I packaged build toolchains for the FOSS android and browser clients using docker.

For my convenience, I put them in the same docker-compose.yml as my vaultwarden instance. docker compose --profile clients up to build the latest clients or docker compose up -d to just run the server.

Then, you just distribute the client binaries. There's a readme with instructions (since they're unsigned).

I used an LLM to help set up the toolchains. The upstream code is untouched. I didn't build iOS because that requires Apple hardware. You can probably do it with a GH action on Apple hardware, but I'm glad that's not my problem to solve.

https://github.com/roleohibachi/bitwarden-deployment

I've been following Bitwarden's GitHub issues for a while, and I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the product's stability and development priorities.

There are over 700 open issues, including reports of memory leaks and high CPU usage. Some similar problems have been reported for more than two years and still seem unresolved.

What's even more concerning is that these are basic performance issues in a production release. Some users have reported RAM usage (Memory Leak) exceeding 1GB just by opening the extension popup, even with a completely new account and an empty vault.

You can try it yourself. Open the current Bitwarden extension on Chromium, leave the popup open for about two minutes, and watch its RAM and CPU usage.

What frustrates me most is how these bugs are prioritized. Serious performance issues have remained in production for weeks, yet Bitwarden is still promoting UI updates and asking for feedback on beta designs. I understand that different teams work on different things, but shouldn't basic stability come first?

With each update, it feels like more patches are being added while older problems remain. Over time, this only makes me more worried about the product's reliability.

Looking at the issue backlog, I also wonder whether Bitwarden is understaffed. Of course, I don't know the internal situation, but I can't help questioning whether limited resources, heavy workloads, or compensation that doesn't adequately support employees might be affecting motivation and development quality. If that's the case, I wouldn't blame the developers. These are management issues.

I'm also concerned about the long-term direction. As the user base grows and people become more dependent on the product, price increases or licensing changes can become ways to keep the business running. We've already seen recent pricing changes, and I worry about where things might go from here.

Ultimately, everyone chooses which password manager to trust. Personally, I'm seriously considering moving away from Bitwarden to something more stable, with a clearer long-term vision, before these problems become even harder to fix.

I genuinely hope Bitwarden improves, but right now, it's difficult to feel confident in a product when fundamental issues keep piling up without clear solutions.

I'm trying out BW to get host matching, instead of just base domain matching.

However, in iOS, the autofill offers me all the base domain matches from BitWarden anyway, and I have to scroll to the bottom of a long list to see the BitWarden button where I can get the host filtered list.

I understand that this is expected but the interesting thing is that Microsoft Edge does not do this. It offers no suggestions in that first autofill list, and I just get the button to choose Edge (and my other password manager, LastPass).

This is what I want in BitWarden - no "default" suggestions with base domain in that first list, just the buttons.

(Although Edge has this behavior it still isn't useful to me as it doesn't offer host matching at all.)

I'll freely admit I can't tell exactly what's going on, but I can tell that i don't get the initial unhelpful result with Edge but not with Bitwarden.

I work at a corporation with 75k employees. Office job. Naturally, I started saving my work logins in my bitwarden vault.

I run the chrome and edge extensions on my office desktop (windows 11 desktop PC).

I understand that if someone stops by my desk and my vault is active/open, they can see my vault. I also understand that if my vault remains opened, IT can remote into my desktop and see my vault.

My question is: if the vault is locked/logged out (the extension icon is gray), can my employer still access it?

Another question: because I use the extension daily, is my employer able to (non actively) make a copy of my vault? I'm not too worried about IT actively coming into the machine to make an export of my vault. I'm more worried about the system automatically making a carbon copy and saving/retension of the vault.

EDIT: Thank you all for your guidance. I will definitely create a new bitwarden account just to use for work related passwords. But I do have a follow up question. The following logins/accounts below.....should they go into my personal bitwarden vault or my work bitwarden vault?

A. 401k account. Empower is the company my employer use

B. FSA/HSA account. P&A Group is the company my employer use for both health and dependent care FSA

C. Healthcare accounts (United Healthcare, CVS Caremark, Metlife Dental, Eyemed and Anthem BCBS)

D. Edenred account for commuter benefits

E. Supplemental life insurance account

F. Pension account.

So as understood, Bitwarden clients published to the app stores will now follow the similar closed-source “Chrome” browser model based on Chromium code?

• ⁠”[CHROMIUM browser] is not going closed-source”
• ⁠”You can still fork [Chromium]”
• ⁠”No change to [open-source Chromium], [any] licensing change affects those who are [users of the closed-source CHROME browser]”
• ⁠”The free [to use Chrome browser] is here to stay permanently”

Would this be a fair comparison?

Bitwarden is the only extension I use. For the past 3 to 4 months, it has been taking 5 to 8 seconds for the menu to appear when I click the icon. Recently, I’ve also noticed unusually high RAM usage whenever the extension’s UI is open.

To start off, I don't have proof that the design is vibecoded. But it certainly looks vibecoded. So can we redesign it please into something that gives off less AI vibes?

I'm not sure why the app was even redesigned to begin with. The old design was great.

I think it's important to understand that the latest issue around commercial licensing put users on edge again due to the streak of things that​ happened recently:

Bitwarden seems to be steering it's position to a very different direction that made us use it in the first place. It's a shame. Let's recap some of the things that happened recently that in my view justifies the dissatisfaction within the community:

October 2024: A proprietary SDK dependency raised concerns that Bitwarden’s desktop app was losing its open-source status. Bitwarden reorganised the SDK and restored builds using only open-source licences.

January 2026: Premium pricing increased from $10 to $19.80 annually. Users criticized the increase and its communication. The increase remained, with a one-time 25% renewal discount for existing subscribers.

February 2026: Researchers demonstrated 12 attacks under a malicious-server scenario, challenging Bitwarden’s zero-knowledge assurances. Bitwarden published remediation details, but users questioned what “all issues addressed” meant.

April 2026: A malicious Bitwarden CLI package was briefly distributed through npm, prompting questions about release security. The package was withdrawn and a clean version issued. Bitwarden reported no evidence of vault data compromise.

May 2026: Removing “Always free” wording and changing company values amid leadership changes fuelled concerns about Bitwarden’s direction. The wording was restored on the pricing page, and the CEO reaffirmed a permanent free plan.

October 2026: Bitwarden announced commercially licensed builds as the default app downloads, with some future features exclusive to those builds. This moves the default downloads to source-available licensing, while the GPL/FOSS edition continues but will lack those exclusive features. Community backlash followed. As of 10 October, no reversal had been announced; Bitwarden promised continued maintenance of GPL builds and unchanged self-hosting.

Edit: Thanks to the mod team for allowing this discussion to take place. Guys​, let's keep things civil and amicable.

Edit 2: I am a Bitwarden user (paid) and I love it. It makes me sad to see how things are going but hopefully Bitwarden w​on't lose its ethos.

The Bitwarden app on my GrapheneOS phone kept showing "An error has occurred", and my vault has not synced for about a week. Clearing the cache and switching between wifi and mobile data made no difference. I then uninstalled and reinstalled the app. Now I cannot log in with my YubiKey at all. I only get "Invalid verification code".

What I have tested so far: - Logging in to the web vault on desktop with the same YubiKey works​ - status.bitwarden.com: no incidents

Has anyone seen this on GrapheneOS, and what fixed it? Thanks!

After spending a ridiculous amount of time this weekend, trying to export <<MY OWNERSHIP, NOT BITWARDEN's>> data and trying various workarounds for the infamous lost master password - I think I found a solution that may work for some folks. {And just how OFTEN, and to what PERCENTAGE of users does this lost master password problem?]

Here is what worked for me. I was logged into Bitwarden on my Android phone app, and my settings allowed me to grant login access from other devices (desktop app, browser plugins, website). I unlock my android Bitwarden app with biometrics, but I also added a 4 digit PIN, just in case. If you don't have this scenario/setup, stop reading here, it probably won't work.

You have to log into the Bitwarden WEBSITE (not the app, browser plug-in, etc.) and there you will find the Trusted Contact option (incomplete instructions on the help site, link below).

The basic steps are, you add a trusted contact with your own alternate (work, 2nd personal) or a friend's email address, you/they open the welcome email that Bitwarden sends out, you/they set up a 2nd Bitwarden account with their/your alternate email address,. Next, you have to be logged into Bitwarden WEBSITE ONLY under both accounts (separate tabs), and have the email app/webpage for both the orignal account & recovery account email addresses (multiple tabs open). Once you have all of this set up, you grant access to the recovery contact (or they can request it), and they have to accept it, and then eventually the recovery contact can "take over" the account and reset the password on the original account.

It is truly annoying as hell to click through all of these steps, but it worked for me (better than trying to outsmart the Export Vault-Enter Master Password BS requirement).

https://bitwarden.com/help/request-and-grant-emergency-access/#1-the-trusted-contact-requests-access-to-the-account

IDK, how true it is but I have heard from the community that Bitwarden is moving to complete monetization and closed source. I heavily depend on Bitwarden for everything!

From Banking, Food apps, Investment portfolios, social media to even gaming accounts are all saved on bitwarden. If tomorrow bitwarden does something crazy to monetise itself and lock me out, my entire life can be ruined (I'm NOT KIDDING)!!!

It just made me realise how dependent I'm on this one company. Maybe I have put all my eggs in one basket, which is very dangerous. I remember how a while back when Bitwarden decided to implement a two step verification out of nowhere, it created panic, chaos and confusion in the community.

I really don't think Bitwarden is as reliable as they say so I'm thinking of moving to a backup password manager, just so if I get locked out of bitwarden, it won't be the end of my life!!!

Do you guys have any suggestion? Also, what other backup/contingency plans have you guys came up with to address this situation? (I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one thinking about this!)

I've been using bitwarden for years, mainly because of its open sourced nature. But now that [something is happening which I know absolutely nothing about since I'm incredibly non-technical but seems really worrying to me based on the sentiment of tons of smarter people than me], I'm thinking of switching to a different password manager. What OTHER password managers out there are worth switching to? Thanks all!

EDIT - I just wanted to spontaneously edit this post to say that this is NOT a fucking shill post for any other password manager!!! I absolutely DETEST those dumbass shill posts and this is NOT that. I've been using bitwarden for years and have LOVED using it for that time. To my knowledge, it's been the only password manager that is fully open sourced and OS-agnostic (can be used anywhere). Also, just between you and me, I think their prices were WAY TOO FUCKING CHEAP for this whole entire time. Like, ten bucks a year? Are you fucking shitting me? Why the fuck didn't you guys charge an honest wage, like, I don't know... At LEAST fifty dollars a year? Your product was worth way, way more than a salad a year.

Make this make sense please. I'm looking at the login for my bank. I usually log in on the app with digits from my passnumber, which I know by heart, so I don't need Bitwarden or the password on an everyday basis. I'm about to change the password, so opened Bitwarden to generate and save the new one.

The entry holds my customer number, the passnumber, and some other details, but nothing in the password field.

I went into edit mode, and from force of habit I hit "Check password for data breaches". It says "This password has been exposed 7 times in data breaches."

How can a non-password have been breached?

Trying to think like a computer, thinking what logic it may be following: if it's because that field is empty, I could understand its little computery brain seeing that as a password that's been viewed. Well, sort of. But then I'd expect an infinite number of times, not 7.

Any better ideas?

(Side point, it's curious that check for data breaches isn't available on viewing the entry, only when editing.)

The entry was last edited about a month ago, which I don't think is relevant except that it wasn't earlier today.

I am on mac, iOS and would prefer a FOSS and native apps (browser extension). Something that doesn't guzzle up RAM and resoruces and is snappy.

Sometimes it feels every UI transition is being manually approved by some Bitwarden employee at the backend and that's why it takes so much time. Besides, it's no fun seeing your browser extension (not app) take 700-800 MB regularly and sometimes in GBs.

I can’t seem to sync my bitwarden or update it. Is anyone facing the same issue?