Comment by akerl_
4 hours ago
That guide is wild. By default it allows public registration, shows password hints, requires a reverse proxy for robust TLS but then passes tokens via GET params, runs in the container as root. Recommends fail2ban because it doesn't have any coverage against brute force. Recommends using a custom path for security.
This feels less like a guide on hardening Vaultwarden than a guide on why I should be skeptical about it.
I’m not an expert with web sockets or web development - but re: Get Params, Vaultwarden has to follow the API of the upstream Bitwarden implementation:
https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/discussions/1549#...
The upstream also had this issue, which appeared to be closed without a PR:
https://github.com/bitwarden/server/issues/3650
Requiring a reverse proxy for TLS is pretty standard, but the rest of those findings are egregious (if they haven't been addressed yet.)
Since it's authored by the vaultwarden collaborators, I would not trust the project any bit of my passwords.