Comment by valenterry
2 days ago
I wish there was a password manager with a different focus.
In the way where there would be a server (selfhosted) that has the passwords and is well protected. Then, on the server, I can configure access to the secrets on my clients and — and that is important — restrict the number of secrets that can be accessed per time. And on each client I want to be told if secrets got accessed by another client.
Because, optimally I would use passkeys and other means of authentication, except for initial auth. But if my client gets compromised I don't want it to be able to access and exfiltrate all secrets at once. That is basically the worst case scenario.
I don't understand why it's not common in password managers to have different categories of how important a secret is and better control/transparency to detect compromised clients and contain the impact.
I suspect that's uncommon because basically every password manager works offline so isn't querying the server on each request, and implementing something where you trust a compromised client to rate-limit itself and report back appropriately seems like a lot of work to protect against a pretty specific threat model.
Right. That's why I think that the client syncing (all) credentials is just what I don't want/like and there must be a server, since a compromised client can obviously not be trusted to doing any rate-limiting.
And the server also needs to inform about usages, since otherwise a compromised client could just extract everything slowly over time.
Does that make sense?
Otherwise, basically just one compromised client means that suddenly all my credentials need to be considered stolen and have to be changed everywhere.