HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
bitwarden
clients
TypeScript2016–2026
bitwarden / clients

clients

Bitwarden client apps (web, browser extension, desktop, and cli).

56Distinct people
68Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
14.2KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Bitwarden client apps (web, browser extension, desktop, and cli).

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 8:03:49 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year68 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-10-10 17:59:06 UTC to 2026-08-13 19:41:04 UTC.

0510152016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20162017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 8 mentions; 2 submissions, 6 comments20212022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 12 mentions; 0 submissions, 12 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 13 mentions; 2 submissions, 11 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 16 mentions; 3 submissions, 13 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC826
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC12012
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC13211
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC16313
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

From the project README

An excerpt from the repository, fetched Nov 13, 2026.

Read the project’s introduction
Bitwarden Client Applications This repository houses all Bitwarden client applications except the mobile applications (iOS | android). Please refer to the Clients section of the Contributing Documentation for build instructions, recommended tooling, code style tips, and lots of other great information to get you started. Related projects: bitwarden/server: The core infrastructure backend (API, database, Docker, etc). bitwarden/ios: Bitwarden iOS Password Manager & Authenticator apps. bitwarden/android: Bitwarden Android Password Manager & Authenticator apps. bitwarden/directory-connector: A tool for syncing a directory (AD, LDAP, Azure, G Suite, Okta) to an organization. We're Hiring! Interested in contributing in a big way? Consider joining our team! We're hiring for many positions. Please take a look at our Careers page to see what opportunities are currently open as well as what it's like to work at Bitwarden. Contribute Code contributions are welcome! Please commit any pull requests against the main branch. Learn more about how to contribute by reading the Contributing Guidelines. Check out the Contributing Documentation for how to get started with your first contribution. Security audits and feedback are welcome. Please open an issue or email us privately if the report is sensitive in nature. You can read our security policy in the SECURITY.md file.
Read the full README on GitHub

What Hacker News says

13 sources
I'm not sure about any specifics beyond that both are getting support for them (for the keepass ecosystem I'm sure about other mobile clients, but I don't think the feature request to support passkeys has been acknowledged by the keepass2android dev sadly). Here's the keepassxc PR with some details about the implementation, and what should be done in future work on passkey support: https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/pull/8825 Bitwarden has a few blogs if you search for bitwarden passkeys, but from skimming one it didn't seem to go into technical details (though I didn't watch the videos). I guess you could look through the PRs: https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/pulls?q=is%3Apr+passkey... but I don't really feel like doing that.
In 23andMe says user data stolen in credential stuffing attack
I think the source might be here [1]. And this repo (clients) have this LICENCE.md file [2] which says that > Source code in this repository is covered by one of two licenses: (i) the GNU General Public License (GPL) v3.0 (ii) the Bitwarden License v1.0. The default license throughout the repository is GPL v3.0 unless the header specifies another license. Bitwarden Licensed code is found only in the /bitwarden_license directory Now the secret manager is in the `bitwarden_license` directory so it is not a GPL covered product and not open source but covered by BITWARDEN LICENSE AGREEMENT [3]. It does not allow you to use it as OSS. [1] https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/tree/master/bitwarden_l... [2] https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/blob/master/LICENSE.txt [3] https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/blob/master/LICENSE_BIT...
In Bitwarden Secrets Manager now generally available
I often regret any contact I have with the Bitwarden fanbase, because whooo they are rabid, but I guess I used to be a rabid fan of 1P so maybe fair's fair :-D Anyway ... - https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/1620 was created 2021, after it was migrated from the issue that was open even longer in the other repo, and now they've locked the issue because they're tired of people complaining about the extension losing their credentials - there are a ton more Item types in 1Password, which some people consider just cosmetic ("you can create your own fields") but https://bitwarden.com/help/managing-items/ compared to https://support.1password.com/item-categories/ is night and day, setting aside the native support for SSH agent that's built into 1P nowadays and here starts the list of even more highly subjective items, which I acknowledg
Read the rest
e are highly subjective - the folder based item management in Bitwarden is highly inferior to the tags based management in 1P. Creating folders itself is a major PITA, whereas creating tags in 1P is ... just type the new tag name. Maybe people enjoy putting the "tags" in there item's names or whatever, and doing away with folders in Bitwarden, but ... the fact they're trying to implement tagging on the cheap indicates they want tags but Bitwarden doesn't see the world that way - I find the attachment management process cumbersome in Bitwarden, whereas in 1P there are actually two orthogonal ways of managing attachments: they can be first class Items (called "Document" items) meaning that is the whole secret that one would care about, and they can also be arbitrarily attached to other Items in kind of a supporting role. I have scans of my passport attached to the Passport item type because so many places ask me to upload a scan of my passport. Same for my driver's license on the formal Driver's License item type - in the theme of "finding it cumbersome," I find that 1Password seems to care a lot more about UX than Bitwarden. Now, of late I am having to qualify any such statement because yikes that 1P 8 rewrite was catastrophic. But, rewrite-induced-self-inflicted-harm aside, I still think 1P cares a lot more about UX than Bitwarden - also subjective, but I really enjoy the `op run` <https://developer.1password.com/docs/cli/reference/commands/...> and its ability to resolve specially formatted env-vars <https://developer.1password.com/docs/cli/secret-references> in the sub-process. That process seems to be the basis of their shell plugins system <https://developer.1password.com/docs/cli/shell-plugins> but TBH I find just having env-vars lying around to be more convenient than their shell plugin system for my workflow. The fact that the `op` binary is smart enough to use DBus to auth to my desktop session means I can also use it as an implementation of pinentry A perfectly reasonable question may be "well, it's open source, why not start fixing bugs?" The things about using folders and the lack of item types indicates to me that they're just rowing in a different direction than what I would like, and the fact that they're a commercial company means unless I directly would benefit from fixing a bug means I am not incentivized to contribute free labor
In 1Password to Add Telemetry
As a Bitwarden user this is a bit concerning. Looking into though, bitwarden matches the URI only to the top level domain. The example site has the same URI. A user entering credentials into a compromised website is equally vulnerable to this issue password manager or not. If I am served a news.ycombinator.com/fake-login, and I don’t verify that the page is wrong, Google reports here that only the built-in Chromium password manager is safe? Looking at the linked pull request for Bitwarden[0], it is not clear that this has not been resolved but there does at least appear to be some efforts moving towards a fix. Wonders of open source! [0]: https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/pull/3860
In Unsandboxed Password Manager

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.