Bitwarden integrates with OneCLI agent vault

Tangential: Where is Bitwarden on the below roadmap right now? It wasn’t even good to users, but was an alternative to 1Password and others that had long crossed this bridge.

‘Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a "two-sided market", where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.’

- Cory Doctorow

rschiavone• 4 months ago

What's wrong with 1Password?

Uvix3• 4 months ago

They switched from a purchase with local vault storage model (where you could sync it to the cloud if you wanted to) to subscription-only with cloud storage they control.

ilitirit• 4 months ago

It wasn’t even good to users

I may be out of the loop, but how was Bitwarden not "good" to users? Does this relate to the recent price increase?

falcor84• 4 months ago

I don't get what semantic value you're getting by pasting this. It's almost like saying "VC-funded tech = bad", which is an ironic stance to take on this platform.

Is there anything that bitwarden did that is actually bad for you as a customer of theirs?

sneak• 4 months ago

How soon until those of us who are running Vaultwarden need to fork the Bitwarden clients, too?

Uvix3• 4 months ago

Reading the article, it sounds like this is the other way around? Bitwarden is offering a new API, and OneCLI Agent Vault is integrating with the new API.

stronglikedan• 4 months ago

integration is a two-way street. it doesn't matter which is stated first

jMyles• 4 months ago

I disagree that integration is commutative.

Often, we see a feature which is important to free use of a computer as a general-purpose tool locked behind an ever-changing and/or poorly documented API in a closed-source, centralized, de-facto-government-subsidized project.

The power dynamics of that situation are not symmetrical, so it does matter which project(s) are using which API(s) of the other(s).

malfist• 4 months ago

I added "login with google" to my website. Should I go to the news media to brag about how google is launching an integration with me?

lucideer2• 4 months ago

I really don't understand the HN comments here.

Lots of assumptions that the article is AI-authored (it could be but I'm not seeing overtly obvious signs - it's quite readable) & a lot of ungrounded assumptions that this is somehow related to Bitwarden integrating AI into their product.

I really thought reading comprehension among HN users was better than this.

rvz2• 4 months ago

There are worse things to mention about OneCLI as it looks like a completely vibe-coded mess, seeing that CLAUDE.md and Claude itself being one of the contributors [0]

Perhaps the most damning discovery is that they don't even do basic dependency pinning [1] [2] which just risks another supply chain attack.

As soon as I saw that, that was everything I needed to know about the project. No security audit whatsoever and Bitwarden believes this is something worth integrating.

[0] https://github.com/onecli/onecli/graphs/contributors

[1] https://github.com/onecli/onecli/blob/main/packages/ui/packa...

[2] https://github.com/onecli/onecli/blob/main/packages/db/packa...

lucideer2• 4 months ago

Having agents contribute to a tool designed for agentic coding is thoroughly unsurprising - if anything, your contributor link showing that 873 LoC were written by Claude, in a project with tens of thousands of lines contributed, seems to show far fewer agentic contributions than I would normally expect. It seems far from vibe coded looking at those stats alone.

The lack of package pinning is unfortunate but common enough that I'd simply open a ticket (& expect them to address it) rather than writing off the entire project.

The lack of a security audit for a project this young is also unsurprising & hardly notable.

fridder• 4 months ago

Yeah, it seems like this is at minimum an "ok" thing. Honestly having a good way to do secrets management with agents seems like a good idea.

rvz2• 4 months ago

OneCLI does not even have a security audit and a VC backed password manager believes that it is secure enough to integrate in their password manager.

I could not be anymore bearish on Bitwarden than before after looking at this and very glad that I don't use them.

JaggedJax• 4 months ago

I don't understand why this would change any opinion on Bitwarden. Bitwarden offers an API and OneCLI calls the Bitwarden API. How does a 3rd party calling Bitwarden's API say anything about Bitwarden?

Edit: I can see on Bitwarden's site they also call out their support for OneCLI, so I suppose that looks like Bitwarden saying they approve of and recommend OneCLI. But I see recommending an open source solution as a lot less problematic than recommending any other random private startup solution.

SkyPuncher• 4 months ago

These tools are useful, but I can't help to feel like they're solving the wrong part of the problem. I really don't have much concern that an agent has access to one of my credentials. Outside of production, most of these credentials are going to be limited in privilege and self-rotatable.

What remains terrifying is the ability to exfil important data or run commands that are malicious.

jadengeller• 4 months ago

exfiltrating a credential provides persistent access (until detected and rotated) tho! probably one of the more leveraged things to prevent

Bitwarden integrates with OneCLI agent vault

Related Stories