Creating account

I have problem with creating account. I use docker image bitwarden:latest. And a basic function like creating user dev’s cannot make more conplicated? Because now is “too simply”. Mail invitations without working smtp (great idea), creating users not working - why? Because no https? Really, cannot make complete image? Caddy on docker and, port redirect and LetsEncrypt - error rfc1918, first seen. I have a lot others services on my wan interface and this work without any strange errors. Install instructions from “scratch” always fail on npm part, grrrr, why cannot make this soft easy to install like keepass on windows or Psono? I loose more than 10 hours, nowhere clear working instruction. Psono from scratch i install in 30 minutes and work like a charm. Sorry, this is reason why a lot linux programs is so low popular…

Launching a docker container is not that hard, and also documented in the wiki.

After that there is a nice admin gui you can use to configure all the other items and invite users.

Problems which i have is from docker image. How i can add users from admin page when only available oprion is “Send invitationa” via non existing smtp server? I not want internet version - only local password database. My network is available via OpenVPN, no other ways. When i click create account yhen Option “Create account” not working. No error, no other info - not work at all. Why? Need https, but proxy server image rquite create LetsEncryp cert, but this as You know not work when i not have open ports. No info how create create request via dns response, or generate own cert by hand offline. I not discovered other ways to create only one account for me. Sorry, but this all make bad experience. Why cannot make working instructions, even via docker but Working to deploy in 10 minutes? With no strange security requrements, with default user(s) and working out of the box?

I don’t want to diminish the value or quality of the software, but installation is also part of using the software, and problems at this stage affect the overall image of the quality of the software.

bitwarden_rs is brought to you (for free) from people who contribute their time (for free). If you have a problem with it, you can contribute your own time to help fix it (whether code or docs), or look for something else that meets the high quality standards you expect.

Also, there is documentation on how to generate certs when your instance is not on the public Internet:

Ok, thanks.

I know it is freeware, but why freeware always means lack of development? I’m a bit old and I don’t enjoy searching for solutions to all sorts of problems in Linux anymore. A lot of people have the same problem.

Is there no option to just fire up a docker container and that will generate the ssl keys itself? Self signed cert is not less secure than eg. LetsEncrypt. Not everyone needs a trusted certificate, I can add my own CA and make it trusted on my network. But what for? I need to run the program and start using it without dozens of magic commands. I think this approach will spread the program a lot.

Well, how’s this sound…

If you’ll work for me for free, then I’ll have more time to work on making bitwarden_rs easier to use.

I am an ordinary user who wants to use the program. The time to write an extensive wiki, or to support weird configurations would certainly be more time consuming than creating a simple to use but complete and working docker container that would also cause less problems and the wiki could be simpler and less extensive. As it is, we have dozens of configurations described that are used by 10 users and the rest who just want to use the image can not do it because there is no “fire and forget” version.

I I don’t need a different gui or easier password management - these are features of the program, but the default start configuration is just kicked. It would be enough to have a default user who could create new ones. Without hidden conditions, proxies, etc. Thats all.

Welcome to the world of Linux and FOSS. everybody wants it a different way or use a specific tool etc.

If you really want an almost fire and forget look at the bitwarden.com self hosted install script.

The wiki is i think good enough to help you get this up and running with or without self signed certs (which i do not recommend btw).

We do not have a windows kinda setup.exe which takes you by the hand and do everything for you. We just do not have the time.

You are always free to update the wiki.

Thank you for your reply, but still the idea of the problem I am writing about is missed. We have a lot of similar software available, and the vast majority is easier to install without unnecessary additional stuff. I’m not forced to use this solution, but I suggest and show where the problem is that probably significantly reduces the popularity of this solution. If you think that the current form of the provided software is appropriate then ok, nothing to it. But a lot of people like me will not be able to run it and then use it, even using such an extensive wiki which is now outdated and incomplete when it comes to installation.

Other pages have infos for ubuntu18, debian9 which not works in newer systems because npm get a lot of errors. I not know what else because i not make step more. No infos about this problem in wiki. No working command line script “curl http… | bash”. No properly made “run and use” image. Seems to work but is useless. This is good idea for deploy modern software? I think no.

Why eh psono for multi user or other self hosted solutions can be make easy to install, but bitwarden_rs no because “everybody wants it a different way or use a specific tool”? Users of these solutions cannot use specific tools or additional stuff? I dont tkink so…

For me it’s easy to install, as is for other people who read the docs. There are always people who have trouble or people who think it should be a different way.

So, people created rpm packages, helm scripts, docker-compose examples, Arch Linux AUR installers.

And even with our default docker image it just starts!
After that you can login into the admin and make changes.

So again, if you miss information, think it could be better please contribute to the FOSS/open source community instead of only complaining and telling others they need to make it better. Help us make it better. I Don’t think we miss your point, we just see an other solution.

No, docker image not work. Admin page not have option to create users, Create user option not work because… no default https? Https need proxy, but this is very unclear in wiki. Why docker image not offer all needeed functions to proper working program after start? No default user which just work. Really? Only me have this problems?

Yes, it seems you are one of the few. Al other users are able to get it to work with reading the wiki it following other online tutorials either via YouTube or Blogs.

I don’t see any reason to continue this discussion.
Please read the wiki, lookup blogs or YouTube tutorials to help you configure this.

Ok, as You wish.

Only for records about wiki:
Private CA and self signed certs that work with Chrome · dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs Wiki · GitHub - result :
FO] No .env file found.
Logger failed to initialize: attempted to set a logger after the logging system was already initialized
[2021-02-26 22:24:57.606][rocket::config::error][ERROR] I/O error while setting tls.certs:

Well this is more of a concrete question.
This looks like bitwarden is not able to find the certs.

If you can give use some more information on how you have your setup configured maybe we can give some pointers or parts to the wiki where you need to pay attention on.

So, are you using docker, what are your settings etc…

Rocket TLS parameter i give as full path in host system, as relative to patch described in volume settings, give r permission for all users, No more logs or info why error is displayed.
So - my certs is in /etc/ssl directory, generated via wiki have names bitwarden.key and bitwarden.crt.
I try some different variations of command:
docker run -d --name bitwarden -e ROCKET_TLS=’{certs="/etc/ssl/bitwarden.crt",key="/etc/ssl/bitwarden.key"}’ -v /etc/ssl/:/ssl/ -v /bw-data/:/data/ p 88:80 bitwardenrs/server:latest
witch the same result. I renamed to .pem, without ROCKET_TLS parameter container starts, gui working but cannot make anything because i cannot create user.
This part of wiki is unclear, like proxies part. Propably i make fault, but i no have idea where.
Docker image should have internal keys which can be replaced by own via command-line parameter. But witchout parameter should fully work. Or if cannot make this in bitwarden image should be ready to use proxy container without all magic parameters which just work.