What about your own server?
> Each Bitwarden installation requires a unique installation id and installation key.
If I’m self hosting, I want it to be independent of the code provider. It is bad enough, to me, that I have to pay a subscription fee to self-host “advanced” features like Yubikey auth. That’s the same kind of annoying that my own install still must link to their server that can die at any moment.
Let me buy the software to self-host with all of the features. The “subscription” and “integrated” mindset has no place in “I’m doing it myself” installs.
With software like a password manager, if it's not actively maintained you're not going to want it anyway. So the same risk of the developers either discontinuing the product OR changing the pricing model applies just about evenly.
Being open source, at least the community can fork and maintain the software if the developers ever did throw in the towel, similar to TrueCrypt's forks.
It's maybe not as feature rich as other password managers, but it is being actively developed and the few times I had questions I got a quick response from Kyle (the creator).
If you think it matters where the data is stored (which shouldn't matter because it should be client side encrypted), running your own server would also be a risk. Because you cannot possibly have the same resources to monitor your server/router for suspicious activity...
By separating the storage of passwords, we drive down the economic interest in breaking into any one of the individual baskets.
Since its all my own equipment and I have a background in this sort of stuff, I know what I am looking for when it comes to intrusions.
What is essentially a small CRUD app with encryption requirements shouldn't need 2G just for a database app.