3
Why do we not allow arbitrary client side feature sets?
Source: dani-garcia/vaultwarden#6854 · opened by @phoeagon
I noticed that Vaultwarden does not support CXP (credential exchange protocol) for import/export, and sent out for adding the client side feature flags.
During the investigation, I noticed that there are many Bitwarden feature flags that are not available on vaultwarden. Most of the feature flags seem to require nothing but pass a map entry of key:"true" in the api config.
I'm wondering, as a popular self-hosting solution, is there a reason we don't allow arbitrary "unchecked" feature flags? This seems to cover many cases of new feature flags.
Thanks.
During the investigation, I noticed that there are many Bitwarden feature flags that are not available on vaultwarden. Most of the feature flags seem to require nothing but pass a map entry of key:"true" in the api config.
I'm wondering, as a popular self-hosting solution, is there a reason we don't allow arbitrary "unchecked" feature flags? This seems to cover many cases of new feature flags.
Thanks.
No pledges yet. Be the first to back this.
Comments
Similar requests
Proposal: support `.onion` domains
0 votes · 0 comments
Feature Request: public folders for better file-management
1 vote · 0 comments
Show notification and force if 2FA is required when first login
1 vote · 0 comments
Support the phishing-detection experimental client flag
3 votes · 0 comments
Move SSO_CLIENT_SECRET to the Read Only Admin Panel or Encrypt it
1 vote · 0 comments
No comments yet.