KeePassXC does not store any data. Nor does it receive connections from the Internet, like a server. Thus the risk is structurally lower than a commercial client-server application like LastPass or 1Password, which is actually in possession of your password data.

I use 1Password at work for its excellent collaboration features and good-enough security. For most people it replaces a post-it note or Excel file. It’s way better than those.

But for my passwords I use KeePass (the file format) and a variety of clients including KeePassXC. This statement about AI won’t change that, unless someone can give me a reason other than vague “AI bad” or “no vibe coding” like most comments so far.

Followed by shortcuts

> As such, they are a net benefit and make KeePassXC strictly safer.

They can also waste author's/reviewer's time chasing imaginary ends, taking time away from the "regular" review, or with some level of trust add some plausibly explained vulnerability. Nothing is strict here

I'm sure if you ask your favorite AI bot, he'll come up with a few more reasons why the statement is overconfidently wrong.

I choose not to use a vibe coded password manager, rigorous review or not, to protect my entire digital existence, monetary assets and reputation.

It's the pinnacle of safety requirements, memory unsafe language, cryptography, incredibly high stakes.

I have the distinct displeasure having to review LLM output in pull requests and unfailingly they contain code the submitted doesn't fully understand.

Does not look like the original Keepass project is doing this which is the easiest migration away but I will check a bit deeper on their commits to be sure.

I think there's an analogous subset: "llm-security theater".

There's so much pearl-clutching, pedantry, and noise from people who are obviously 1) not contributing to KeePassXC AND 2) never would contribute AND 3) are unaware of EXISTING bugs/issues/CVEs with KeePassXC. All they provide are vague abstract arguments from their own experience with LLMs, and they argue with the maintainers of KeyPassXC without giving specifics, as though they have the right to tell others how to run their repo when they're unable to link a single concrete problematic issue or PR.

Instead, all they have are "vibes", which is ironic.

I mean... they are

isn't that the point? not as if "AI" leads to higher quality is it

> Certain more esoteric concerns about AI code being somehow inherently inferior to “real code” are not based in reality.

if this was true why the need to point out "we're not vibe coding", and create this process around it?

fork and move on

AI is just another way to write code. At the end of the day code is just text. It still needs to be reviewed - nothing about that is changing.

Now, is there hard evidence that AI use does lead to this in all cases? Not that I'm aware of. Just as there's no easy way to prove the difference between "I don't think this is impacting me, but it is" and "it really isn't".

It comes down to two unevidenced assertions - "this will reduce attentiveness" vs "no it won't". But I don't feel great about a project like this just going straight for "no it won't" as though that's something they feel with high confidence.

From where does that confidence come?