Linux

The response by the debian maintainer responsible for this change to the keepassxc developer is an actual disgrace

Request to revert change:

@julian-klode this needs to be reverted asap. This is now our fourth bug report because of the decision to neuter the base KeePassXC package in Debian. Put the base package back where it was and create a keepassxc-minimal.

Response by debian maintainer:

julian-klode commented 9 hours ago: I'm afraid that's not going to happen. It was a mistake to ship with all plugins built by default. This will be painful for a year as users annoyingly do not read the NEWS files they should be reading but there's little that can be done about that. It is our responsibility to our users to provide them the most secure option possible as the default. All of these features are superfluous and do not really belong in a local password database manager, these developments are all utterly misguided. Users who need this crap can install the crappy version but obviously this increases the risk of drive-by contributor attacks.

The whole github issue is worth a read, as it actually explains the issue with the change.

Edit: as i gave the debian maintainers view visibility i wanted to give a quick summary of the keepassxc point of view as well:

• julian-klode specifically mentions attacks by contributors of keepassxc. If you don’t trust the developers, why would you trust the minimal package which is developed by the same people?

• If the Debian packagers have good reason to believe the keepassxc-full version presents a broader attack surface, then they ought to present what they've seen that makes them feel that way, not promote baseless innuendo.

• the features are disabled by default. If you do not opt in, the code never gets executed.

• the safest version of keepassxc is the one thats tested, meaning full featured

• removing all those features doesn’t make it more secure, it dumbs it down to an encrypted spreadsheet and makes it less secure. Users should be automatically notified when one of their accounts has been breached and their password for that account has been found floating in a db dump. Users should rely on their password manager to handle logins for them, so they're less likely to get tricked into a phishing page.

• if you disagree with features in someones app you fork it. You do not change it and distribute it under the same name. A -minimal version would have been ok

• Debians own policy is to communicate with upstream beforehand before introducing changes. This was not the case, nor was there a chance to collaborate on an effective solution for both parties.

• Debian could have chosen to give users an informed choice between -full and -minimal. Instead they broke existing users installs.

• People saying it was released in Debian sid, which is meant for changes. It is also meant for Feedback, which julian-klode refuses to listen to.