[GH-ISSUE #5] Implement organizations [wip]

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:23:39 +03:00

Owner

Copy link

Originally created by @mprasil on GitHub (Apr 20, 2018).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/issues/5

There's some ground work laid out already, let's track the progress here.
Endpoints to implement:

/api/organizations
/api/organizations/{orgId}/collections
/api/organizations/{orgId}/users
/organizations/{org_id}/collections/{coll_id}/users
/api/organizations/{orgId}/users/{orgUserId}/accept
/api/organizations/{orgId}/users/{orgUserId}/confirm
/api/organizations/{orgId}/users/invite
/api/organizations/users
/api/users/{userId}/public-key
/organizations/{org_id}/delete
/api/ciphers/{cipher_id}/collections-admin (#13)

Other changes:

/accounts/profile needs to list organizations for user
separate folder id from cipher to allow per-user folders (#10)
Respect the read_only bit when a user tries to modify a Cipher from a Collection
List all user Ciphers, including those from Collections the User has access to (#14)

Originally created by @mprasil on GitHub (Apr 20, 2018). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/issues/5 There's some ground work laid out already, let's track the progress here. Endpoints to implement: - [x] /api/organizations - [x] /api/organizations/{orgId}/collections - [x] /api/organizations/{orgId}/users - [x] /organizations/{org_id}/collections/{coll_id}/users - [x] /api/organizations/{orgId}/users/{orgUserId}/accept - [x] /api/organizations/{orgId}/users/{orgUserId}/confirm - [x] /api/organizations/{orgId}/users/invite - [x] /api/organizations/users - [x] /api/users/{userId}/public-key - [x] /organizations/{org_id}/delete - [x] /api/ciphers/{cipher_id}/collections-admin (#13) Other changes: - [x] /accounts/profile needs to list organizations for user - [x] separate folder id from cipher to allow per-user folders (#10) - [x] Respect the read_only bit when a user tries to modify a Cipher from a Collection - [x] List all user Ciphers, including those from Collections the User has access to (#14)

kerem closed this issue

2026-03-03 01:23:39 +03:00

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:23:40 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Apr 20, 2018):

Yeah, the work on organizations is barely started. I don't have a lot of use for that functionality myself, and it's a pretty big change, so I don't have time at the moment to do it myself. That said, if you or anyone else would want to implement it, I'd gladly accept the PRs!

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Apr 20, 2018): Yeah, the work on organizations is barely started. I don't have a lot of use for that functionality myself, and it's a pretty big change, so I don't have time at the moment to do it myself. That said, if you or anyone else would want to implement it, I'd gladly accept the PRs!

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:23:40 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (May 4, 2018):

With your PR and my latest fix (7e7c368) we can finally share ciphers between users with an organization.
For now, the Ciphers from the Organization are only available from the Organization page.

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (May 4, 2018): With your PR and my latest fix (7e7c368) we can finally share ciphers between users with an organization. For now, the Ciphers from the Organization are only available from the Organization page.

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:23:40 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@mprasil commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2018):

Uhm.. so do we miss anything for this? If we're ready to close it, can I suggest bumping the version to 0.2.0 or something? ✌️

@mprasil commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2018): Uhm.. so do we miss anything for this? If we're ready to close it, can I suggest bumping the version to 0.2.0 or something? ✌️

kerem commented

2026-03-03 01:23:40 +03:00

Author

Owner

Copy link

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2018):

I forgot that we have a version 🤔 . We probably would be at 0.6.0 at least!

Yeeah, I think it's done, as far as I know. With this, the only thing left to be feature-equivalent with upstream would be:

implementing other 2Factor methods, like YubiKey or U2F (I don't know how these work and I don't have the hardware to test, so I won't be personally implementing this)
Enterprise features, like directory sync (I don't have a way to test this either, and I don't see much use for it, so I won't implement it)

I'll bump the version to 0.9.0, as in my view it's basically feature complete, but there might be bugs still. Once some time has passed and if there aren't any bugs left to fix, we could promote it to 1.0.

@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Jun 1, 2018): I forgot that we have a version 🤔 . We probably would be at 0.6.0 at least! Yeeah, I think it's done, as far as I know. With this, the only thing left to be feature-equivalent with upstream would be: - implementing other 2Factor methods, like YubiKey or U2F (I don't know how these work and I don't have the hardware to test, so I won't be personally implementing this) - Enterprise features, like directory sync (I don't have a way to test this either, and I don't see much use for it, so I won't implement it) I'll bump the version to 0.9.0, as in my view it's basically feature complete, but there might be bugs still. Once some time has passed and if there aren't any bugs left to fix, we could promote it to 1.0.

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-03 02:19:27 +03:00

[GH-ISSUE #6871] Permission Editing not possible #2560

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-03 02:19:47 +03:00

[PR #2] [MERGED] Fetch Vault from upstream when building Docker image #2563

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-03 02:20:01 +03:00

[PR #107] [MERGED] Bug/attachments for orgs #2610

kerem referenced this issue

2026-03-03 02:20:02 +03:00

[PR #109] [MERGED] Merge changes from master to beta #2612