mirror of
https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden.git
synced 2026-04-27 02:05:57 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #780] [BUG] Change data in the web overwritten password saved from Chrome extension #540
Labels
No labels
SSO
Third party
better for forum
bug
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
future Vault
future Vault
future Vault
good first issue
help wanted
low priority
notes
pull-request
question
troubleshooting
wontfix
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/vaultwarden#540
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @yegle on GitHub (Dec 26, 2019).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/issues/780
Subject of the issue
(Note: I'm not sure if this is a bug in the official Chrome extension or in the bitwraden_rs project. But I'm gonna report it here first.)
This is a potential data loss bug that can be easily reproduced, so would appreciate if this can be prioritized.
Your environment
Steps to reproduce
simplewith login URlhttps://example.com.example.comin the list asVery Weak.example.com, modify the password tocomplex, save. At this time, you should see "Password history: $NUM" in the Chrome extension.foo) then save.Expected behaviour
The username of the entry should be
fooand the password should becomplex, with at least one password history with valuesimple.Actual behaviour
The username is
fooas expected, the password issimple, there's no password history at all. I.e. the password that I saved from the browser extension is gone.FWIW: this is actually happening to me when I go through weak passwords report one by one and modify the password in a different tab, and accidentally saved the form with modified data in the web UI.
Relevant logs
@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2019):
Okay, I've tried it upstream to see what would happen, and there the result is a password of simple, with the password of complex in the pasword history. We should change it to at least match that behavior.
That said, you are right that neither implementation handles concurrent editing very well.