SQLite doesn't fix this, because you would still need to encrypt the whole file (at least with standard sqlite). If you just encrypted the data in the cells of the table, then you would expose metadata in plaintext.

SQLCipher does provide that, but as mentioned by others, it isn't quite the same thing as sqlite, and is maintained by a different entity.

> The primary issue is that new features cannot be added natively to the XML tree without causing breaking changes for older clients or third-party clients which have not adopted the change yet.

That isn't a limitation of xml, and could also be an issue with sqlite. The real problem here is if clients fail if they encounter tags or attributes they don't recognize. The fix here is for clients to just ignore data it doesn't know about, whether that is xml or sqlite.

The complaints about compatibility between different implementations would be just as bad with sqlite. You would still have some implementations storing data in custom attributes, and others using builtin fields. In fact it could be even worse if separate implementations have diverging schemas for the tables.

> Governance Issues

None of this has anything to do with sqlite vs xml. It is a social issue that could be solved without switching the underlying format, or remain an issue even if it was changed.

EDIT: also you don't need to have just one password vault and I'd say you probably shouldn't, separate entries also assist with separation of concerns. This last adds a little overhead but is a reasonable workaround.

However on the whole I like sqlite for app persistence. It can, however, leak data (forensically) if not managed properly.

Perfectly possible with XML too

> An SQLite based store is one of the most tested and optimal formats for document and application storage

It's optimized for things that largely don't matter for password storage. The testing is admirable, but there's no issue of keepass clients crashing or corrupting data so again, not very relevant (probably because of low concurrency, simple writes etc).

> A switch this big is a major chance to fix the governance structure and align it more with a democratic consortium than a benevolent-dictator-for-life style of project management

You don't need a technical change to solve this. In fact, a fork that would fracture clients is the last thing you need when making governance changes.

> So many quality of life features can be added where the old schema disallowed it

All of the features they list can be achieved with an XML format. The format isn't what's holding them back.

If anything, maybe give people the option to export to SQLite and then use that going forward but keep it entirely optional.

Why is your KDBX file 20 MiB? It seems you are storing something that is not actually a good fit for a password manager, and expecting the entire world to change around you instead of storing those files in a more appropriate place.

It uses SQLCypher as local data store and keeps KeePass-compatible data model - supports import of .kdbx database.

SQLCypher and different schema used in Lockstep alone did not solve any problems that I have with Keepass. Those problems are sync and sharing.

Solving sync and sharing cannot be done on whole database file level, as it implemented now in KeePass. Changes need to be tracked at the password record level, all changes need to persisted as operations log and that log needs to be distributed across devices.

The above means writing a whole protocol, and that's a lot more work than changing local storage.

The project is pre-alfa https://github.com/lockstepvault-hq/lockstep

For 10 years I've managed a family of 4 in a single KeePass db. Unique passwords across all accounts, random passwords instead of PII for "security questions", fake DOBs, and all other random security related stuff. Never had a single issue. Everything happens instantly as far as I can tell. And the file is 67kb.

My work dbs, separate only because they should be, are much smaller and simpler.

I love KeePass. Changing everything under the hood probably only has potential to make pain for the user. Best case is that nothing is made noticeably worse. Doesn't seem worth the risk.

It is weird when people wants to change something that works just great.

KeePass have served me well for years on Windows, Mac, Android, Linux using Dropbox and Syncthing as storage. Don't mess with it.

Ok, but "some" isn't even "many", and the core reason why the single-file problem doesn't go away with sqlite

Instead the new solution must be dumb-cloud-friendly any rely on multiple files, and definitely split all the pdfs and icons away from the few kilobytes of actual user passwords

> use one of the many other ways to operate the database as a single file and be on your way

Don't you still have to download and upload that 100MB pretty often? I feel like password databases get modified every few days, not every few months.

Moreover, if an app really wants to optimize the file-not-modified case for people who don't modify it often, can't it just internally cache an encrypted version of the database in another format -- in SQLite, even! -- and use that when the checksum/file time/whatever matches what they expect?

I feel like a client that actually cares about the user should tell them how much more expensive the file gets with each entry being added: "Hey, based on your recent download/upload speeds on this device, embedding this 1MiB file would add a 5-second delay." Switching the entire world from XML to SQLite seems like it completely misses the fundamental issue.

A key aspect of SQLite's development model is its proprietary test suite. As far as I can tell, the SQLCipher developers do not have access to those tests.

This is not to say they aren't doing the best with what they've got, but SQLCipher is a fork of SQLite, and the scope of the changes they must make, no matter how conservatively they try to make them, should lead to a full re-test of the entire product, which they cannot do.

EDIT: I don't want this to come off as spreading FUD. The SQLCipher developers do a good job of laying out their development methodology, the relative (un-)testability of their product vs. SQLite, and other tradeoffs pretty well in the repository's README: https://github.com/sqlcipher/sqlcipher?tab=readme-ov-file#sq...

I built KeePass Tusk back in 2018, for example. This would kill the project and abandon 30K users without a rewrite of the JS engine (there are several now!)

I agree with you that KDBX sucks, but at this point a keepass based on SQLite would be keepass in name only, a new password manager to migrate to.

You can pay me to build you SAP in Excel, but you really shouldn't!

If you have a 100mb password database, should you be moving to a more scalable solution?

I’m at 1.6Mb, and with the frequency by which I update entries, the cost of data migration is relatively high compared to the data cost.

This seems like an implementation issue rather than a format/spec issue.

What issues does storing an encrypted value (password, metadata, etc) associated with a particular key (let's say website name) have? (apart from leaking the fact that that file has a entry associated with that site)

I don't get it. Is this a reference to database cursors? Or is it implying that the blog post was AI generated?

I store every single important piece of info in my KeePass database. It stores ALL of my passwords, my SSN, credit cards, my health information, even some weird stuff like my vehicle maintainence records and whatnot. My KDBX file currently sits at 466K. Size is not a particularly compelling reason. Hate to be that guy, but if your database is much larger than that - you're probably doing it wrong.

Newer features like TOTP and passkeys are likewise not a concern for me. What did KeePassXC do when TOTP came around? They stored the relevant data in the attributes, and added a UI around it. It even works with my Steam TOTP, which is a nonstandard implementation. I haven't looked into it, but I imagine they did the same thing with passkeys. I don't see why this couldn't continue to be the paradigm they use. I don't use attributes at all - I haven't needed to, the notes section work great - but I do appreciate being able to look into the "raw data" of attributes quite easily, from within the UI.

If KeePass were being developed from scratch today, or if the developers of the various projects collectively really, really want to switch to a SQLite system of their own volition. Then sure, SQLite. I'm not going to ask them to do that now though.

---

On a separate note, an unfufilled niche that I have though, if anyone's looking for ideas. My secure password storage is a solved problem, KeePass is cross platform, easy to use, and very secure. What remains a problem is secure notes. I want to be able to write markdown (`.md`) documents, add photos and PDFs, then save it to a secure, encrypted folder somewhere. Doesn't need the same security posture as KeePass, but I don't want to leak metadata like file names.

Obsidian - my current notes app - is good from a usability standpoint, but it's not exactly secure. I could pair it up with Veracrypt, but that's a pain from a usability standpoint, and I don't trust my OS to keep the mounted Veracrypt volume contents a secret. Whatever the solution is, it must have a GPL license, or else I'm not going to trust it - from a long-term viability standpoint more than anything else.

If anyone has any suggestions here, would love to hear them.

I mean if I wanted to start new password manager right now it would be a good choice to "just use SQLite" but for existing solution backward compatibility is far more important

Eh? I always thought of pass[1] in that role.

> Devising a new schema based on SQLite would allow for current features that are being jerry-rigged into the attributes to have their own real place in the database, rather than clogging the user-facing fields. It also ensures that if in the future, some weird authentication method were to come out, no breaking changes would be needed. You simply would add a table to accommodate it, and old clients would simply not support the feature and just load the database without it. Of course, a warning would be shown to the user if somehow their database uses new features on an old client.

Using a relational database does not solve this problem at all. It doesn’t even address it at all.

The original problem is you have multiple implementations defining their own data model. Whether the backend is a file, a database, or a post-it note, that doesn’t work.

Just as you can ignore tables in a database, you can ignore attributes in XML.

[1]: https://www.passwordstore.org/