Discussion on password‑book support for .kdbx format

[GooseL]

For privacy‑focused users, many choose to use both encrypted containers and password‑management tools. Among password managers, the .kdbx file format from KeePass enjoys a large user base. While some users are comfortable running two separate mobile apps for these tasks, others would prefer to rely on a single secure, well‑built application for unified management.

Vault already has built‑in password‑management features. However, KeePass on desktop cannot read or write its password data.

As Vault continues to mature, I would like to propose adding compatibility with the KeePass (.kdbx) file format to the roadmap.

Within the app, add a separate Password Manager category placed at the same hierarchy level as Encrypted Containers. It should open with comparable simplicity: unlock via fingerprint, and be fully protected under the duress‑resistance mode (stored master passwords get wiped under duress).

Full‑featured autofill is not required. Basic functionality would suffice: open entries, tap to view content, and limited copy‑and‑paste operations.

I am curious to hear the maintainers’ thoughts on this idea and welcome further discussion.

[GooseL]

@R0b0To

I relied on AI translation for this post, so please forgive any unnatural wording. Also, a quick note to the developer — hope you don’t stress yourself out too much and look after your hair QAQ

[R0b0To]

​I thought about doing something like that with the vaults, but I backed off because the limitations made the workflow feel pretty clunky.
Having to open the app, unlock it, unlock the vault, search, and copy is fine for a one-off thing, but it gets annoying fast if you're using it as a daily password manager.
Plus, autofill can’t work while the vault is sealed. the app has no idea what credentials it holds unless they're exposed before unlocking.

For now, I can just add support for the other third party password formats without creating a whole new vault type. A decent tradeoff might be using a standard supported vault that only holds passwords.

[GooseL]

Bro, no problem at all. Please proceed exactly as you originally planned. Compared to the main course, this is merely a dessert after the meal. It would be nice to have it, but it’s also fine without it.

[docfastweb]

Indeed, the idea of finding solutions for every possible use case is very tempting. However, in my view, the existing functionality already covers a huge portion of the need for securely storing confidential data.

There is still a great deal of work to be done to refine the existing functionality and ensure that it provides the appropriate level of reliability. I also actively use KeePass, but in this particular case, I feel that combining these two areas would be excessive.

On the other hand, adding a built-in keyboard to VaultExplorer in the future—one that enables secure access to the vault—would be a perfectly justified measure from the standpoint of maximizing protection against potential risks from the “external environment.”