Vaultwarden SDK

[louwers]

Since the Bitwarden SDK is proprietary, it would be great if there was an open source SDK for interacting with Vaultwarden.

[BlackDex]

That repo is for the Secrets Manager, which Vaultwarden doesn't support.
You probably want to checkout https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk-internal

[BlackDex]

Vaultwarden is using the Bitwarden client API, there should not be anything different. So, just use their SDK/API calls.

Also you would need to decrypt and encrypt the entries also, which should be mentioned in the Bitwarden SDK and is not something Vaultwarden does anything with anywhere.

[louwers]

Interesting, I did not know that. Still, it would be great if there was a library for interacting with Vaultwarden.

So, just use their SDK/API calls.

The problem is that this is not possible. There is the propietary sdk-sm library and there is the sdk-internal package which cannot be relied on by virtue of it being marked internal.

[BlackDex]

Not sure why you cannot rely on internal? It is exactly what Bitwarden uses for all the clients. If I'm correct it's called internal because the clients use it, and public is for the public API endpoints (which Vaultwarden does not support) and it is build using the OpenAPI/Swagger generated json file during the Bitwarden server builds. You can find those json's here your self.

https://github.com/bitwarden/server/actions/runs/30137109914 this is just a randomly selected build action.

Again, there should be no difference (or at least not much) between a Vaultwarden or Bitwarden server in regards to calls and responses.

[louwers]

No, it's called internal because there are no stability guarantees. See the big warning on top of the repo. Although:

As the SDK evolves into a more stable and feature complete state we will re-evaluate the possibility of publishing stable bindings for the public.

So I guess I just have to wait until that happens.

[BlackDex]

An evolving SDK is not strange for software, especially if it is mainly server and clients you develop your self.

That would also mean exactly the same for Vaultwarden than, since we follow that same client API, and would never be stable. As an example, the latest release we needed to rush because newer clients were not compatible anymore. We try to keep compatible with Bitwarden, And thus we would need to keep changing also.

My suggestion still stands, use the internal.json generated swagger and probably also identity.json which is used by the internal-sdk repo.