Jump to content
Enpass Discussion Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

The ability to create multiple vaults is extremely useful, but maintaining identical entries, across several vaults, is time-consuming and or prone to error.

As a feature consideration, if every entry copied from the Primary vault, to a secondary vault, could be internally linked, any update made to that entry would automatically update the matching entry in all other vaults.

The most flexible, would be two-way syncing where an entry can be updated via any vault, Primary or Secondary. But possibly a more stable approach, would be to treat the Primary vault as the master, so only when an entry is updated via the Primary vault, would it then synchronize that change with the other vaults.

With this one-way master vault approach, an entry copied to a secondary vault could be linked or independent. A linked entry would become read only, while an independent entry would be read and write. This would ensure the Primary vault maintained full control over its own updates, while allowing secondary vaults, full control over entries unique to that specific vault.

Every linked entry, copied from the Primary vault, would remain part of the Primary vault, not a separate entry. It's a bit like saying, please allow these Primary vault entries to also appear in these secondary vaults. Such a setup would follow Enpass's offline design, with synchronization being within the app itself, and it would also ensure audits were consistent between the different vaults.

I hope I’ve explained this reasonably clearly. Enpass is a really powerful tool and with the increasing number of devices and users, within each account, the ability to maintain control becomes even more important. 

Thank you, once again, for Enpass’ continued development.

  • Like 1
Posted

That's a very nice suggestion imho. 

I actually had a similar idea only yesterday, where I was thinking of suggesting an additional Field-type of type "Link", where I'd point out vault>item>field. That way I could share passwords or other attributes of an item for multiple entries, or have a Website login in one item, and refer the TOTP to another item, in another vault (to store them separately in the cloud)

There would also be a big difference between links and copies /sync, and also in the ways secondary vaults are used: in a case where one has multiple vaults for himself, both links and syncs of items/fields would work, where in the case of a vault shared between users, the primary vault with the source-item might not be present, hence a sync process would work, but not links. 

 

Maybe only a two-way sync is needed. If you share a vault and item with someone, you trust them with the content if you're create a linked item. 

Otherwise you'd share it normally to the shared vault or via a PSK which the receiver adds to his primary vault 

If you're having all the vaults for your own use, it wouldn't add much with a one-way AND two-way

Anyway, good idea, your idea is probably more realistic to implement.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Ivarson - Thank you for your comment. Yes, as you say, there are various advantages to both approaches. The reason I thought one-way, could be more viable, is it wouldn't necessarily require any syncing, as entries are purely shared with multiple vaults. The other advantage of one-way is in a family set-up, it would ensure there can only be one version of a particular entry, while still allowing secondary vaults to create and control their own unique entries.

The absolute ideal would be to also have a master list, collating every entry from every vault, giving the account owner an overview of the entire system.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and here's hoping.

 

Edited by Thoughts?
  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...