Sharing an individual login
I'd like to share specific logins with someone but not give them access to the entire vault. I could create a separate shared vault but I need the login to stay where it is so that other users (who do need access to the entire vault) can still get access to it. I could copy the login, but then if I update one, I have to update multiple.
What's the best way to share one or two individual logins without giving access to the entire vault?
1Password Version: Not Provided
Extension Version: Not Provided
OS Version: Not Provided
Sync Type: Not Provided
Comments
-
@paulminors - currently, the approach to this is vault-based. If you've got a vault currently that a subset of users needs access to (all the contents) and a couple of items in that vault that another subgroup of people need access to (but not the rest of the items), then the best solution will be to create a new vault, move those few items that BOTH groups need access to into this new vault, then invite everyone. Other options, such as individually sharing via AirDrop or Messages or other methods (or simply copying the item instead of moving it) will leave you with (as you note) two separate, unsynced items that would have to both be updated. The less you can do that, the better. But you're always free to create as many vaults as you wish, and share them with whatever subset of users you like.
0 -
Thanks for the help Lars
0 -
Glad Lars was able to help. We're here if you have any other questions. :) :+1:
0 -
I would like to register my "upvote" on the wish to have "per-item" access. Reading 1Password employee comments from this and some other threads I understand that it would not be a small feat to achieve, but I still believe it would be worth it. It would require a fundamental change - vaults would need to change from containers to catalogues of item IDs, and the UI would then have to hide any items that the user doesn't have access to.
Perhaps this could be achieved by having something like "Vault folders" containing multiple vaults, and then changing the definition of a vault to an item that can have many pieces of information (that currently are called items). This would allow for more-or-less a "bolt-on" approach to bringing this feature, instead of doing a total redesign from ground up. But I believe you people at 1Password have already thought of multiple options on how to achieve this :smile:
Anyway, we're just adopting 1Password, so I'm glad to have learned of this limitation before actually planning our vault structure.
0 -
@veimmone: It would be easily achievable if there weren't this whole "security" thing. ;) Rather than being just jargon, vaults are actually a fundamental structure in 1Password's security model. Breaking that down so that each item can be shared individually, and in a secure fashion, would mean that each item would need to be encrypted separately. That can be done, but it increases the complexity and resources used significantly. It may be more feasible over time. But really, at the end of the day, what's the difference if you share a single item, or a vault with a single item in it? The latter scales much better than the former, not only technically, but also as far as UI, management, and just people being able to wrap their heads around it. So for now, I'd suggest just pretending that a vault shared with the purpose of sharing a single item is a single item -- you can even name it that way if you want -- unless and until you decide you want to use that to share additional items.
Thanks for your encouragement though. Glad to hear that you're enjoying 1Password! We're here if you need us. :)
0 -
Yes, and that’s how we will proceed. What I was longing for was some categorization of vaults (”Network gear” for example), but then again, realized that I can use tags to categorize items and then browse by tags. This might be all that is needed. I’ll report back if this is not successful.
0 -
@veimmone: This might drag us down into a rabbit hole, but you can name vaults whatever you want and even give them custom icons...so you could do that anyway. Categories are more rigid, but tags are useful for that kind of thing too. I think really it's a matter of what makes most sense in your workflow, given the constraints. Cheers! :)
0
