Keepassxc: [Feature Request] Associate multiple URLs with a single user/password combo

[boconnell]

Expected Behavior

In the original Keepass (2), one can create a new entry, with a different title/url, and create basically a soft-link (reference) to another entry's username and password. This would help facilitate Passifox's ability to find the user/pass for a given website without having to manage two entries that will always be shared. I understand this is really an expected behavior with Passifox, but passifox is happy to point out that this can be done in the original Keepass.

Current Behavior

You can duplicate an entry, but can't have it reference the original automatically.

[TheZ3ro]

Duplicate of #75

[droidmonkey]

I disagree that this is a duplicate. This is related to the http plugin, not autotype. My opinion is that http should search attributes for additional urls. That is the more elegant solution than duplicating entries.

[Throne3d]

The only solution I've found in KeePass itself is to duplicate an entry, use references, and change the URL – I searched for it at some point and that was a solution. I'm not sure if that's the only one.

I agree that it would be more elegant to have it search additional attributes, but I think it could be handled by the other issue too.

Edit: As far as I know there is not a standard for this in other systems using KDBX, but admittedly I haven't looked around much.

[TheZ3ro]

@droidmonkey #75 is not Autotype but HTTP specific.
Citing from that issue (the autotype word is wrong used. The user meant autofill from ChromeIPass)

Expected Behavior
On Amazon.ca, I should be able to autotype/fill from ChromeIPass the records from amazon.com, as the u/p combo is stored as {REF:U@I:AMAZON.COM_UUID} and {REF:P@I:AMAZON.COM_UUID}

Context
Amazon.com and Amazon.ca both use the same credentials, but as they are using different URLs, they are seen as different sites to Keepass/KeepassX and ChromeIPass. Keepass on Windows manages this by allowing you to create 2+ separate entries, one containing the real values, the other containing a reference via UUID to the first one (http://keepass.info/help/base/fieldrefs.html).

Citing from this Issue

Current Behavior
You can duplicate an entry, but can't have it reference the original automatically.

---

Both Issue are related to reference between entry. That is useful also beside HTTP or Autotype.
Here KeePass docs http://keepass.info/help/base/fieldrefs.html
Also, by inserting URLs in custom attribute the download favicon will need to be extended to custom attributes too?

[phoerious]

For autotype, there is no reason at all to have multiple entries, because you can have multiple autotype conditions per entry. KeePassHTTP is the only reason why you would want something like that, but also only because you can't add multiple URLs to an entry.

[TheZ3ro]

Not really. I can use reference if I have multiple users on the same website so I can set 1 URL and reference it, or having 1 entry with your common username and reference that, or reference same CustomAttribute, and much more.

IMHO it's a duplicate

[droidmonkey]

The reference syntax and usability is questionable to me. So very cumbersome to overcome the simple case of multiple urls. I will investigate the use of an attribute to help overcome this.

[TheZ3ro]

Sadly reference needs to be implemented for KeePassHTTP URLs or for other things. Finding an alternative to what is written in KeePass specifications seems useless to me.

Since you can't have multiple URL for entry you need to use custom attribute (and place an S: before it when using it) or inserting in URL a list of url separated with | or ; but will break lot of things on KeePass side.

[droidmonkey]

How about a compromise? We can close this issue, but #75 should be implemented with a GUI change. We add a button to the entry edit widget: "Reference Entry..." which opens a picker dialog to choose the other entry to reference. This will auto-fill the username and password fields with the crazy S: syntax using the picked reference.

[TheZ3ro]

I totally agree with that, more user friendly.

PS: We should also consider a similar approach for Autotype sequences ;)