I just turned back from 9.2.2 to 9.2.0. The browser add-on does not work, says it needs 9.2.2 but i do not get an update for it. Also the searchbar font is black and not readable. All buttons are shown like “Toolbox.NewPasswordItem”, “Toolbox.OpenItem”. Should not show “Toolbox..” and i use it in german language, now shown in english.
This seem to me that there are some issues that need to be fixed first.
Apologies for the delay with the browser extensions. Since each browser store reviews and approves new releases on its own schedule, these delays can occasionally happen. At the moment, the latest version is already available in Edge, but we’re still waiting on Chrome.
(Thanks again for the heads-up — we’ll make sure to highlight this more clearly in future release communications!)
We’ve also double-checked the Web App on our end and couldn’t reproduce any of the reported behavior. It’s most likely a cache issue — doing a full reload while bypassing the cache should resolve it.
If not, as Gerrit mentioned, please create a ticket with our support team so we can investigate further.
Let us know if there’s anything else — we’re happy to help!
Just as feedback: Updating the server, web app, and client simultaneously is always a challenge for us. We have 100+ installations in the field, and even with SCCM, it takes time for all of them to update. This causes downtime and requires prior notice, making the process more complex. It would really help if there were at least some compatibility between versions so we could upgrade the server and client independently and install this security patch earlier.
Hey Lukas - thanks so much for your feedback. We always appreciate hearing from our users and learning more about the real-world challenges you face during implementation.
This topic is also tricky for us. We aim to maintain extended compatibility between server and client versions whenever possible. However, specific technical changes - especially those involving our Windows app - sometimes require us to limit compatibility to ensure stability and performance.
That said, improving version compatibility is definitely on our radar, and we’re actively exploring ways to improve it in future releases. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
We have problems with applications which are connecting through the API. For an example the DevolutionsRDP Manager is no longer able to get Passwords from Password Secure. Are there any changes regarding the API authentication? Thanks
We’re aware of some ongoing integration issues (not limited to a specific version) and are actively working on a solution from both ends. In the meantime, it would be super helpful if you could share the specific behavior with our support team — any additional details are always appreciated and help us speed things up.
We are also experiencing the same issue during the setup of version 9.2.2.32703 — there is no API connection to Devolutions’ Remote Desktop Manager.
We have opened a ticket on both sides. The lack of an API connection to RDM is an absolute showstopper for us, and as a result, we are unable to address the identified security vulnerabilities.
Thanks for raising this — we know many of you rely on this integration and want clarity. While the integration has been in place for a long time and has gone through its share of updates and maintenance from both sides, we’ve decided not to change the current level of partnership at this time.
As a result, the integration is no longer being actively developed. However, we will try again to explore a solution to support existing users and ensure stability where possible. If there are changes that impact your setup, we’ll communicate clearly and provide guidance.
We understand this may raise questions, and we’re here to help you navigate any transitions. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to our support team with specific concerns.
thank you. But in your answer is an contradiction:
On one hand, it says: “the integration is no longer being actively developed” – meaning the integration is no longer under active development.
On the other hand, it also states: “we will try again to explore a solution to support existing users and ensure stability where possible” – which implies that there might still be further efforts to support and maintain stability.
Why is this contradictory?
If there is no active development, it’s unclear how solutions for existing users or stability improvements would be delivered. It sounds like development has stopped, yet there are still intentions to make changes or offer support – which seems contradictory or at least ambiguous.
A clearer statement (e.g., “no new features, but critical fixes might still be addressed”) would help clarify the actual scope of ongoing support.
Hey – thanks so much for your follow-up and for digging into this so thoroughly. You’re absolutely right to ask for clarity, and we want to reassure you that we’re actively working on it.
We’ll be sharing more details, guidance, and plans as soon as we’re able — we just need a bit more time to work through everything properly.
In the meantime, we really appreciate your patience and understanding. And of course, if you have any immediate concerns or need support, we’re here to help.
– great to have you in the community! 
Cheers -sascha