170
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
170 points (100.0% liked)
Selfhosted
58589 readers
73 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
-
No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Don't expose jellyfin to the internet is a golden rule.
Kinda defeats the purpose of a media server built to be used by multiple people
Use a VPN, it's not ideal but it's secure.
Somehow difficult to install on a TV though.
That’s why you do it at your router or gateway and then set a route for the Jellyfin server through the VPN adapter. That way any device on your network will flow through the tunnel to the Jellyfin server including TVs
Which again implies that you have a router that allows you to do so. It's not always the case. For tech enthusiast people that's the case. But not for everyone.
I tried to do the same thing at first, but it was a pain, there were tons of issues.
Oh yes, the routers and gateways that most people have that are isp provided that may not actually have open VPN or wireguard support.
Those ones?
Also putting a VPN in someone else's house so that all their Network traffic goes through your gateway is pretty damn extreme.
Don’t reverse proxies like pangolin just do the job? Does it have to be VPN in this particular concept? VPN isn’t like immune to vulnerabilities.
Reverse proxy doesn't really get you much security. If there is an application level issue a reverse proxy will not help
well, at least you are not depending on the application to do TLS properly, and you may be able to set up some access restrictions that your clients may support
Hmmm, I'm a bit rusty on this but can't one put an auth gate in front of the application, handled by the reverse proxy?
Reverse proxy will let anyone connect to it. VPN, you can create keys/logins for your intended users only. Having said that, from what I could see, nothing in the security fixes were to do with authentication. I think (just from a cursory look), they could only be exploited, if at all from an authenticated user session.
But personally, something like jellyfin where the number of people I want to be able to access it is very limited, stays behind a VPN. Better to limit your potential attack surface as much as you can.
That’s never made sense to me; why build an authn frontend instead of just clicking your user if the security is just an illusion anyways. “Use a VPN” is fine for a mainframe, but an active project in 2026 should aspire to be better.
Edit: or make note of that on their several pages with reverse proxy configuration.
Examples dating back over six years https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/5415
It's not this or that. Security comes in layers. So while I would assume that the Jellyfin developers do their best to secure their application, I acknowledge the fact that bugs do exist and that Jellyfin is developed in and for hobbyist contexts, and thus not scrutinised and pentested for vulnerabilities in the way software meant for professional environments would be. Therefore I'll add an extra layer of security by putting it behind a VPN that only whitelisted clients can access. If a vulnerability is detected, I can be sure it hasn't already been exploited to compromise my server because we're all "among friends" there.
Lol you shouldn't make such assumptions when they so obviously place sefiroty last
I mean I'm sure they'd like to just ship safe code in the first place. But if that's not their expertise and they demonstrate that repeatedly, we gotta take steps ourselves. Secure is obviously best, but I'd rather have insecure Jellyfin behind a VPN than no Jellyfin at all.
If I say I custom rolled my own crypto and it's designed to be deployed to the open web, and you inspect it and don't see anything wrong, should you do it?
Jellyfin is young and still in heavy development. As time goes on, more eyes have seen it, and it's been battle hardened, the security naturally gets stronger and the risk lower. I don't agree that no one should ever host a public jellyfin server for all time, but for right now, it should be clear that you're assuming obvious risk.
Technically there's no real problem here. Just like with any vulnerability in any service that's exposed in some way, as long as you update right now you're (probably) fine. I just don't want staying on top of it to be a full time job, so I limit my attack surface by using a VPN.
The original ticket is 2019. That’s 7 years ago.
It responds to and serves content to unauthenticated requests. That’s sorta table stakes if you’re creating an authenticated web service and providing guides to set it up with a reverse proxy.
Ok, I misread what you were linking to. Yeah, that's pretty bad to allow actual streaming of content to unauthed users. I agree they should not be encouraging anyone to set this up to be publicly accessible until those are fixed. Or at least add a warning.
I don't care if someone finds my instance and manages to guess a random number to stream some random movie. Good for them I guess it would be easier to just download it themselves.
there is just too much place in the codebase for vulnerabilities, and also, most projects like this are maintained by volunteers in their free time for free.
I guess if you set up an IP whitelist in the reverse proxy, or a client TLS certificate requirement, it's fine to open it to the internet, but otherwise no.
They’ve stated that they have no intention of ever fixing some of the biggest “anyone can access your media without a login” vulnerabilities, because it would require completely divesting from the Kodi branch that they initially used to start the entire project. And they never plan on rebuilding that from scratch, so those vulnerabilities will never be fixed.
They didn't start the project from Kodi. It is a fork of Emby.
The thing is, if you have non-technical users, you have to set up the VPN connection on the client site yourself, maybe on multiple machines and more than once, if they decide to upgrade or even just reset their devices.
The problem here - it's not me who requires access to my library, if someone isn't willing or able to do it, I'm sorry but that's just how it is. People should stop infantilize non-technical people, absolute majority of them is capable of navigating our world without much problems and I'm willing to help them if help is asked.
If my 60 y.o. mother with close to zero technical skills can do it with limited help (due to distance and other constraints) I'm pretty sure that majority of people with sound mind can.
Or you can not be arrogant towards your friends and family who have probably helped you on lots of occasions and will probably keep being there for you in the future.
Idk man, unconditional sharing feels pretty good, tbh. Making them jump through hoops isn't really my jam. To me this kinda all plays into making a stronger bond with people that are close to me, so maybe we have different reasons for why we are sharing our stuff.
Inb4 "we are not the same" meme
idk man, I wont keep my front gate unlocked just so my friends can come in without keys. either they accept having to carry an additional key, or they won't have access without me, but I'm not going to compromise on reasonable security. oh the burden I know.
I'll help them set it up if they want it, they are not on their own. but zero effort won't work.
Pass. Users cause complexities. Complexities cause issues.
Users cause issues. Programs cause issues. Connecting it to the internet causes issues. Having a computer causes issues. Better turn your laptop off and throw it on the garbage.
Y'all are assuming the security issue is something exploitable without authentication or has something to do with auth.
But it it could be a supply chain issue which a VPN won't protect you from.
to be fair, Jellyfin had multiple unauthenticated vulnerabilities in the past so it makes sense to talk about it
Yeah, i have my 30 docker containers behind Headscale (Tailscale).
If only they would fix the htaccess bug
Just did a cursory read of the commits related to security for this release, and my assumpion based solely on the changes, is that it's not a remote-access vulnerability, but a supply-chain-esque vulnerability where a video you downloaded from a questionable source might trigger code embedded in the metadata to be run by jellyfin.
Utilize authelia perhaps?
Doesn't work with TVs