170
submitted 3 weeks ago by Mubelotix@jlai.lu to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] clif@lemmy.world 38 points 3 weeks ago

Thank you for posting this. I tend to get a lot of my opensource project info from Lemmy so people who take the time to post it are awesome.

Just updated my home instance. Can confirm that 10.11.7 is available in the Debian repos and the update went perfect. I got a new kernel in the same update : D

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] esc@piefed.social 30 points 3 weeks ago

Don't expose jellyfin to the internet is a golden rule.

[-] Damarus@feddit.org 11 points 3 weeks ago

Kinda defeats the purpose of a media server built to be used by multiple people

[-] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Use a VPN, it's not ideal but it's secure.

[-] faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 weeks ago

Somehow difficult to install on a TV though.

[-] ramble81@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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

[-] IratePirate@feddit.org 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[-] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 weeks ago

Young.

The original ticket is 2019. That’s 7 years ago.

Technically there's no real problem here.

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.

[-] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 3 weeks ago

If only they would fix the htaccess bug

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

to be fair, Jellyfin had multiple unauthenticated vulnerabilities in the past so it makes sense to talk about it

[-] LycaKnight@infosec.pub 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, i have my 30 docker containers behind Headscale (Tailscale).

[-] Lemmchen@feddit.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] esc@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[-] Lemmchen@feddit.org 4 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] catlover@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 weeks ago

I forgot that it's April first, and was wondering what catasthropic event had happend in order that it had to be stated in the title that its not a joke

[-] Burghler@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 weeks ago

Wonder if it's the Axios one. Sounds like it isn't from their description though hmm

[-] doeknius_gloek@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 weeks ago

I don't think so, the previous release 10.11.6 is a few months old and the axios supply chain attack happened yesterday.

[-] Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show 5 points 3 weeks ago

So lets hope this 10.11.7 is not subject to the axios one. :)

[-] rollerbang@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Diff agrees, not likely. Might be permisson related, elevation of privileges.

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 6 points 3 weeks ago

From a cursory look at just the security commits. Looks like the following:

  • GHSA-j2hf-x4q5-47j3: Checks if a media shortcut is empty, and checks if it is remote and stores the remote protocol if so. Also prevent strm files (these are meant to contain links to a stream) from referencing local files. Indeed this might have been used to reference files jellyfin couldn't usually see?
  • GHSA-8fw7-f233-ffr8: Seems to be similar, except for M3U file link validation and limiting allowed protocols. It also changes the default permissions for live TV management to false.
  • GHSA-v2jv-54xj-h76w: When creating a structure there should be a limit of 200 characters for a string which was not enforced.
  • GHSA-jh22-fw8w-2v9x: Not really completely sure here. They change regex to regexstr in a lot of places and it looks like some extra validation around choosing transcoding settings.

I'm not really sure how serious any of these are, or how they could be exploited however. Well aside from the local file in stream files one.

[-] chuso@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, the key seems to be in the comments from one of the changes: https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/commit/0581cd661021752e5063e338c718f211c8929310#diff-bcc2125e56d5738b4778802ac650ca47719845aeee582f3b5c9b46af82ea9979R1176-R1180

It seems there was the potential risk that insufficient validation could allow reading arbitrary server files, which indeed poses a security risk.

However, my understanding is that this could be exploited only by authenticated users with permission to add new media. Not like that's a risk to ignore, but it's not like it could be exploited by anyone on the Internet.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] varnia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 weeks ago

There is a good reason I only have Jellyfin and other services accessible via valid Client Certificate.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

You can always tell who does real IT work in these threads lol

[-] cholesterol@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

In the raspian repos, just updated, thanks.

[-] Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show 5 points 3 weeks ago

also in the docker repository.

[-] sefra1@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Good thing my Jellyfin is behind Wireguard.

Consider doing the same if your usecase permits.

[-] webkitten@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

Pretty flawless update from the apt repo on my end.

Server version 10.11.7  
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
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:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. 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.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

  7. No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS