you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 172 points 5 months ago (127 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 127 child comments
  • [–] 117 points 5 months ago (46 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 5 months ago (18 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Somehow difficult to install on a TV though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 5 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Reverse proxy doesn't really get you much security. If there is an application level issue a reverse proxy will not help

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Pangolin is based off of Traefik if I’m not mistaken, should be able to use Traefiks IPAllowlist middleware to blacklist all IP addresses and only whitelisting the known few, that way you can expose your application to the internet knowing you have that restriction in place for those who connect to your service.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 9 points 5 months ago (26 children)
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Easy for me but not my aunts, cousins or father in law to setup and use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    I'd rather just not use it at that point

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (13 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Which doesn't work for The grand majority of devices that would be used to watch said media.

    Tvs game consoles rokus so on so forth typically don't support VPN clients.

    The Jonathan clients for these devices also typically don't support alternative authentication methods which would allow you to put jellyfin behind a proxy and have the proxy exposed to the internet. Gating all access to jellyfin apis behind a primary authentication layer thus mitigating effectively all security vulnerabilities that are currently open.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 73 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (28 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 5 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (19 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (5 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago* (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    I'm not arrogant, just don't assume that people are dumb and inept. If they can't or don't want to give a bit of time to setup it, well how can someone be forced to use free service that causes momentarily inconvenience once to use. 😔

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    So use a reverse proxy with authentiacation before access to Jellyfin is allowed. I use Caddy forward_auth with Authelia for this. Unless you also want to use the apps without VPN, this works great.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (27 replies)