this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
696 points (99.2% liked)

Selfhosted

56957 readers
806 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] esc@piefed.social 171 points 4 days ago (27 children)

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

[–] Damarus@feddit.org 112 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 59 points 4 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone 44 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Somehow difficult to install on a TV though.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 24 points 4 days ago (2 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

[–] faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone 46 points 4 days 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 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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 (1 replies)
[–] tiz@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 days ago (5 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.

[–] radar@programming.dev 31 points 4 days 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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] r00ty@kbin.life 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Reverse proxies like the one specifically mentioned, pangolin, have auth and user access rules.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ugo@feddit.it 9 points 4 days ago (4 children)

No need to expose jellyfin to the internet if you selectively allow peers on your lan via wireguard.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago

This attitude is why Plex remains popular.

[–] keyez@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago (5 children)

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

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nor will the VPN work on things like their TV or Roku or game console. You know the things that people typically sit down and watch media on....

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Damarus@feddit.org 14 points 4 days ago (9 children)

I'd rather just not use it at that point

[–] ugo@feddit.it 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Fair, you do you, I get a lot of value out of it instead.

[–] Damarus@feddit.org 12 points 4 days ago

The difference is that my friends get a lot of value out of my server, as they don't need to use any technology they're unfamiliar with.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 73 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (22 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

[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 39 points 4 days 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.

[–] IratePirate@feddit.org 27 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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)
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days 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.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 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.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 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.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ligma_centauri@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] LycaKnight@infosec.pub 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] pfr@piefed.social 8 points 4 days ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lemmchen@feddit.org 8 points 4 days ago (2 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.

[–] esc@piefed.social 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 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.

[–] Lemmchen@feddit.org 8 points 4 days 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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] IratePirate@feddit.org 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This. And for everyone you just can't figure it out on their own, there's RustDesk for remote assistance. It, too, can be self-hosted.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 3 days ago

If only they would fix the htaccess bug

load more comments (20 replies)