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
[–] 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.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip -2 points 3 days ago

What? No, you can do a tiny reverse proxy/vpn on a stick with something like a RPi. Configure it and give it to them. Then they point their Jellyfin client on their device to the IP of the RPi instance on their network and that creates the tunnel back to your VPN endpoint and server.

And for VPNs at a router level you can inject routes and leave th default route going out through your ISP, you don’t need to, nor want to, have all traffic going through it.

[–] tiz@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 days ago (3 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 (3 children)

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

[–] whimsy@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] radar@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You can, that would actually give you security. Not sure how many people do that. I assumed a straight reverse proxy without any auth

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

I think that's one of the major reasons to use pangolin over something like nginx - built in auth and support for oidc.

Of course, the native jellyfin apps don't like the auth layer so idk if it helps if you're trying to install it on your dad's tv

[–] tiz@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago

I see thanks. I’ll think about it more.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

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

[–] 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.

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 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.

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

If the people you want to have access have static, exclusive ip addresses. Which is pretty unusual, these days.

[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Oh yeah I’m aware, if people don’t want to use a VPN then I suggest this but give them the advisory warning.

Actually, recently I’ve been using a fork of IPAllowList which accepts DDNS addresses, but that usually is for more technical folk who would probably rather use a VPN then purchase a domain and associate it with their network.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

Yahnlets see a roku use a VPN.

[–] 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 (3 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....

[–] Dultas@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago

Wireguard and possibly openvpn work on Android TVs. I set it up for my mom. Not sure about other OSs.

[–] ugo@feddit.it 1 points 4 days ago

I believe your situation, that said I set up wireguard on my SO’s mac and all that is needed is to flip a switch in an app to connect. For my aunt, I’d likely set that up permanently since it only affects traffic when accessing the lan.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

they are not setting up the Jellyfin server either, why would they need to bother with the VPN?

[–] vaionko@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

yeah, it's the operator's job to help setting that up

[–] Damarus@feddit.org 14 points 4 days ago (2 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.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

you are better just closing up shop then, because it's not like the other services you are are much better. vulnerabilities being discovered don't mean they don't exist, it just means the software is not popular enough or too complex for someone to look into it

[–] Damarus@feddit.org 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

lol the whole internet better shut down right? Too vulnerable

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

much of the internet is run on simpler software or by full time employees tasked to deal with all this. but sure, ignorance is bliss, what you don't see does not exist, etc etc, keep running your Jellyfin exposed to the internet. you wouldnt even get to know when your system is compromised. but you know what? you could even remove your password for extra convenience. who would want to log in to a random jellyfin account anyway! surely no one! just don't recommend these practices to anyone, because you are putting them at risk.

[–] Damarus@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I mean I do this stuff for a living but okay go off king

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

would not ever use your services in that case

[–] Damarus@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

wow not just totally unprofessional, but even downvoting the calling out the lack of credible security! you can be ashamed of yourself, and hope that your clients never find out you are a contrarian

I really doubt your work has anything to do with computers

[–] Damarus@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago

You're hilarious. I haven't downvoted you, others are reading these threads as well.

Talking about security... Have you heard of intrusion detection, process isolation, or principle of least privilege?

[–] 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.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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

and that's why you set up a VPN client box on the location, set it up as a regular VPN client, and install a reverse proxy on it that the dumb clients can connect to.

the VPN box could be as simple as an old android phone no one uses, and termux