this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
709 points (99.0% liked)
Selfhosted
59999 readers
802 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.
-
Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title.
-
No trolling.
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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I indeed use a container. Wasn’t familiar with the update process for containers but now know how to do it.
There's a lot of good container management solutions out there that are worth investigating. They do things like monitor availability, resource management, as well as altering on versioning.
Can highly recommend dockhand happily runs my full docker stack with updates and great overviews of what's happening under the hood.
If you haven't already, I recommend Watchtower (nickfedor fork—the original is unmaintained) which automatically pulls updates to Docker containers and restarts them. Make sure to track latest, although for security updates, these should be backported to any supported versions so it's fine to track an older supported version too.
Thank you. Will look into it.
Lol it's already insecure then. Don't bother.
Implying you have access to some major Docker 0-day exploit, or just talking out of your ass? Because a container is no more or less secure than the machine it runs on. At least if a container gets compromised, it only has access to the volumes you have specifically given it access to. It can’t just run rampant on your entire system, because you haven’t (or at least shouldn’t have) given it access to your entire system.
Docker is known insecure. It doesn't verify any layers it pulls cryptography. The devs are aware. The tickets remain open.
If that is indeed true it would only mean that the docker container is vulnerable to a supply chain attack. You are not any more vulnerable to a vulnerability in the codebase.
If you’re using the ghcr image, to post malicious code there, the attack would have already had to compromise their github infra … which would likely result in the attacker being able to push malicious code to git or publish malicious releases. Their linux distro packages are self published via a ppa/install script, which I would assume just pull from their github releases, so a bad github release would immediately be pulled as an update by users just as fast as a container.
No, it's also vulnerable to a targeted mitm attack. Github can be unaffected and you can get a malicious version on your server.
I don't know if I remember correctly but I could not install Jellyfin on the latest Ubuntu server version. I had to use docker to get Jellyfin running.
Jellyfin has a Debian repo. Worked fine on Debian 12 and 13.
Insane way of thinking.