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

Selfhosted

56957 readers
760 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
[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 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.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days 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.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't care if someone finds my instance and manages to guess a random number to stream some random movie. Good for them I guess it would be easier to just download it themselves.

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

Biggest worry is someone finding an uncaught RCE.

Of course plugins also have surface area.

We know they can anon pull video. You can sandbox it to limit exposure.

But if they modify the web client with an RCE, then you hit your own server as a trusted site and that delivers a payload...