this post was submitted on 23 May 2026
182 points (96.9% liked)

Selfhosted

56957 readers
1345 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Assuming the user will not be connecting over vpn, but is both remote and non-technical, how would you expose Jellyfin to them securely?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Would you need to? Are apps a viable vector in? Basic auth in front of web ui does make sense though.

[–] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

What do you mean viable? The web UI is just an app that is delivered to your browser, it makes more or less the same API requests as an app would make, so IDK why the risk would be lower with an app?

If an attacker can access the login endpoint for example to brute force or dictionary attack, it doesn't matter if the web UI is or isn't accessible if the login endpoint it uses is exposed for an app. The attacker could serve their own copy of the web UI and proxy requests to the API your app connects to. Blocking the html from being served doesn't make a difference.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (2 children)
[–] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

That's exactly the point I'm getting at. Putting an auth wall doesn't work with many apps, and if you add exceptions to the API then you're not really protecting anything.

[–] pushpull@fosstodon.org 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

@BakedCatboy @anon_8675309
I think that could be fixed with authentication through headers (netbird reverse proxy supports that, no idea about pangolin though) but apps should also support adding custom headers on requests

[–] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 3 points 18 hours ago

Yes that's what I would like to advocate for. I did something similar with LunaSea, but often people suggest doing that with Jellyfin and are not aware that almost no apps support it, and that adding exceptions for the API makes you basically as secure as not having it. But people tend to get very defensive when you try to tell them that something won't work, so I try to phrase it as a question to see if I can get them to understand what the limitations are in a way that's less confrontational.