this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
309 points (95.8% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

69501 readers
663 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

We heartily recommend visiting the free port of freemediaheckyeah (aka FMHY) while you sail the high seas, for all the freshest links the ocean has to offer.

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I bought Plex pass years ago for £79. The new price of $749.99 is INSANE.

No wonder all the cool people are using Jellyfin.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lena@gregtech.eu -1 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Isn't jellyfin full of security vulnerabilities? (Not to defend Plex, just a thought. This is why I don't have a video streaming server at all.)

[–] dan@upvote.au 15 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

You can avoid most security issues (with any sort of server) by not exposing it publicly. Use a VPN like Tailscale to connect remotely. If you share the server with friends or family, share it with them over Tailscale and use an ACL to configure which services they can access on your server.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

things you shouldnt need to do....

[–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

It's a good practice to NOT expose services to the internet unless it's really needed. If they're only for your use, then the entire world doesn't need access. This isn't specific to Jellyfin.

All software has the potential to have security issues.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

thats, like, your opinion man. frankly slapping a VPN on top of everything else doesnt improve your security posture unless you have the skills to manage that system on top of everything, including ongoing validation that its configuration is restricting what you want it to.

a robust authn/authz at the application layer is what secures your environment. VPNs are just slapping a wall around your network that is trivially penetrated by the browsers (and their extensions) within your network.

stop spouting dogma seriously doesnt make you look intelligent. personally the only reason I bother with a VPN is so I can leverage my local networks dns to access services anywhere. its not for security.

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

If a service is publicly accessible, anyone can access it. Even if it's secured, there can be security issues in the auth layer of the app, improperly secured endpoints, etc.

If a service is only available over VPN, nobody can access it unless they're on the VPN. The service isn't visible over the public internet and other people won't even know it exists. You can require two factor auth to connect to the VPN.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that a private network isn't more secure than a public network. There's a reason why practically every company requires people working remotely to connect to a VPN to access company resources.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

If a service is publicly accessible, anyone can access it.

false.

Even if it’s secured, there can be security issues in the auth layer of the app, improperly secured endpoints, etc.

true, fun fact a VPN is also an application with an auth layer. dun dun dun!

If a service is only available over VPN, nobody can access it unless they’re on the VPN.

which is basically anyone soon as a browser is in the mix. which it is.

I’m not sure why you seem to think that a private network isn’t more secure than a public network.

because I've done network hardening and know that they are only as secure as the devices and people that are a part of that network. it has nothing to do w/ private vs public and everything to do with what you do while within that network.

There’s a reason why practically every company requires people working remotely to connect to a VPN to access company resources.

uh huh. heard of lemmings? appeals to authority? etc, etc, etc. thats you right now. federal agencies guidelines regarding VPNs search terms for you: Federal Zero Trust Strategy (notably via OMB Memo M-22-09). Individuals like yourself are literally the reason they had to release these updated guidelines. because people kept quoting out of date security practices from their old guidelines as 'good enough for the feds must be best practices'

like i said you dont know what you're talking about. historical foot note: when the federal agency updated their recommendations regarding VPNs they were criticized by security experts for taking so fucking long to finally remove the misguided position that VPNs improve security that you hold.

here is a relevant snippet for everyone:

Regardless of the approach selected, agencies must move away from the practice of maintaining a broad enterprise-wide network that allows enhanced visibility or access to many distinct applications and enterprise functions. Accordingly, agencies should choose their zero trust approach early enough to permit them to align that approach with their plans for IT investment

Literally use 'authn/authz' and dont rely on VPNs for ACL. Here is another gem from that memo for today's lucky 10,000:

Agencies must remove password policies that require special characters and regular password rotation from all systems

and yet companies still put that nonsense into their security policies.

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 20 minutes ago* (last edited 15 minutes ago)

I never said anything about using the VPN as an ACL. All I said was to only expose the service over the VPN. That doesn't necessarily mean that the app doesn't have authentication or authorization.

I'm also only talking about residential use cases, where it's a common practice (when not using a VPN) to just expose everything via port forwarding. Businesses aren't setting up Jellyfin on their servers.

true, fun fact a VPN is also an application with an auth layer. dun dun dun!

Sure, but someone would have to first get on the VPN, and then find vulnerable apps once on the internal network, as opposed to just scanning the internet for public-facing vulnerable systems. Wireguard (and thus Tailscale) doesn't respond to port scans at all - it only responds to packets that are signed with a known key.

Admittedly, networking and network security isn't my specialty so I'm absolutely sure you've got more knowledge in this area.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The VPN isn't "on top of" anything, it's instead of everything.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

except its not. VPNs provide no real protection for a network. its literally undercut by any network connection that reaches beyond the wall it provides.

VPNs are a routing simplification and privacy measure not a security measure. idiots try and use them as a security layer thinking they're safer.

[–] lena@gregtech.eu -1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Eh, that's too much hassle just for streaming video. I'll use good old torrents downloaded directly to my computer.

[–] dan@upvote.au 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

It's not really a hassle though. It's just a one time setup. Tailscale can stay connected all the time, since by default only Tailscale IPs are routed via it (so it won't affect LAN or internet access)

If you want less hassle then use a Debrid service like Premiumize or Real-Debrid.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

And plex is entirely secure?
What was it again with security and closed source vs OSS?

Is the plex relay for remote access really secure?
Or has just nobody bothered checking it?

[–] lena@gregtech.eu -2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

And plex is entirely secure?

I never said that. I don't run a media server at all because every streaming software has its own flaws.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

You can't throw shade on Jellyfin, leave plex out of the discussion and then claim to run neither and essentially not caring..
Why participate at all with this argument??

[–] lena@gregtech.eu 1 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah I should've probably emphasised that Plex isn't free of security vulnerabilities either, but I didn't because I never even considered running it on my server, given the insane price.

Why participate with this argument? I was hoping to be proven wrong on the claim that jellyfin is insecure.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 hours ago

It's impossible to prove a negative, that there are no vulnerabilities.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I was hoping to be proven wrong on the claim that jellyfin is insecure.

The constant argument being parotted (IMO a bit extra overblown) that you can read files by knowing the file path and being able to access the stream urls without authentication.

So if I know
/data/media/movie/A Super Secret Movie [2026] (not unlikely due to assumed default paths with docker installations)
and
https://jellyfin.example.local/
I can supposedly guess that the URL is https://jellyfin.example.local/video/source=?1029rifos0xomsoc93 and access the stream.

Is it an issue? Yes, you are bypassing active authentication
What is the actual security problem? You can be ddosed by being streames to death? Oh no, what will I do /s

If anyone else can give a more grave exampe why it's worse than the above example: Please do. I don't see the issue besides bypassing authentication.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

That's one of the ones we know about. Consider the ones that might exist that haven't been found yet.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago

Literally the same can be said about Plex.