What’s your go too (secure) method for casting over the internet with a Jellyfin server.
I’m wondering what to use and I’m pretty beginner at this
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
262 points (98.9% liked)
Selfhosted
46653 readers
1075 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 posting.
-
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.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see everyone in this thread recommending a VPN or reverse proxy for accessing Jellyfin from outside the LAN. While I generally agree, I don't see a realistic risk in exposing Jellyfin directly to the internet. ~~It supports HTTPS and certificates nowadays, so there’s no need for outside SSL termination anymore.~~ (See Edit 2)
In my setup, which I've been running for some time, I've port-forwarded only Jellyfin's HTTPS port to eliminate the possibility of someone ending up on pure HTTP and sending credentials unencrypted. I've also changed the Jellyfin's default port to a non-standard one to avoid basic port-scanning bots spamming login attempts. I fully understand that this falls into the security through obscurity category, but no harm in it either.
Anyone wanna yell at me for being an idiot and doing everything wrong? I'm genuinely curious, as the sentiment online seems to be that at least a reverse proxy is almost mandatory for this kind of setup, and I'm not entirely sure why.
Edit: Thank you everyone for your responses. While I don't agree with everything, the new insight is appreciated.
Edit 2: I've been informed that infact the support for HTTPS will be removed in a future version. From v10.11 release notes:
You remember when LastPass had a massive leak and it out of their production source code which demonstrated that their encryption security was horrible? That was a Plex vulnerability. All it takes is a zero day and one of the packages they're using and you're a prime target for ransomware.
You can see from the number of unauthenticated processes in their security backlog that security really has been an afterthought.
Unless you're running in a non-privileged container with read only media, I definitely would not put that out on the open network.
Jellyfin has a whole host of unresolved and unmitigated security vulnerabilities that make exposing it to the internet. A pretty poor choice.
https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/5415
And which one of those are actually vulnerabilities that are exploitable? First, yes ofc unauthenticated endpoints should be fixed, but with those there is no real damage to be done.
If you know the media path then you can request a playback, and if you get the user ids then you can get all users. That's more or less it.
Good? No. But far from making it a poor choice exposing it.
These are all holes in the Swiss cheese model.
Just because you and I cannot immediately consider ways of exploiting these vulnerabilities doesn't mean they don't exist or are not already in use (Including other endpoints of vulnerabilities not listed)
This is one of the biggest mindset gaps that exist in technology, which tends to result in a whole internet filled with exploitable services and devices. Which are more often than not used as proxies for crime or traffic, and not directly exploited.
Meaning that unless you have incredibly robust network traffic analysis, you won't notice a thing.
There are so many sonarr and similar instances out there with minor vulnerabilities being exploited in the wild because of the same"Well, what can someone do with these vulnerabilities anyways" mindset. Turns out all it takes is a common deployment misconfiguration in several seedbox providers to turn it into an RCE, which wouldn't have been possible if the vulnerability was patched.
Which is just holes in the swiss cheese model lining up. Something as simple as allowing an admin user access to their own password when they are logged in enables an entirely separate class of attacks. Excused because "If they're already logged in, they know the password". Well, not of there's another vulnerability with authentication....
See how that works?
It's difficult to say exactly what all a reverse proxy adds to the security conversation for a handful of reasons, so I won't touch on that, but the realistic risk of exposing your jellyfin instance to the internet is about the same as handing your jellyfin api over to every stranger globally without giving them your user account or password and letting them do whatever they'd like for as long as they'd like. This means any undiscovered or unintentional vulnerability in the api implementation could easily allow for security bypass or full rce (remote code execution, real examples of this can be found by looking at the history of WordPress), but by siloing it behind a vpn you're far far far more secure because the internet at large cannot access the apis even if there is a known vulnerability. I'm not saying exposing jellyfin to the raw web is so risky it shouldn't be done, but don't buy into the misconception that it's even nearly as secure as running a vpn. They're entirely different classes of security posture and it should be acknowledged that if you don't have actual use for internet level access to jellyfin (external users, etc, etc) a vpn like tailscale or zero tier is 100% best practice.
The issue is not encryption, it's the unauthenticated API. People can interact with your server without an account.
Not yell, but: Jellyfin is dropping HTTPS support with a future update so you might want to read up on reverse proxies before then.
Additionally, you might want to check if Shodan has your Jellyfin instance listed: https://www.shodan.io/
What's the source for this? I wasn't able to find anything with a quick google search
Upgrade notes for 10.11 RCs
https://notes.jellyfin.org/v10.11.0_features
Thanks. This is kinda important info so I've edited my initial comment.
They are not saying anything on why they are removing it.
It feels like everything is a tradeoff and I think a setup like this reduces the complexity for people you share with.
If you added fail2ban along with alert email/notifications you could have a chance to react if you were ever targeted for a brute force attempt. Jellyfin docs talk about setting this up for anyone interested.
Blocking IP segments based on geography of countries you don't expect connections from adds the cost of a VPN for malicious actors in those areas.
Giving Jellyfin its own VLAN on your network could help limit exposure to your other services and devices if you experience a 0day or are otherwise compromised.
Fail2ban isn't going to help you when jellyfin has vulnerable endpoints that need no authentication at all.
Your comment got me looking through the jellyfin github issues. Are the bugs listed for unauthenticated endpoints what you're referencing? It looks like the 7 open mention being able to view information about the jellyfin instance or view the media itself. But this is just what was commented as possible, there could be more possibilities especially if combined with other vulnerabilities.
Now realizing there are parts of Jellyfin that are known to be accessible without authentication, I'm thinking Fail2ban is going to do less but unless there are ways to do injection with the known bugs/a new 0day they will still need to brute force a password to be able to make changes. I'm curious if there is anything I'm overlooking.
Nah, setting non-standard ports is sound advice in security circles.
People misunderstand the "no security through obscurity" phrase. If you build security as a chain, where the chain is only as good as the weakest link, then it's bad. But if you build security in layers, like a castle, then it can only help. It's OK for a layer to be weak when there are other layers behind it.
Even better, non-standard ports will make 99% of threats go away. They automate scans that are just looking for anything they can break. If they don't see the open ports, they move on. Won't stop a determined attacker, of course, but that's what other layers are for.
As long as there's real security otherwise (TLS, good passwords, etc), it's fine.
If anyone says "that's a false sense of security", ignore them. They've replaced thinking with a cliche.
And this is what should be sung from the hills and mountaintops. There’s some old infosec advice that you should have two or three honeypots, buried successively deeper behind your security, and only start to worry when the second or third gets hit; The first one getting hit simply means they’re sniffing around with automated port scanners and bots. They’re just throwing common vulnerabilities at the wall to see if any of them stick. The first one is usually enough for them to go “ah shit I guess I hit a honeypot. They must be looking for me now. Never mind.” The second is when you know they’re actually targeting you specifically. And the third is when you need to start considering pulling plugs.
I think the reason why its generally suggested to use a VPN is because it reduces the risk of intrusion to almost zero. Folks that are not network/sys admin savy would feel safer with the lowest risk solution. Using the port forward method, there could be configuration mistakes made which would unintentionally expose a different service or parts of their home network they don't want exposed. And then there's the possibility of application vulnerabilities which is less of an issue when only VPN users can access the application. That being said, I do expose some services via port forwarding but that's only because I'm comfortable with ensuring its secure.
Reverse proxy is really useful when you have more than one service to expose to the internet because you only have to expose one port. It also automates the certificate creation & simplifies firewall rules inside the home network
I don't disagree, and I am one of the VPN advocates you mention. Generally there is no issue with exposing jellyfin via proxy to the internet.
The original question seemed to imply an over-secure solution so a lot of over-secure solutions exist. There is good cause to operate services, like jellyfin, via some permanent VPN.
Reverse proxies can be useful for hiding your IP if you do something like host it in a VPS and tunnel the traffic back to your self hosted service. There's also a lot of documentation on attaching things like fail2ban or crowd sec which can be helpful in reducing the threat from attacks. if you're running lots of services it can reduce the risk of two apps using the same ports as ultimately everything will go through ports 80 and 443 on the public facing side. Finally again if you're hosting several services having a central place to manage and deal with cert from can save a lot of time rather than having to wrangle it per service/ server.
Imo that's perfectly fine and not idiotic if you have a static IP, no ISP blocked ports / don't care about using alt ports, and don't mind people who find your domain knowing your IP.
I did basically that when I had a fiber line but then I added a local haproxy in front to handle additional subdomains. I feel like people gravitate towards recommending that because it works regardless of the answers to the other questions, even their security tolerance if recommending access only over VPN.
I have CGNAT now so reverse proxy in the cloud is my only option, but at least I'm free to reconfigure my LAN or uproot everything and plant it on any other LAN and it'll all be fine.