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
475 points (97.6% liked)
Selfhosted
46653 readers
420 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:
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?