this post was submitted on 23 May 2026
190 points (97.0% liked)

Selfhosted

60758 readers
172 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:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
190
How would you expose Jellyfin securely without a vpn? (discuss.online)
submitted 1 month ago by kiol@discuss.online to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
174 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] exu@feditown.com 35 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Just leaving this here

Now, let's address this clearly once and for all. What is possible is unauthenticated streaming. Each item in a Jellyfin library has a UUID generated which is based on a checksum of the file path. So, theoretically, if someone knows your exact media paths, they could calculate the item IDs, and then use that ItemID to initiate an unauthenticated stream of the media. As far as we know this has never actually been seen in the wild. This does not affect anything else - all other configuration/management endpoints are behind user authentication. Is this suboptimal? Yes. Is this a massive red-flag security risk that actively exposes your data to the Internet? No.

https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/5415#issuecomment-2825240290

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 month ago

It really seems overblown of an issue...

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Except most people have almost the same structure because of media organizers like radarr/sonarr. At the very least they should hide that behind a setting to not require auth (since the header should be there for most clients) so only people running an old client would be affected. They could also add an extra salt to that hash or something similar.

I agree, it's not critical, but it shouldn't be hand waved either. And like I said, security is relative, I would argue for most people this is fine, but I still think this should be taken more seriously.