this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
230 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
38465 readers
303 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Where I live, I have the legal right to have a copy of a film of which I have a legal version, they can watch my media library as much as they want, it's not enough to prove that it's illegal.
And hacking my server is illegal, they can't go to court by presenting evidence obtained through hacking, they would risk much more than me.
Keeping that copy on a web accessible platform that is accessible by anyone on the internet(unauthenticated) isn't covered by your rights at a bare minimum.
Depending on the content "timing" if they trigger on something that doesn't have a physical/consumer release yet... or all sorts of other "impossible" conditions. This is obviously reliant on what content you actually have on your server.
It's still something regardless that it's best not to invite.
It's as accessible as my DVD collection in my living room: anyone can get into my home without a key by illegally breaking a window.
Using a flaw in my Jellyfin to access my content is illegal and can't be used against me to sue me, period. The idea of rights holders who would hack me to sue me is just plain ridiculous.
And again, the only proof they would have could not be used in courts.
For real, you're just fear-mongering at this point.
I was sincerely hoping someone would bring some real concerns, like how one of these security breaches listed in the OP could allow privilege escalation or something, but if all you got is "Universal might hire hackers to break through your server and sue you", you're comforting me in my idea that I don't have much to fear
There is no authentication occurring. There is no "hacking" here. Nothing about scanners or bots scraping unauthenticated endpoints is illegal. This would be admissable.
Using a flaw in a software to retrieve data you should not have access to is illegal where I live, the same way as you're not suddenly allowed to enter my house and fetch my drawers just because I left a window open. I won't debate this point further.
Is the place you live anywhere in the US? If yes, then it doesn't matter because they have the money. If no, then honestly you probably actually have sane laws.
I live in France, and these are the relevant laws :
Bullshit. Notice the term is fraudulent. They are not making a bad login or accessing anything that requires authorization. There is no requirement here that simply accesses a web page is sufficient.
Again FRAUDULENT. Since it's public access, there's nothing illegal happening here. Further any company that would be scanning for this material to build a lawsuit would have the legal right to reproduce the content (eg a law-firm that was contracted by universal, sony, etc...)
It requires authentication or bypass of functioning code to be fraudulent. Making calls to apis that have no authentication cannot be illegal. This is literally how a good chunk of the internet itself works. If it was illegal the internet wouldn't exist in your country.
Edit: Just to make it clear. It's not a "flaw". The github link itself shows that the managers of jellyfin are aware of the problem and intentionally do not "fix" it as they want backwards compatibility.
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000030635061/
Case law from the Cour de Cassation, where the defendant was convicted, by Articles 323-1 and 323-5, of having extracted data freely following a proven failure of the protection system.
The complainant just had to show that the data SHOULD have been inaccessible, by expressing this “with a special warning” :
Translated :
In my case, the first thing you see when you arrive at my Jellyfin instance is a login form blocking your entry, and you have to go through a backdoor to access my data, so there's no ambiguity on this point.
You're wrong, period. Stop trying to debate laws interpretation of a country you don't even speak the language of.
LMFO. I actually speak English, French, Polish, and German (in proficiency order) and have an EU citizenship.
I just happen to live in the USA. So congrats, you're wrong again. Try not to resort to personal attacks next time. You'll look much less silly.
YOUR intention doesn't matter. You don't maintain the jellyfin code. The actual code designers specifically left the endpoints open for "compatibility". There was a conscious decision for those endpoints to not require authorization, and worse, IT'S DOCUMENTED. This is not like the case you're quoting. If accessing endpoints without auth was ever illegal, almost all IoT devices would be illegal, a good chunk of gaming and other services would be illegal, etc... This premise is asinine.
You realize that google and other sites regularly scan and capture direct links to websites without ever giving a shit about a login page somewhere else on the site. You don't see lawsuits against any of those crawlers, nor the people who click the crawled links when they return in a search result. This is the exact same premise.
Oh you insufferable rawgabbit. Even in the face of definitive proof, the only thing you care about is throwing a 4 paragraphs tantrum trying to twist every single word just to not say "OK, maybe I was wrong on that thing". I'm out.
I'm insufferable? You're the one relying on personal attacks to make your point. Then run away with tail between legs when I show you 1) how it's not the same as your case and 2) how other current internet operations WOULD be the same, and there's no lawsuits in regards to those things.