Collection of potential security issues in Jellyfin This is a non exhaustive list of potential security issues found in Jellyfin. Some of these might cause controversy. Some of these are design fla…

  • kratoz29@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    2 days ago

    Huh, I can’t check the link right now… But if exposing Jellyfin to the Internet is not an option, then it is not ready to be shipped as the Plex replacement I have heard a lot here and on Reddit.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      21 hours ago

      The linked post is from 2021. Many of the items were already closed. This looks like fear mongering.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        18 hours ago

        No. None of the items are closed. Click the “closed” items. All of them are “Not planned. Duplicate, see 5415”.

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Put the instance behind another authentication point like a VPN or reverse proxy with SSO. That will prevent the wider Internet from accessing it without legitimate users being cut off. You should be doing this with any server you operate (like Plex), but definitely one that may have legal implications.

      • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        aaaand now you smart tv can’t connect. none of them. the clients dont even support http basic auth creds put into the URL for some crazy reason.

        for advanced HTTP-level authentication you would need to run a reverse proxy on the TV’s network that would add the authentication info. for the VPN idea you would need to tunnel the TV’s network’s internet connection at the router. or set up a gateway address in the TVs network settings that would do that. or use a reverse proxy here too so that it repeats the request to the real server.

        but honestly, this is the real and only secure way anyway. I wouldn’t be comfortable to expose jellyfin even if the devs are real experts. I mean vulns get discovered, in dotnet, jellyfin dependencies, linux filesystem, and reverse proxy, and honestly who has time to always tightly keep up to date with all that.

        that’s not to discount the seriousness of the issue though, it’s a real shame that jellyfin is so much against security

        • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          Your smart TV is (presumably) on your local network, so you should be routing the requests locally (point the client at the local ip, assuming it didn’t autodiscover it) not through the VPN/ tunnel.

          • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Your smart TV is (presumably) on your local network

            often, but not always. sometimes the TV is at a different house, when you are a guest or at a second property

            • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              In which case there are still ways to make it work, like putting in an SSO bypass rule for the IP of your other property. Point is, under no circumstances is it impossible to both have it be protected against scanning attacks like the ones described in the gh issue, and keep it available to use over the internet for authorized users.

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Or even just on a differently vlan that you want to go through your reverse-proxy because that is where your security features are to separate you from shit you don’t trust.

      • kratoz29@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I am sorry, I don’t think I follow, I am CGNATED anyway, so I need to use VPNs to access my server (if IPv6 is not available, for IPv4 I am experimenting with Tailscale funnels as of now).

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Do we even know that Plex is better? It’s closed source and hasn’t been audited afaik

        Yes… because you can take the raw request your browser makes… remove your auth cookie and replay the same request and it fails.

        Closed source doesn’t mean that it can’t be tested for problems. Just means that you can’t go to the code to understand why it’s a problem. You can still see that the problem exists (or doesn’t in this case).

        Edit: I haven’t tested every api endpoint myself… but for video files it doesn’t work. It’s not vulnerable to the same thing that JF is in that specific case.

      • kratoz29@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        23 hours ago

        It is if you have compared them together.

        I haven’t recently thought and I am a lifetime Plex pass user (we will see what lifetime truly means sooner or later) and I have still been unaffected by most of the changes Plex has done (watch together is the 1st valuable feature that I have lost), so if you can’t expose Jellyfin then it is not better than Plex for me.

    • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Agreed. I’m a bit disappointed that it’s being touted as such. If you need a local LAN option, use VLC Player.