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…

  • Pete Hahnloser@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    Who has the technical wherewithal to run Jellyfin but leaves access on the open web? I get that sharing is part of the point, but no one’s putting their media collection on an open FTP server.

    The level of convenience people expect without consequences is astounding. Going to be away for home for a few days? Load stuff onto an external SSD or SD card. Phoning home remotely makes no sense.

    • Omgboom@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      I get that sharing is part of the point, but no one’s putting their media collection on an open FTP server.

      You would be very wrong about that. You can even search open FTP servers using Google

      http://palined.com/search/

      • Pete Hahnloser@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        OK. I’ll revise. No one with any sense is doing this. “Hi, RIAA and MPAA, come after me” is an asinine approach. I realize we have at least one generation unfamiliar with Napster, KaZaa and LimeWire, which replaced ratio FTP servers (which in turn replaced F-Servs in IRC). This is terrible online hygiene. You don’t leave your media out there for all to see. At least password protect access before linking to your friends.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Look at the rest of this thread though… many people are just fine with “this is FUD, I’m going to keep doing it!”

          Still, posts like this raise awareness of the problem.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      Friends, family using Jellyfin is the reason many have it directly available (and not behind VPN for example).

        • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          And I like that my wife and kids can jump on and access my server whenever they want from any device without fuss. Everyone has their priorities! I take my privacy pretty seriously but I can’t make it the number one consideration at the cost of everything else all the time. Plus, Jellyfin is a security risk if you don’t know what you’re doing. I’m pretty tech savvy but it definitely pushes my limits so I do not feel comfortable setting it up and constantly maintaining it.

          • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            I’m not exposing jellyfin, but for sure I wouldn’t let my plex server even see the internet (I bet iy wouldn’t even work that way).

            jellyfin is perfectly accessible everywhere it needs to be. been using a VPN on my phone for ages for all traffic.

      • PolarisFx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        They jacked their prices, or are about to anyway. If you don’t have a lifetime Plex pass then Plex might not be a viable option. My seedbox provider has been pushing people to Jellyfin for anyone without a Plex pass.

        • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          “Jacked their prices” is a tad dramatic and if you use Plex regularly you’d be foolish not to just buy the lifetime subscription when they put it on sale for like $80 every year. The price change this year was modest except for lifetime which went from $125-$250 with a heads up meaning you could’ve still gotten it at $125 before the change.

          Do you know the details of the price change?

          • PolarisFx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            23 hours ago

            I thought I had a lifetime Plex pass, but turns out I was on yearly and the price went up $20/year, so I bought lifetime before the price went up. My whole family uses Plex, I couldn’t handle setting up Jellyfin for everyone and their devices.

            • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              22 hours ago

              Yeah if I was just serving myself I would’ve probably stuck with Jellyfin, but my wife and kids also use my server. Because of it we pay exactly $0 a month in subscriptions. Plex lifetime pass was a very easy decision to make.

              If they do a complete heel turn tomorrow and fuck us all, I could simply shut it down. The money I’ve saved so far has been worth it.

        • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I understand why you might find that useful but I do not think that is exactly the most important feature in the world to most people. I could also rattle off plenty of things Plex can do that Jellyfin can’t. I have used both and the fact of the matter is just am willing to take the trade offs for the simplicity of Plex. You do you!

    • Waryle@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      My Jellyfin server is behind Cloudflare with IP outside of my country banned.

      I got Crowdsec set up on Cloudflare, Traefik and Debian directly.

      I got Jellyfin up in a docker container behind Traefik, my router opens only 80 and 443 ports and direct them to Traefik.

      Jellyfin has only access to my media files which are just downloaded movies and shows hardlinked by Sonarr/Radarr from my download folder.

      It is publicly exposed to be able to watch it from anywhere, and share it to family and friends.

      So what? They might access the movies, even delete them, I don’t care, I’ll just hardlink them back or re-download them. What harm can they do that would justify locking everything down?

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 hours ago

        So what? They might access the movies, even delete them, I don’t care, I’ll just hardlink them back or re-download them. What harm can they do that would justify locking everything down?

        Well… if “they” happen to be the rights holders or lawyers of the rights holders and they happen to enumerate their content on your system because they can guess common linux paths and likely names that their movie/show/music would appear as in your system, you’re going to care real quick when the lawsuit comes.

        • Waryle@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          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.

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            12 hours ago

            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.

            • Waryle@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              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.

              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.

              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.

              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

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                There is no authentication occurring. There is no “hacking” here. Nothing about scanners or bots scraping unauthenticated endpoints is illegal. This would be admissable.

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                There is no authentication occurring. There is no “hacking” here. Nothing about scanners or bots scraping unauthenticated endpoints is illegal. This would be admissable.

                • Waryle@jlai.lu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  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.

                  • SteevyT@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 hour ago

                    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.