🚀 Jellyfin Server 10.11.7
We are pleased to announce the latest stable release of Jellyfin, version 10.11.7! This minor release brings several bugfixes to improve your Jellyfin experience. As alway...
That’s never made sense to me; why build an authn frontend instead of just clicking your user if the security is just an illusion anyways. “Use a VPN” is fine for a mainframe, but an active project in 2026 should aspire to be better.
Edit: or make note of that on their several pages with reverse proxy configuration.
there is just too much place in the codebase for vulnerabilities, and also, most projects like this are maintained by volunteers in their free time for free.
I guess if you set up an IP whitelist in the reverse proxy, or a client TLS certificate requirement, it’s fine to open it to the internet, but otherwise no.
If I say I custom rolled my own crypto and it’s designed to be deployed to the open web, and you inspect it and don’t see anything wrong, should you do it?
Jellyfin is young and still in heavy development. As time goes on, more eyes have seen it, and it’s been battle hardened, the security naturally gets stronger and the risk lower. I don’t agree that no one should ever host a public jellyfin server for all time, but for right now, it should be clear that you’re assuming obvious risk.
Technically there’s no real problem here. Just like with any vulnerability in any service that’s exposed in some way, as long as you update right now you’re (probably) fine. I just don’t want staying on top of it to be a full time job, so I limit my attack surface by using a VPN.
It responds to and serves content to unauthenticated requests. That’s sorta table stakes if you’re creating an authenticated web service and providing guides to set it up with a reverse proxy.
Ok, I misread what you were linking to. Yeah, that’s pretty bad to allow actual streaming of content to unauthed users. I agree they should not be encouraging anyone to set this up to be publicly accessible until those are fixed. Or at least add a warning.
I mean I’m sure they’d like to just ship safe code in the first place. But if that’s not their expertise and they demonstrate that repeatedly, we gotta take steps ourselves. Secure is obviously best, but I’d rather have insecure Jellyfin behind a VPN than no Jellyfin at all.
It’s not this or that. Security comes in layers. So while I would assume that the Jellyfin developers do their best to secure their application, I acknowledge the fact that bugs do exist and that Jellyfin is developed in and for hobbyist contexts, and thus not scrutinised and pentested for vulnerabilities in the way software meant for professional environments would be. Therefore I’ll add an extra layer of security by putting it behind a VPN that only whitelisted clients can access. If a vulnerability is detected, I can be sure it hasn’t already been exploited to compromise my server because we’re all “among friends” there.
Yes, not everyone. My grandmother would struggle setting up a VPN, for example.
that’s a weird take. your grandmother doesn’t need to set up a VPN. It’s not like this is where they would get stuck, they would have problems much sooner with running their own Jellyfin. that’s why you are hosting it for them, and why you go there and set the VPN up yourself.
Agreed, was more so referring to others. I apologize if it seemed like I was referring to myself
I’m already well and truly deep into this, myself. Two Proxmox nodes running the *Arr stack and Jellyfin in LXC containers. Bare metal TrueNAS, with scheduled LTO backups every two weeks. A few other bits and bobs, like some game servers and home automation for family.
Will need to re-map everything eventually, it’s kind of grown out of hand
You only have to give them access to a specific port on a specific machine, not your entire LAN.
My VPN has a ‘media’ usergroup who can only access the, read-only, NFS exports of my media library.
If you’re just installing Wireguard and enabling IP forwarding, yeah it would not be secure. But using a mesh VPN, like Tailscale/Headscale, gives you A LOT more tools to control access.
yeah but even with plain wireguard the peers can be limited. you just have to figure out the firewall rules, or use opnsense as your wireguard server because it figures the harder part out for you.
Oh absolutely, difference being that you only need to expose the service once, versus helping however many people set up VPNs to access the service on your LAN
I know way too many people who won’t remember to toggle it on, or just won’t deal with it
I know way too many people who won’t remember to toggle it on, or just won’t deal with it
they need a VPN app that toggles automatically. turn off when they happen to connect to your network, otherwise on, and only forward jellyfin and such apps through it.
I know way too many people who won’t remember to toggle it on, or just won’t deal with it
they need a VPN app that toggles automatically. turn off when they happen to connect to your network, otherwise on, and only forward jellyfin and such apps through it.
That’s never made sense to me; why build an authn frontend instead of just clicking your user if the security is just an illusion anyways. “Use a VPN” is fine for a mainframe, but an active project in 2026 should aspire to be better.
Edit: or make note of that on their several pages with reverse proxy configuration.
Examples dating back over six years https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/5415
there is just too much place in the codebase for vulnerabilities, and also, most projects like this are maintained by volunteers in their free time for free.
I guess if you set up an IP whitelist in the reverse proxy, or a client TLS certificate requirement, it’s fine to open it to the internet, but otherwise no.
If I say I custom rolled my own crypto and it’s designed to be deployed to the open web, and you inspect it and don’t see anything wrong, should you do it?
Jellyfin is young and still in heavy development. As time goes on, more eyes have seen it, and it’s been battle hardened, the security naturally gets stronger and the risk lower. I don’t agree that no one should ever host a public jellyfin server for all time, but for right now, it should be clear that you’re assuming obvious risk.
Technically there’s no real problem here. Just like with any vulnerability in any service that’s exposed in some way, as long as you update right now you’re (probably) fine. I just don’t want staying on top of it to be a full time job, so I limit my attack surface by using a VPN.
The original ticket is 2019. That’s 7 years ago.
It responds to and serves content to unauthenticated requests. That’s sorta table stakes if you’re creating an authenticated web service and providing guides to set it up with a reverse proxy.
Ok, I misread what you were linking to. Yeah, that’s pretty bad to allow actual streaming of content to unauthed users. I agree they should not be encouraging anyone to set this up to be publicly accessible until those are fixed. Or at least add a warning.
I mean I’m sure they’d like to just ship safe code in the first place. But if that’s not their expertise and they demonstrate that repeatedly, we gotta take steps ourselves. Secure is obviously best, but I’d rather have insecure Jellyfin behind a VPN than no Jellyfin at all.
It’s not this or that. Security comes in layers. So while I would assume that the Jellyfin developers do their best to secure their application, I acknowledge the fact that bugs do exist and that Jellyfin is developed in and for hobbyist contexts, and thus not scrutinised and pentested for vulnerabilities in the way software meant for professional environments would be. Therefore I’ll add an extra layer of security by putting it behind a VPN that only whitelisted clients can access. If a vulnerability is detected, I can be sure it hasn’t already been exploited to compromise my server because we’re all “among friends” there.
Lol you shouldn’t make such assumptions when they so obviously place sefiroty last
deleted by creator
Unfortunately, not everyone is tech-literate enough nowadays to understand how a VPN works, nor do they want to
Yes, not everyone. My grandmother would struggle setting up a VPN, for example.
However, a community member of the selfhosted community is perfectly capable of reading a manual and learning the software.
That’s how you become tech literate in the first place, and you’re already on that path if you’re commenting/reading here.
that’s a weird take. your grandmother doesn’t need to set up a VPN. It’s not like this is where they would get stuck, they would have problems much sooner with running their own Jellyfin. that’s why you are hosting it for them, and why you go there and set the VPN up yourself.
I was not actually presenting a scenario where my grandmother would use a VPN.
I was pointing out that this community is full of people who are perfectly capable of learning to use a VPN. In response to this comment:
That’s a true statement about ‘everyone’ i.e. the entire population of the planet… but true about everyone here in this community.
Agreed, was more so referring to others. I apologize if it seemed like I was referring to myself
I’m already well and truly deep into this, myself. Two Proxmox nodes running the *Arr stack and Jellyfin in LXC containers. Bare metal TrueNAS, with scheduled LTO backups every two weeks. A few other bits and bobs, like some game servers and home automation for family.
Will need to re-map everything eventually, it’s kind of grown out of hand
Look at Tailscale (or self-host headscale)
It’s a bit of learning (like all of these other things) but it’s a very powerful tool.
I do agree with the general point that Jellyfin shouldn’t require a VPN.
Isn’t it easier to set up a VPN than expose it to the internet?
and then you are giving access to your lan to people whose computer you don’t control and might be full of malware.
Tbh I forgot about giving access to others, my homelab is for me only lol
You only have to give them access to a specific port on a specific machine, not your entire LAN.
My VPN has a ‘media’ usergroup who can only access the, read-only, NFS exports of my media library.
If you’re just installing Wireguard and enabling IP forwarding, yeah it would not be secure. But using a mesh VPN, like Tailscale/Headscale, gives you A LOT more tools to control access.
yeah but even with plain wireguard the peers can be limited. you just have to figure out the firewall rules, or use opnsense as your wireguard server because it figures the harder part out for you.
Oh absolutely, difference being that you only need to expose the service once, versus helping however many people set up VPNs to access the service on your LAN
I know way too many people who won’t remember to toggle it on, or just won’t deal with it
It’s just not convenient enough
they need a VPN app that toggles automatically. turn off when they happen to connect to your network, otherwise on, and only forward jellyfin and such apps through it.
they need a VPN app that toggles automatically. turn off when they happen to connect to your network, otherwise on, and only forward jellyfin and such apps through it.