Assuming the user will not be connecting over vpn, but is both remote and non-technical, how would you expose Jellyfin to them securely?

  • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 days ago

    The biggest problem with that Jellyfin to this day is that you can’t.

    Seems like every new open source selfhosted app implements OIDC compatibility, but for some reason, I can only assume is technical debt, Jellyfin hasn’t.

    • Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Jellyfin had a third party plugin for OIDC. It was archived recently, but I heard Jellyfin has plans to implement it directly into the software. 🤞

        • Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Mobile clients should use QuickConnect for it (statement by the sso plugin maintainer). Else it should work with everything that uses the WebUI.

          • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            Quick connect is not SSO. Because the topic is about non-technical end user friendly solutions, this isn’t a great one because this requires your user to login using a web browser on a different device and then use that for the quick connect and it’s just more clunky than it should really be.

            It’s honestly easier in this situation to just configure your end users device with a mesh VPN like Tailscale or Netbird and then all they ever have to do is login with whatever password you gave them.

    • kiol@discuss.onlineOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      What exactly about jellyfin makes this oidc style access more difficult to manage?

  • pnelego@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 days ago

    To be totally honest I’m not sure you can harden jellyfin enough for public Internet exposure without also breaking basic functionality of the platform.

    This is why everyone is always pushing so hard for a VPN/Tailnet of some kind. The public internet is a bit to much of a wild west to be exposing arbitrary services to it unless you really know what you’re doing.

  • rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Run the jellyfin in a container that only has read privileges to the videos ( make sure you can’t get out to your whole NAS from there), put that behind a Cloudflaired tunnel.

    It’s not technically secure, but if they can’t get a foothold in your network and the only thing they can access is your video catalog, that’s a reasonable amount of risk.

    • Bazoogle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 days ago

      Gotta be careful with cloudflared and media. They can block you if they detect copyrighted materials, even if it’s your own DVDs. You can setup TLS certs so the traffic is at least encrypted

        • Bazoogle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Right. Which is why Cloudflared would block you if it’s detected. But regardless, if for whatever reason, you ended up in court for the content you copied, the judge would probably give you a low fine. Obviously not legal advice, but the US justice system doesn’t have time to care about people making digital copies of DVDs they’ve purchased.

          It’s irrelevant anyway, since none of us are just copying our own DVDs… But for legal reasons /s

  • Seefoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 days ago

    You can do a reverse proxy + authelia (or other auth service). It’s still more risky than a VPN IMO, buts wayyyy better than some of the other options in this thread

  • anon_8675309@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Another way:

    Expose using caddy. Use basic auth for the web UI only. This exempts the Jellyfin app clients from basic auth that they don’t support but requires it before anyone even gets to the Jellyfin UI. This obfuscates the fact that your endpoint is even a Jellyfin end point.

  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    I’m kinda disappointed with this thread, I’m in a similar position to OP, but all the responses are just like “use a reverse proxy and make your URL hard to guess” and other measures which are not very secure. \

    It seems like that’s about as good as you can get at the moment, because the mobile apps barf if you try to add in auth in front of the reverse proxy, but a lot of people seem to be providing this advice like it’s good enough rather than as good as you can get.

    • frongt@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      Well yeah, the “good as you can get” answers are “use a VPN” or “don’t”.

    • KneeTitts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Im confused as to what people think the security issue is? Do they think someone will brute force their username and password with a billion queries?

      • mko@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        That’s assuming an attacker will play nice with URL forming and discovering edge cases in POSTing shaped data to the service. Just encrypting is still weak security if the whole front-end web and API surface isn’t hardened.

        • KneeTitts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          Sorry but are you guy not using Linux as your servers? Windows? Now I understand.

  • zaggynl@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    Ask them to visit https://ipv4.icanhazip.com/ and give you back the number, then whitelist in your webserver, as well as your LAN/VPN range, deny rest. Explain they can only reach jellyfin from their home internet. Repeat if they get 403 forbidden after they get a new WAN IP.

    That or VPN like openziti, wireguard but gets more complicated.

    • axx@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      You really can’t assume your visitors are going to have static IPs.

      What happens when they visit from their phone? A friend’s WiFi? Their home connection that has a regularly changing IP?

      • zaggynl@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        So far I’ve seen WAN leases expire after a long time, say months, or quarter year, so is doable. If becomes an issue I’ll work with them on a VPN solution but is a pain for non-technical users or non-supported hardware. That’s also why I explain “use from your home network only”.

        • axx@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          What’s your concern about running it behind a reverse proxy, like caddy or nginx?

      • zaggynl@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        Something like reverse dynamic DNS for end users? Hm, only if it would be easy to setup, is on the same level as a VPN client I’d say.

  • quips@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    A reverse proxy is what you are looking for. I recommend Caddy.

    You’ll also need a domain, but they can be had for very cheap.

  • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    Put Jellyfin and a reverse proxy in an isolated vlan or DMZ, with no ability to reach into your lan at all and everyone connects in the same way. Its just movies, thats all you lose if it gets hacked. Set up some monitoring too in case it becomes a botnet node so you can destroy it and start over.

    • KneeTitts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Are the majority of you running jellyfin on windows? All of this reverse proxy stuff sounds incredibly paranoid to me and 99% of zero day exploits would be very unlikely to fully compromise up to date linux servers.

      • Andres@social.ridetrans.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        @KneeTitts @Jason2357 Recently there are a lot of zero-day kernel exploits (local privilege escalation), so I would make sure “up to date” includes regular reboots into new kernels. As opposed to just relying on something like unattended-upgrades.

        For the past few weeks we’ve been averaging one LPE per week, and it’s probably going to continue like that for a bit.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        The reverse proxy is just to give it TLS with a let’s encrypt cert. If you are running an internet facing web application without TLS, Windows is the least of your concerns.

  • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    My use cases are:

    • Connect from multiple devices on the same home network (with the application)
    • Connect from a phone device on the internet (with the application)
    • Connect from some PC’s and devices on the internet (with the application and from web browser)

    For home networked devices, I don’t care about security that much. I try to lock it down on the router level and by using VLANs for less secure devices. I connect via IP directly (or .local domain).

    Jellyfin runs under its own user with read access to a media library.

    For devices on the internet, I have jellyfin exposed on a specific url path of my domain - through a reverse proxy all through 443. A bit of security through obscurity here. I’m proxied through cloudflare on the DNS side with very restrictive IP rules.
    I think this is enough for the security flaws jellyfin does have. I’d sleep better at night if it had client certificate support, but Its not a big deal imo. If security flaws allowing remote code execution are found, I’ll shut it down and allow access through wireguard only and lose access from some devices on the internet where I cant use VPNs. Not a bit deal either.

  • nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    If client certificates and basic auth is not supported by jellyfin:

    • reverse proxy
    • strong random subdomain
    • wildcard certificate
    • tls1.3 only
    • doh/dot only

    1-3 make random scanners unable to find your service, 4&5 even hide it from your ISP. Dot/doh service will still know your subdomain, so be your own dot/doh ! :D

    • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      I’m no expert, but an unguessible URL path is similar but not visible to DNS. Could do both.

      • nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        You telling me jellyfin Clients can’t handle client certs but can port knock?

        My proposal is for maxing ux on the client side while being properly hidden.

          • nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            usually port knocking opens the relevant port to the client IP that is knocking. So it makes a lot of sense to have the knocking done by the requesting client. In many situations knocking from your mobile while behind the same NAT as your jellyfin client will do the trick, but if you have different IPv6 on those devices etc, it won’t.

            Also: if you assume your DNS lookups are sniffed - so are your port knocks. If you don’t, spare the extra work. But then, if you like port knocking - keep knocking, nothing wrong about it :D

            • Dultas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              Could always get super complicated and rotate your port knocking so no replay attacks. But now we’re just getting silly :)

  • azureskypirate@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    As others have mentioned, a reverse proxy, like nginx or caddy. These are web servers, so you need to configure it or an app that runs in it. May I shill: Nginx Proxy Manager (NPM).

      • Evotech@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        I just type the URL

        I have Cloudflare set up without Auth. Just region locked to my country

        So it’s just a solid reverse proxy with a bunch of features and an added layer with white listing.

        I know whitelisting isn’t security per say but it’s good enough

        • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Idk if geo whitelisting is really good enough. I can’t speak for OP, but I’m in the same position and I don’t. I had high hopes for the post but everyone seems to just brush over the “secure” part

          • Evotech@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            What are you afraid of?

            My jellyfin runs in a a rootless podman container

            • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              I’m afraid of security bugs in the software I’m using, so that containers don’t contain, read-only doesn’t prevent writing, mounting directories doesn’t restrict access to those directories, etc.

              I’m a nobody, I can’t imagine anyone targeting me or my random domain, but I can imagine getting swept up in a net of attacks of opportunities targeting hosted software with known vulnerabilities, or injected supply chain vulnerabilities, so I want to reduce my attack surface as much as I can (while still actually letting the people I want to access it actually access it)