• Damarus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Kinda defeats the purpose of a media server built to be used by multiple people

    • ugo@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      No need to expose jellyfin to the internet if you selectively allow peers on your lan via wireguard.

        • ramble81@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          That’s why you do it at your router or gateway and then set a route for the Jellyfin server through the VPN adapter. That way any device on your network will flow through the tunnel to the Jellyfin server including TVs

          • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            56 minutes ago

            Oh yes, the routers and gateways that most people have that are isp provided that may not actually have open VPN or wireguard support.

            Those ones?

            Also putting a VPN in someone else’s house so that all their Network traffic goes through your gateway is pretty damn extreme.

            • ramble81@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              23 minutes ago

              What? No, you can do a tiny reverse proxy/vpn on a stick with something like a RPi. Configure it and give it to them. Then they point their Jellyfin client on their device to the IP of the RPi instance on their network and that creates the tunnel back to your VPN endpoint and server.

              And for VPNs at a router level you can inject routes and leave th default route going out through your ISP, you don’t need to, nor want to, have all traffic going through it.

          • faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Which again implies that you have a router that allows you to do so. It’s not always the case. For tech enthusiast people that’s the case. But not for everyone.

            I tried to do the same thing at first, but it was a pain, there were tons of issues.

      • tiz@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Don’t reverse proxies like pangolin just do the job? Does it have to be VPN in this particular concept? VPN isn’t like immune to vulnerabilities.

        • radar@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Reverse proxy doesn’t really get you much security. If there is an application level issue a reverse proxy will not help

          • whimsy@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Hmmm, I’m a bit rusty on this but can’t one put an auth gate in front of the application, handled by the reverse proxy?

            • radar@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 hours ago

              You can, that would actually give you security. Not sure how many people do that. I assumed a straight reverse proxy without any auth

        • r00ty@kbin.life
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Reverse proxy will let anyone connect to it. VPN, you can create keys/logins for your intended users only. Having said that, from what I could see, nothing in the security fixes were to do with authentication. I think (just from a cursory look), they could only be exploited, if at all from an authenticated user session.

          But personally, something like jellyfin where the number of people I want to be able to access it is very limited, stays behind a VPN. Better to limit your potential attack surface as much as you can.

        • ohshit604@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Pangolin is based off of Traefik if I’m not mistaken, should be able to use Traefiks IP-Allowlist middleware to blacklist all IP addresses and only whitelisting the known few.