Plex is starting to enforce its new rules, which prevent users from remotely accessing a personal media server without a subscription fee.

If anyone needs it: https://jellyfin.org/

  • tyler@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Please do explain or link sources to what you think are “security holes”.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      It has several unsecured endpoints.

      https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/5415

      If you read the comments the devs know it’s a serious issue but don’t want to break backwards compatibility fixing them. Their solution for now is to warn people of the risks of exposing their instance to the Web. Which I don’t think they’re doing a great job of.

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Aside from most of those being “potential issues”, which weren’t proven, the rest are GETs of things that do not need to be secret, things like album art and list of installed plugins. Besides the one plugin issue, which was an actual security issue, which was fixed over a year and a half ago. https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/pull/11436

        Contrast that with Plex which has numerous high severity CVEs that include things like remote code execution, directory traversal, and more.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          list of installed plugins.

          Yeah, as you said, that’s a pretty serious security issue. That’s a data leak that explicitly lays out the shape of your attack surface. It tells the attacker exactly what additional software your server is running and if any of it includes known vulnerabilities, the attacker now knows how to gain access.

          • tyler@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            That only works if the plugins are somehow accessible through an api controller, which as far as I’m aware, is not how jellyfin plugins work. So no, it wouldn’t increase your attack surface at all.

        • fartsparkles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          You’re aware those CVEs are only relevant for ancient versions of Plex and were fixed long ago?

            • fartsparkles@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              CVEs don’t get issued “resolved” statuses… They are either reserved, published, or rejected (technically NVD have a few extra for published). That’s just junk data in that tool you’re using. Use authoritative sources like cve.org or nvd.nist.gov.

              You can see the CPEs on NVD and they’re old versions of Plex (and were old when the vulns were published).

        • MaggiWuerze@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          And you think if Jellyfin were a comparable size, there wouldn’t be just as many or more?

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Isn’t that the point of major version upgrades? To make breaking changes?

        • MaggiWuerze@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Its also possible for a webserver to offer two versions of an API. Add a new one that needs authentication, mark the old one as deprecated and add a checkbox to disable it. Then clients can update to use the secure one and if you use and unmaintained client you can enable the old insecure api