didnt say it wasnt. you just missed the option for others. =)

Ultimately, to handle the fact that things are going to shit, you either choose, despair, ignorance or indifference. The last was my choice.

you’ve missed a important option.

I never said anything about using the VPN as an ACL.

its literally your entire argument. you may not realize that is what you’re saying but it is. ‘vpns prevent {insert entity here} from accessing your systems by not publicly exposing them’. ACL -> ‘access control list’, you need to be on the VPNs list in order to access it which provides control for the network. your router already exposes you to the public internet. using a VPN or not doesnt change this.

in fact:

Sure, but someone would have to first get on the VPN

what do you think the phrase first get on the VPN means? its literally has access via the ACL. more on that paragraph later…

I’m also only talking about residential use cases, where it’s a common practice (when not using a VPN) to just expose everything via port forwarding.

business vs residential doesnt change security properties of approaches.

Businesses aren’t setting up Jellyfin on their servers.

because its literally is not a tool designed for any practical business use case. but that’s completely unrelated to its security properties. You’re literally just slapping a VPN in front to deal with the broken ACL’s that jellyfin provides.

Sure, but someone would have to first get on the VPN, and then find vulnerable apps once on the internal network, as opposed to just scanning the internet for public-facing vulnerable systems.

Doubling up on the authn/authz layers doesnt improve security, it just worsens user experience, which then leads to users taking short cuts for their own convenience undercutting whatever security you’re doing.

again as that wonderful federal document discusses VPNs are useful for preventing lateral movement once a device on a network is compromised (see worse user experience). but you literally need multiples of them in order for that to be effective and you need a reason for the segmentation.

Wireguard (and thus Tailscale) doesn’t respond to port scans at all - it only responds to packets that are signed with a known key.

port scanning isnt a vulnerability, its an attack optimization. a discovery mechanism once an attacker already on a network.

it doesnt really even slow attackers down these days. it doesnt take long to just plaster every port with your request for a specific application and when you’re attacking a system you essentially already know what vulnerabilities you’re going to attack (or you just try all the ones you have). oh no, it took them 30 seconds to compromise the network instead of 3…

you can also achieve similar properties at the application level w/ quic’s 0-RT, you send the auth request in the initial packet. so either the authn works or the connection silently hangs just like wireguard.

Nevermind the fact that using something like wireguard gives attackers something to target on your local device. ‘oh look, the keys to the kingdom just sitting here… on disk… in a well known directory… so kind of people to just leave these skeleton keys just lying out in the open like this, its a great trick VPNs have pulled teaching everyone they’re for security instead of privacy’

Admittedly, networking and network security isn’t my specialty

And I’ll refer you back to my original posts about VPNs not being effective security measures and how you should stop quoting dogma.

Its perfectly fine you’re using one, just stop spreading misinformation that they’re for security in any manner. you’re just using it to poorly plug security issues down stream in jellyfin.

fun fact: did you know that the encryption in the bittorrent protocol is basically useless and has major performance impacts when enabled?

also fun fact: did you know most networks get compromised by attacking the router itself first? you know the easiest thing to secure in the first place from a complexity standpoint? making this entire discuss pointless?

in real terms: try retrovibed at some point its still early days for it but its UX is designed around dealing with a lot of these issues.

If a service is publicly accessible, anyone can access it.

false.

Even if it’s secured, there can be security issues in the auth layer of the app, improperly secured endpoints, etc.

true, fun fact a VPN is also an application with an auth layer. dun dun dun!

If a service is only available over VPN, nobody can access it unless they’re on the VPN.

which is basically anyone soon as a browser is in the mix. which it is.

I’m not sure why you seem to think that a private network isn’t more secure than a public network.

because I’ve done network hardening and know that they are only as secure as the devices and people that are a part of that network. it has nothing to do w/ private vs public and everything to do with what you do while within that network.

There’s a reason why practically every company requires people working remotely to connect to a VPN to access company resources.

uh huh. heard of lemmings? appeals to authority? etc, etc, etc. thats you right now. federal agencies guidelines regarding VPNs search terms for you: Federal Zero Trust Strategy (notably via OMB Memo M-22-09). Individuals like yourself are literally the reason they had to release these updated guidelines. because people kept quoting out of date security practices from their old guidelines as ‘good enough for the feds must be best practices’

like i said you dont know what you’re talking about. historical foot note: when the federal agency updated their recommendations regarding VPNs they were criticized by security experts for taking so fucking long to finally remove the misguided position that VPNs improve security that you hold.

here is a relevant snippet for everyone:

Regardless of the approach selected, agencies must move away from the practice of maintaining a broad enterprise-wide network that allows enhanced visibility or access to many distinct applications and enterprise functions. Accordingly, agencies should choose their zero trust approach early enough to permit them to align that approach with their plans for IT investment

Literally use ‘authn/authz’ and dont rely on VPNs for ACL. Here is another gem from that memo for today’s lucky 10,000:

Agencies must remove password policies that require special characters and regular password rotation from all systems

and yet companies still put that nonsense into their security policies.

except its not. VPNs provide no real protection for a network. its literally undercut by any network connection that reaches beyond the wall it provides.

VPNs are a routing simplification and privacy measure not a security measure. idiots try and use them as a security layer thinking they’re safer.

thats, like, your opinion man. frankly slapping a VPN on top of everything else doesnt improve your security posture unless you have the skills to manage that system on top of everything, including ongoing validation that its configuration is restricting what you want it to.

a robust authn/authz at the application layer is what secures your environment. VPNs are just slapping a wall around your network that is trivially penetrated by the browsers (and their extensions) within your network.

stop spouting dogma seriously doesnt make you look intelligent. personally the only reason I bother with a VPN is so I can leverage my local networks dns to access services anywhere. its not for security.

things you shouldnt need to do…

yup people forget about convenience. its why I’ve been building retrovibed for the last year. that *arr + plex/jellyfin + vpn + reverse proxy nonsense is insane. yes you can do it… but seriously who the fuck wants to manage that many moving parts.

you asked, I answered. fun fact: I bet a significant number of people who frequent this forum can handle the total size.

as for indexing the music… basically every music player can do that automatically. you dont need to filter it. there are up and coming players which make indexing and storing the data cheap and easy and integrate directly with p2p technologies.

uh huh. overly dramatic much. go ahead find me a similarly sized dataset of music. ill wait. until then point stands.

because its a 1 stop shop convenience is king vs having to manually go and source every song known to man. =)

as the torrentfreak link states at the bottom anna’s is holding onto them for now until the heat dies down.

think we can enlighten the maggots to switch their diets?

or 99% of the people running instances will want those defaults and its not worth the effort to deal with people like you to bother making it brain dead to disable.

trust me adding friction to a codebase is the a easy way to not have to deal with you.

for example imagine having ti field nonsense feature requests from people who cant even be assed to do basic research on how to remove the blocking configuration. that’d be infuriating.

the average person isnt running their own software stack. your complaint was its hard coded. it isnt. your complaint was that it couldnt be changed. it can. you were simply wrong on all counts and are now moving the goal post to make yourself feel better.

PEBCAC. this is a skill issue not a statement of fact. you not knowing how to operate the software is different from the software mandating things. maybe you should go find the code and understand how it works before making wild claims that are a result of your incompetence.

Fun fact: since someone did provide receipts and I did look at the code. its trivial to remove both domain blocklist and the instance block list in about 40s of work.

1. open db terminal
2. truncate blocklist and domain list tables.

smile I assume most of the individuals crying foul here are just generally confused about many things.

laugh in other words you dont know wtf you’re talking about. no one is saying piefied’s codebase doesnt have block functionality or that its available by default. the problem is you shits are saying its mandatory, when in reality it almost CERTAINLY isnt and then you can’t even be half assed enough to ask an LLM to find the code to prove your position.

stop wasting everyone’s time with your childish nonsense. and be happy someone else did your homework for you and you were entirely incorrect.

so no proof got it. note other people in the thread mentioned DB records you need to clear out. fairly trivial work if your hosting systems.

citation needed. no one has provided evidence of that and i highly doubt it simply due to the multiple claims by individuals here crying foul claiming multiple versions of how that block list is stored. not to mention, you know, it’d need to be updated periodically.