Collection of potential security issues in Jellyfin This is a non exhaustive list of potential security issues found in Jellyfin. Some of these might cause controversy. Some of these are design fla…
Collection of potential security issues in Jellyfin This is a non exhaustive list of potential security issues found in Jellyfin. Some of these might cause controversy. Some of these are design fla…
It’s not that challenging if you are looking for specific media files, but if you wanted to enumerate the files on a server it’s basically impossible.
Well lets say your a big movie studio… In the past 10 years you’ve released 40-50 movies. You pay some lawfirm to go out and find illegal copies of your movies.
Those 40-50 movies * 1000 or 10000 common paths/names makes you a nice table of likely candidates. Prehash that table in MD5. It doesn’t take all that much effort to “enumerate” all the movies that your studio cares about. 50000 http requests is childs play and you can scan a public server within minutes for your list.
Fully bruteforcing the thing… yeah that’s ridiculous. But I don’t think that people are naming bigbucksbunny.mkv as Rp23GXTHp4GN7P6j86HjRdxtfSKKAArj.mkv. So it’s not like we’re looking for “random” or “all” files anyway.
I don’t think anyone was ever saying that the risk here is full enumeration. Though it is technically possible with sufficient time… just will take a lot of time.
That is possible, but I don’t think you need to worry about that. Having a copy of a movie is not normally itself a crime.
Having it publicly accessible on a web server is distribution. And that normally IS a crime unless you have some licenses to do so.
I think in this case whether it’s distribution or not would have to go to court. It’s not intentended to be distribution. Depending on the judge and the lawyers it could be distribution or not distribution or the prosecution may have committed a crime in finding it.
Sure. Now who here wants to litigate it and find out?
Web scanners/crawlers aren’t illegal though. And since it’s not authenticated there’s no attempt to break any security/authentication/encryption. You don’t get in trouble for finding a random URL in a google search and accessing it. You’d get in trouble if you had to bypass some security measure to get there.
The point of this all is that these endpoints have no measure in place. Seemingly on purpose, and it’s documented by the maintainers that they don’t intend to fix it and leaving it open is intentional.
You can gamble it. I won’t. I just can’t accept that “Jellyfin is better” that keeps getting pushed when big gaping problematic holes like this exist.
Trying hundreds or thousands of hashes against the servers of random unconsenting people on the internet is beyond what I would be comfortable with. People have been prosecuted for less. It’s not the same as a crawler where you try a few well known locations and follow links. You’re trying to gain access to a system that somebody did not intend for you to have access to.
These endpoints probably don’t have protection because they were never designed to and it’s hard to add it later. Theoretically, if the IDs are random that’s probably good enough except that you wouldn’t be able to revoke access once somebody had it. The IDs probably aren’t random because at some point only the path is used. It’s how software evolves. It’s not on purpose that somebody may be able to guess the ID to gain access to it.
And installing a rootkit just because a customer put my music disc in a computer would be beyond what I’m comfortable with. However we know they’ve done it, and more or less got away with it.