285
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
285 points (97.7% liked)
Selfhosted
40734 readers
455 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I never understood this, it's your selfhosted server but you kind of don't own it and depend on them, so you just have an application which depends on a their service which means plex isn't 100% selfhostable, correct?
The problem is that they want to route control through their own servers for making sure you can't use some of the extra features without paying.
A few years back they dropped some clients (including the one for my old TV) because they were dropping support for legacy SSL ciphers on their servers - and those devices didn't have support for the new ciphers. This is a pretty stupid dependency due to the way they want to do things - so I moved to jellyfin back then, and have been encouraging people to drop plex ever since.
To be fair, old ssl isn’t really ssl at all & considered to be a vulnerability by a lot of libraries.
Without them forcing you to go through their server for user authentication it'd be a thing local to your network - where it wouldn't really matter. Without that stupid requirement you also could just keep unsupported clients running by yourself.
But can't you already. Just allow unencrypted clients?
But also on the other side, we're talking about just media consumption, not banking or other sensitive data
Yeah, I agree, and ultimately shame on the tv manufacturer. However many software just won’t connect so it’s not really a plex issue. If they use a library that won’t support it…
TLS 1.0/1.1? Those were deprecated and dropped by the IETF with RFC 8996. You can't even get a certificate using 1.0/1.1 anymore unless you are self-signing.
You can also allow unauthenticated users on certain networks, usually limited to your local nets. But I do agree that doesn't solve the problem. I'd love to allow users to optionally use local authentication with, eg, Authelia, something built in, or an LDAP backend.