The repo had no SECURITY.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, code of conduct, or issue and PR templates. For a client that handles Jellyfin credentials and ships signed binaries, the missing one that actually matters is SECURITY.md: there was no stated way to report a vulnerability privately, so the only available channel was the public tracker. CONTRIBUTING.md documents the gates as they now stand, including the three ratchets and which direction each is allowed to move, and the two rules that surprise people: bug fixes start with a failing test, and Jellyfin's taxonomy stays in Rust. The bug template asks the three playback questions -- streaming or downloaded, transcoding or direct, music or video -- because those answers decide which of several very different code paths a report is about, and reconstructing them over several round trips is most of the cost of a playback bug report. docs/build/ci-operations.md is the missing operations manual: how to change the builder image and in what order (image pushed before the workflow that names it, or CI breaks), why tags are dated rather than :latest or per-SHA, what each secret is for, and what losing the updater private key would mean -- installed desktop clients only accept payloads signed by the key matching the public key they shipped with, so losing it means everyone reinstalls by hand. Disk exhaustion on the runner is documented as a manual check rather than a scheduled job. A daily job would occupy the only slot on a single-slot runner and pull the whole builder image to run `df` -- and `df` inside a container does not reliably describe the host's disk, so it would spend real build capacity reporting a number that might be wrong. What the doc records instead is the part that is actually hard to rediscover: the symptoms (cargo dying mid-link, docker refusing to pull, actions/cache quietly not saving) and that `docker volume prune` needs `-a` to touch named volumes, which is how it filled up unnoticed. Two things in these docs are stated plainly because they are true and were not written down anywhere: without branch protection every gate in the pipeline is advisory, and the Gitea instance -- canonical remote, signing secrets, registry, runner -- is not backed up by anything in this repository.
2.8 KiB
Security Policy
Reporting a vulnerability
Email duncan@tourolle.paris with [JellyTau security] in the subject.
Please do not open a public issue for a vulnerability — JellyTau handles
Jellyfin credentials and media, and an unfixed issue in a public tracker is an
advisory for everyone running it.
Include what you have: what the problem is, how to reproduce it, the version and platform, and what you think an attacker could do with it. A rough report is worth more than a polished one that never gets sent.
You can expect an acknowledgement within a week. If a fix is warranted it will ship in the next release, and you will be credited in the release notes unless you would rather not be.
Supported versions
JellyTau is a single-maintainer project without long-term support branches. Only the latest release receives fixes. Desktop builds can update themselves (Settings → Updates); on Android, install the latest APK from the releases page.
What is in scope
The application and its build pipeline:
- The Tauri backend (
src-tauri/) and the Svelte frontend (src/) - Credential storage — the system keyring and its encrypted-file fallback
- The Android player service and its JNI bridge
- The loopback media server used for downloaded playback
- The release pipeline: artifact signing, the update manifest, the builder image
Out of scope: vulnerabilities in Jellyfin itself (report those to the Jellyfin project), and issues that require an already-compromised device or a malicious server the user deliberately configured and trusted.
What the project already does
Not a guarantee, but so you know what has been considered:
- Credentials never go in plaintext config: the system keyring is used where available, with an AES-GCM encrypted file as fallback (see docs/architecture/09-security.md).
- The webview runs under a restrictive CSP, and the asset protocol is scoped to the thumbnail cache directory only.
- Path confinement is enforced on the cache and download roots — a server-supplied id cannot decide where a file lands (DR-210, DR-211).
- Queries and URLs bind or encode their inputs rather than interpolating them (DR-212).
- Dependencies are scanned on every build by
cargo denyagainst the RustSec advisory database, and licence-checked against an allow-list (DR-216). - Releases carry
SHA256SUMSand an SBOM, so you can verify a download and find out what went into it. - Desktop updates are signature-verified against a key held only in CI before anything is installed (DR-217).
Windows installers are not Authenticode-signed — SmartScreen will warn on
first run. That is a cost and identity problem, not an oversight; verify the
download against SHA256SUMS instead.