Immich is an amazing piece of software, but because it holds such personal data I have only ever felt comfortable accessing it via VPN or mTLS. This meant that I could never share any photos, which had been really bugging me.

So I built a self-hosted app, Immich Public Proxy, which allows you to share individual files or full galleries to the public without ever exposing your Immich instance. This uses Immich’s existing sharing functionality, so other than the initial configuration everything else is handled within Immich.

Why not just expose Immich publicly with Traefik / Caddy / etc?

To share from Immich, you need to allow public access to your /api/ path, which opens you up to potential vulnerabilities. It’s up to you whether you are comfortable with that in your threat model.

The proxy provides a barrier of security between the public and Immich. It doesn’t forward traffic to Immich, it validates incoming requests and responds only to valid requests without needing privileged access to Immich.

Demo

You can see a live demo here, which is serving a gallery straight out of my own Immich instance.

Features

  • Supports sharing photos and videos.
  • Supports password-protected shares.
  • All usage happens through Immich - you won’t need to touch this app after the initial configuration.

Install

Setup takes about 30 seconds:

  1. Take a copy of the docker-compose.yml file and change the address for your Immich instance.

  2. Start the container: docker-compose up -d

  3. Set the “External domain” in your Immich Server Settings to be whatever domain you use to publicly serve Immich Public Proxy. Now whenever you share an image or gallery through Immich, it will automatically create the correct public path for you.

For more detail on the steps, see the docs on Github.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    7 days ago

    You seem to understand neither security nor privacy.

    I get to give you access to all my photos so that you can just proxy calls to my server?

    Just share your own damn server people, this “I’m behind 7 proxies” bs is getting tiring.

    • alan@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      I get to give you access to all my photos so that you can just proxy calls to my server?

      This is a self-hosted app… The only person who has access to your photos is you - that’s the entire point of using this. It lets you share photos/videos/albums from Immich without giving anyone access to any part of your Immich server, thus significantly increasing your privacy and security.

      It doesn’t forward any traffic to Immich, it creates essentially a WAF between the public and Immich. It validates all incoming requests and answers only valid requests, without needing privileged access to Immich.

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Couldnt this in theory also be handled by using cloudflares WAF and disallowing every entry to protected end-points?

        • alan@feddit.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          You’d still need to allow access to the /api/ path, and even public endpoints could potentially expose you to a vulnerability. It’s entirely up to your threat model.

          Knowing what happened in 2014 with iCloud, I’m not prepared to take that risk. Especially as Immich is under heavy development and things can often change and move around. At least this way I know that it will either safely fetch the data or simply fail.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        43
        ·
        7 days ago

        Then what’s the fucking point? I’m “exposing” my own server either way! And now I’m adding a new system to the mix which can have vulnerabilities of its own.

        This is stupid.

        • alan@feddit.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          I’m “exposing” my own server either way!

          Put it on a different server then. It prevents your Immich server from ever needing to be exposed publicly. That’s the entire point.

          This is stupid.

          You seem to understand neither security nor privacy.

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            32
            ·
            7 days ago

            Put it on a different server then. It prevents your Immich server from ever needing to be exposed publicly. That’s the entire point.

            This is stupid.

            Repeat after me - proxies are not used for security.

            This is a cargo-cult believe in this community. There’s a weird sense that it’s “dirty” to have a server exposed “directly” to the internet. But if I put it behind something else that forwards traffic to the server then that’s somehow safe!

            Security is something you do not something you have. The false sense of security with proxy bullshit like this crappy project is not giving you anything. You’re taking a well supported community project (immich) and installing another app in front of it which appears to be some dude’s personal project and telling me that is more secure. As though that project is better written?

            Install immich. Forward ports to it (or proxy it with nginx if needed for hostname routing (but don’t expect this to be more secure)), and keep it up to date and use good passwords.

            • doeknius_gloek@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Security is something you do

              Like by reducing the attack surface on internal APIs?

              I don’t even necessarily disagree with you, everybody has to decide themselves if this app offers enough upsides to be worth the downsides.

              That being said, instantly calling OP stupid and their project crappy is just not the way to get your point across and in general considered a dick move.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                24
                ·
                7 days ago

                general considered a dick move.

                Sometimes that’s the point. This project is so stupid it simply deserves derision. I couldn’t care less if anyone here is swayed. It’s lemmy - if I’m not echoing what everyone else is saying I’ll be voted down anyway.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                18
                ·
                7 days ago

                Like by reducing the attack surface on internal APIs?

                This is my other favorite term the community has picked up and uses like it’s a mic drop without understanding it.

                It’s a proxy my friend. It forwards requests to the other server. And you’ve added an untested personal project in front of it.

                But wait! You don’t want to just expose your immich proxy to the internet do you? I’ll write DavesAwesomeProxy that you can put in front of that proxy! Will it be secure? Maybe. Will I support it? What’s with all the questions!

                • alan@feddit.orgOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

                  It forwards requests to the other server.

                  No raw requests are passed to Immich. All incoming data is validated / sanitized. Requests are only made to specific whitelisted API endpoints. I don’t know why you’re so angry 🤷

            • betweenthesixes@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              7 days ago

              Repeat after me - proxies are not used for security.

              If you believe this, you are extremely uninformed at best. Proxies are routinely used for security in situations like this and are used to secure many of the apps that you use on the public internet today.

              Thank you OP for creating this app! Please ignore any negativity from ignorant detractors.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                7 days ago

                Proxies are not used for security by anyone but morons. Firewalls, WAFs, etc. all provide some sort of benefit. What is this application doing that is of use? Just “not exposing your server directly”? Well, it is being exposed directly now - so it’s a very secure application written by a security professional then? Or should I put it behind another proxy just to be sure? Maybe 7 proxies are enough?

                OP is well meaning - but this was a waste of time for anyone else to use. It’s a solution in search of a problem.

                • ShortN0te@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  You have clearly not understood what it does. It basically acts as a basic WAF by blocking the access to various paths that are required by the default sharing feature but not by this “proxy”.

            • alan@feddit.orgOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              some dude’s personal project

              Yes, it’s my project.

              if I put it behind something else that forwards traffic to the server then that’s somehow safe!

              It doesn’t “forward traffic”, it validates traffic and answers only valid requests, without needing privileged access to Immich. I think you are confusing the word “proxy” with meaning something like Traefik.

              telling me that is more secure. As though that project is better written?

              Yes, it’s more secure to use this than exposing Immich. No it’s not “better written” than Immich; it fulfills a completely different purpose.

              It’s 400 lines of code in total, feel free to review it and tell me any flaws, oh mighty security expert.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                27
                ·
                7 days ago

                Sorry - it’s a pointless application. I won’t sugar coat it. If anyone things it’s “more safe” to run this soon-to-be-abandonware in front of a properly supported project then they deserve what’s coming to them.

        • MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Why so angry?

          This lets you share photos without directly exposing Immich to the internet.

          I don’t see the point in getting so worked up over someones project they made and decided to share, it’s not like you’re being forced to use it.

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 days ago

            Why so angry?

            Stupid question. I’m not. I forgot about this entirely until I logged in later and saw replies, which are just… Wow.

            I don’t see the point in getting so worked up over someones project they made and decided to share, it’s not like you’re being forced to use it.

            The stupid continues. Go ahead - run some rando’s “proxy” application to make yourself more secure and add to the number of things you need to maintain and update. I’m sure it’ll be fine. It’s worth it to “reduce attack surface area”. I’m sure they’ll support it for a long time too.

            And don’t think about why it’s risky to “expose immich to the internet” (oh noes!) but for some reason it’s okay to “expose” this rando’s project to the internet.

        • thelittleblackbird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          This thing reduces the attack surface of the inmich installation.

          If it is good, or bad or fitting to your security model can only be said by you. But honestly it sounds like a sensible thing to do

            • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              And? It lowers the attack surface of Immich. Attack surface is about the surface, whatever an attacker can use to get leverage. This acts as an intermediate between Immich and a public viewer, controlling how a threat actor can access a private Immich server. It helps reduce external attack surface while increasing overall system complexity. Since the project is small, it is easy to audit the code.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                It’s some rando’s project that has existed for “nearly a month”, has no community, is unlikely to have any rapid response to any issues, and probably won’t be supported for more than a year.

                But sure - go ahead and run it for “security purposes”.

                You can “reduce surface area” by simply putting in place nginx or apache (real supported software) and blacklisting the endpoints you don’t like.

                • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  I like to judge software based on its actually merit and not on the theoretical possibility it is vulnerable. It very well could be vulnerable, but without auditing it we are just speculating, which in the real world means nothing. Every project starts somewhere, without community, followers, and “5 years of support”. I am not saying I would trust this software in a security critical situation, just that your speculation means nothing.

    • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      For anyone else reading this completely unjustified and ill-intentioned criticism of the OP’s work: atzanteol obviously has no clue about security and therefore cannot comprehend the value of this library.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Do you often recommend people running single-developer maintained software that has existed for about a fortnight for “security purposes”?