Add checkbox to users page to disable remote access for users with root privileges [Enhancement]: #1279

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-02-20 10:08:36 -05:00 by deekerman · 4 comments

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 10:08:36 -05:00

Owner

Originally created by @ponzischeme89 on GitHub (Jul 22, 2023).

Describe the feature/enhancement

A good security feature to have would be able to add the ability to disable remote access (via checkbox under user settings), for those with root privileges. This is another level of security for the service.

Originally created by @ponzischeme89 on GitHub (Jul 22, 2023). ### Describe the feature/enhancement A good security feature to have would be able to add the ability to disable remote access (via checkbox under user settings), for those with root privileges. This is another level of security for the service.

deekerman

2026-02-20 10:08:36 -05:00

closed this issue
added the
enhancement
label

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 10:08:37 -05:00

Author

Owner

@advplyr commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2023):

Is this a duplicate of #1269 ?

@advplyr commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2023): Is this a duplicate of #1269 ?

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 10:08:37 -05:00

Author

Owner

@ponzischeme89 commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2023):

Is this a duplicate of #1269 ?

This is an additional layer, in conjunction with 1269. I know Emby (Which JF is based upon) allows this as a setting under Users to simply "disable remote connections" (e.g. anything that isn't on the local subnet, 10.0.0.24 etc etc)

@ponzischeme89 commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2023): > Is this a duplicate of #1269 ? This is an additional layer, in conjunction with 1269. I know Emby (Which JF is based upon) allows this as a setting under Users to simply "disable remote connections" (e.g. anything that isn't on the local subnet, 10.0.0.24 etc etc)

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 10:08:37 -05:00

Author

Owner

@advplyr commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2023):

This can be combined with #1269 since what you are mentioning here is the primary use-case for #1269.

@advplyr commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2023): This can be combined with #1269 since what you are mentioning here is the primary use-case for #1269.

deekerman commented

2026-02-20 10:08:37 -05:00

Author

Owner

@advplyr commented on GitHub (Jul 22, 2023):