SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-05-30 20:11:44 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

One-way direction to a peer #1738

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 06:05:46 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 8 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:05:46 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @tropnikovvl on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025).

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently, policies only allow you to configure two-way access to peers, meaning peer A can access peer B, and vice versa.

Describe the solution you'd like
It would be nice to be able to set one-way access to peers, i.e. peer A can access peer B, but peer B cannot initiate a connection to peer A. The implication is that peer B will be able to respond to peer A, but within the scope of a session initiated by peer A.

Additional context
If a server with one of the peers is taken over by an attacker, then the attacker will automatically gain access to the entire network accessible to the peer.
This would close this attack surface.

Originally created by @tropnikovvl on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025). **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** Currently, policies only allow you to configure two-way access to peers, meaning peer A can access peer B, and vice versa. **Describe the solution you'd like** It would be nice to be able to set one-way access to peers, i.e. peer A can access peer B, but peer B cannot initiate a connection to peer A. The implication is that peer B will be able to respond to peer A, but within the scope of a session initiated by peer A. **Additional context** If a server with one of the peers is taken over by an attacker, then the attacker will automatically gain access to the entire network accessible to the peer. This would close this attack surface.
saavagebueno added the feature-request label 2025-11-20 06:05:46 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:05:47 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025):

It is already possible to unidirectional rule, but you need to limit it to either TCP or UDP and select all ports to be accessed.

Other than that it seems like a reasonable feature.

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025): It is already possible to unidirectional rule, but you need to limit it to either TCP or UDP and select all ports to be accessed. Other than that it seems like a reasonable feature.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:05:47 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tropnikovvl commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025):

@nazarewk
Indeed, I didn't know about this.
But I can't select the range.
Image

@tropnikovvl commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025): @nazarewk Indeed, I didn't know about this. But I can't select the range. ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/86cd7882-14aa-4425-be1b-5566c9e6ffd5)
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:05:47 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@fti7 commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025):

+1 it should be possible to select "all protocols". Even if it creates seperate ones for UDP/TCP/ICMP etc. in the Background (Shouldnt be visible to the user)

@fti7 commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025): +1 it should be possible to select "all protocols". Even if it creates seperate ones for UDP/TCP/ICMP etc. in the Background (Shouldnt be visible to the user)
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:05:48 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025):

there is already a feature request for port ranges https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/2320

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025): there is already a feature request for port ranges https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/2320
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:05:48 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tropnikovvl commented on GitHub (Mar 22, 2025):

@nazarewk
I made changes in UI and backend, and it is displayed without problems.

Image

Do you know what pitfalls there might be if you remove this restriction?
Why is it needed by the way?
https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/blob/main/management/server/http/handlers/policies/policies_handler.go#L270

@tropnikovvl commented on GitHub (Mar 22, 2025): @nazarewk I made changes in UI and backend, and it is displayed without problems. ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1aeae3f3-42a1-4b5e-94cc-6659152250d7) Do you know what pitfalls there might be if you remove this restriction? Why is it needed by the way? https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/blob/main/management/server/http/handlers/policies/policies_handler.go#L270
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:05:48 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Apr 18, 2025):

Aggregating all issues related to unidirectional rule port ranges I was able to identify:

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Apr 18, 2025): Aggregating all issues related to unidirectional rule port ranges I was able to identify: - https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/3547 - https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/2320 - https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/issues/1995
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:05:48 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@easyjoh commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2025):

Port ranges are already in the API (https://docs.netbird.io/api/resources/policies#create-a-policy) so it should "simply" be reflected in the UI.
@tropnikovvl, may I suggest you create a pull request to share your work?

@easyjoh commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2025): Port ranges are already in the API (https://docs.netbird.io/api/resources/policies#create-a-policy) so it should "simply" be reflected in the UI. @tropnikovvl, may I suggest you create a pull request to share your work?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:05:48 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@tropnikovvl commented on GitHub (Apr 26, 2025):

Hi @easyjoh ,

This is indeed in the API, but these rules cannot be applied because there is this limitation

		case types.PolicyRuleProtocolALL, types.PolicyRuleProtocolICMP:
			if len(pr.Ports) != 0 || len(pr.PortRanges) != 0 {
				util.WriteError(r.Context(), status.Errorf(status.InvalidArgument, "for ALL or ICMP protocol ports is not allowed"), w)
				return
			}
			if !pr.Bidirectional {
				util.WriteError(r.Context(), status.Errorf(status.InvalidArgument, "for ALL or ICMP protocol type flow can be only bi-directional"), w)
				return
			}
		case types.PolicyRuleProtocolTCP, types.PolicyRuleProtocolUDP:
			if !pr.Bidirectional && (len(pr.Ports) == 0 || len(pr.PortRanges) != 0) {
				util.WriteError(r.Context(), status.Errorf(status.InvalidArgument, "for ALL or ICMP protocol type flow can be only bi-directional"), w)
				return
			}
		}

https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/blob/main/management/server/http/handlers/policies/policies_handler.go#L259

@tropnikovvl commented on GitHub (Apr 26, 2025): Hi @easyjoh , This is indeed in the API, but these rules cannot be applied because there is this limitation ``` case types.PolicyRuleProtocolALL, types.PolicyRuleProtocolICMP: if len(pr.Ports) != 0 || len(pr.PortRanges) != 0 { util.WriteError(r.Context(), status.Errorf(status.InvalidArgument, "for ALL or ICMP protocol ports is not allowed"), w) return } if !pr.Bidirectional { util.WriteError(r.Context(), status.Errorf(status.InvalidArgument, "for ALL or ICMP protocol type flow can be only bi-directional"), w) return } case types.PolicyRuleProtocolTCP, types.PolicyRuleProtocolUDP: if !pr.Bidirectional && (len(pr.Ports) == 0 || len(pr.PortRanges) != 0) { util.WriteError(r.Context(), status.Errorf(status.InvalidArgument, "for ALL or ICMP protocol type flow can be only bi-directional"), w) return } } ``` https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird/blob/main/management/server/http/handlers/policies/policies_handler.go#L259
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
2021 Q4
2022 Q1
2022 Q1
accessibility
acl
agent
agent
Android
Android
api
authentik
automation
azure
battery-usage
bug
cache
client
client-ui
cloud
cloud-only
cloudflare
community
compatibility
config-idp
config-issue
connection
contribution
coturn
cross-vpn
dashboard
data-usage
distribution
dns
docker
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
enhancement
event-stream
feature-request
freebsd
getting-started
go
good first issue
gui
help wanted
home-assistant
idp
inconsistency
integration
integrations
ios
ipv6
jwt
k8s
keycloak
linux
login
macos
management-service
missing-docs
mobile
moved-internal
needs-review
netbird-ui
networking
new-platform
nginx
notification
okta
openwrt
packaging
peer-management
peer-management
peer-management
performance
postgres
posture-checks
psk
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
refactor
relay
release
rfc
routes
security
security-related
self-hosting
server
signal
sleep-issue
ssh
ssl
status
store
synology
system-compatibility-issue
test-suite
third-party-integration
triage
triage-needed
troubleshooting
UX
waiting-feedback
windows
wontfix
zitadel
No Label feature-request
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
saavagebueno
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: SVI/netbird#1738
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?