SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-05-31 04:22:11 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Add option to provide granular Access Control to multiple Ingresses on a single Ingress Control via OCI L7 #2077

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 06:12:23 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 3 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:12:23 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @rodion-serhieiev on GitHub (Jul 17, 2025).

Hi NetBird Team,
We need to use Ingress to terminate TLS because some of our pods, due to their current state, cannot process incoming TLS traffic, so we can't terminate TLS traffic on the pod/service. Due to this limitation, we are using Ingress with Nginx as an ingress controller. But then we are facing a possible issue because we have multiple Ingresses with different access level limitations on the same ingress controller, and we are not sure that this is a secure way because we do not see how to limit some users in the NetBird Application to some endpoints, like Allow access to Ingress-A but limit to Ingress-B. As I understand, NetBird, because it uses WireGuard, is working on OCI Level 4, so users have access to all services on the same IP:Port. There is no option to create a filter based on SNI because this is a different OCI Level.
Are there any alternatives to creating multiple Ingress Controllers for each Service, which would be a considerable overhead for us?

Originally created by @rodion-serhieiev on GitHub (Jul 17, 2025). Hi NetBird Team, We need to use Ingress to terminate TLS because some of our pods, due to their current state, cannot process incoming TLS traffic, so we can't terminate TLS traffic on the pod/service. Due to this limitation, we are using Ingress with Nginx as an ingress controller. But then we are facing a possible issue because we have multiple Ingresses with different access level limitations on the same ingress controller, and we are not sure that this is a secure way because we do not see how to limit some users in the NetBird Application to some endpoints, like Allow access to Ingress-A but limit to Ingress-B. As I understand, NetBird, because it uses WireGuard, is working on OCI Level 4, so users have access to all services on the same IP:Port. There is no option to create a filter based on SNI because this is a different OCI Level. Are there any alternatives to creating multiple Ingress Controllers for each Service, which would be a considerable overhead for us?
saavagebueno added the feature-requestquestion labels 2025-11-20 06:12:23 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:12:24 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2025):

You are correct, right now there is no way to discern different services running on the same IP:port combination. You can also inadvertently open up such ingress when using domain Resource: the IP address of the ingress will get routed, and somebody could theoretically send curl -H "Host: your-other.domain.com" https://<resolved-ip> to access other virtual hosts.

We are aware of the demand and were discussing introducing an internal L7 proxy (eg: embedding Caddy or something similar) for those cases a few months ago, but I don't know if we have a clear plan at this point in time.

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2025): You are correct, right now there is no way to discern different services running on the same `IP:port` combination. You can also inadvertently open up such ingress when using `domain` Resource: the IP address of the ingress will get routed, and somebody could theoretically send `curl -H "Host: your-other.domain.com" https://<resolved-ip>` to access other virtual hosts. We are aware of the demand and were discussing introducing an internal L7 proxy (eg: embedding Caddy or something similar) for those cases a few months ago, but I don't know if we have a clear plan at this point in time.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:12:24 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@rodion-serhieiev commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2025):

Hi @nazarewk,
Thank you for your reply.
Should I create a feature request, or could you share a link to the mentioned feature request so I could track the process?

@rodion-serhieiev commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2025): Hi @nazarewk, Thank you for your reply. Should I create a feature request, or could you share a link to the mentioned feature request so I could track the process?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 06:12:24 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2025):

I don't think there is any public feature request yet, we can turn this Issue into one, I have labeled it as feature request. We could only adjust the title to mention support for L7 ACLs for more exposure.

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2025): I don't think there is any public feature request yet, we can turn this Issue into one, I have labeled it as feature request. We could only adjust the title to mention support for L7 ACLs for more exposure.
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 question
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#2077
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?