SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-05-15 04:32:40 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Allow Nebtird VPN to Exclusively Use Port 443 for All Client Connections ( & management url) #2233

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-20 07:06:17 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 6 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:17 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ne0YT on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025).

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Many networks restrict outbound traffic except for commonly used ports like 443 (HTTPS). This limits VPN connectivity in restrictive environments, making it difficult for users to maintain secure connections when other ports are blocked.

Describe the solution you'd like
I would like Nebtird VPN to support an option that forces all client connections to exclusively use port 443 (TCP or UDP). This would allow the VPN to bypass most firewalls and network restrictions, as port 443 is widely open for secure web traffic.
would be amazing to keep old clients working too.

Originally created by @ne0YT on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025). **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** Many networks restrict outbound traffic except for commonly used ports like 443 (HTTPS). This limits VPN connectivity in restrictive environments, making it difficult for users to maintain secure connections when other ports are blocked. **Describe the solution you'd like** I would like Nebtird VPN to support an option that forces all client connections to exclusively use port 443 (TCP or UDP). This would allow the VPN to bypass most firewalls and network restrictions, as port 443 is widely open for secure web traffic. would be amazing to keep old clients working too.
saavagebueno added the feature-request label 2025-11-20 07:06:17 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:18 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@1nerdyguy commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025):

How would this work when you have multiple clients behind the same NAT, even more so for P2P connections?

Also, doesn't the option of relaying help with this tons?

Sorta sounds like you're trying to bypass security concerns on networks you dont' control, which while I understand, I sorta have an issue with as a network operator.

@1nerdyguy commented on GitHub (Aug 28, 2025): How would this work when you have multiple clients behind the same NAT, even more so for P2P connections? Also, doesn't the option of relaying help with this tons? Sorta sounds like you're trying to bypass security concerns on networks you dont' control, which while I understand, I sorta have an issue with as a network operator.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:18 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ne0YT commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):

@1nerdyguy

How would this work when you have multiple clients behind the same NAT, even more so for P2P connections?

NAT allows to connect seperate connections based on a source port.

Sorta sounds like you're trying to bypass security concerns on networks you dont' control, which while I understand, I sorta have an issue with as a network operator.

the main issue is that "network operators" don't like to work much and sometimes it takes weeks till they find the right button to allow a custom port.
and other vpn solutions like openvpn always worked well over 443.
it's not about bypassing "security measurements" but just about making it possible to work faster.

@ne0YT commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025): @1nerdyguy ``` How would this work when you have multiple clients behind the same NAT, even more so for P2P connections? ``` NAT allows to connect seperate connections based on a source port. ``` Sorta sounds like you're trying to bypass security concerns on networks you dont' control, which while I understand, I sorta have an issue with as a network operator. ``` the main issue is that "network operators" don't like to work much and sometimes it takes weeks till they find the right button to allow a custom port. and other vpn solutions like openvpn always worked well over 443. it's not about bypassing "security measurements" but just about making it possible to work faster.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:18 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):

I don't think we'll get much closer to achieving it than what can already be done: modifying all NetBird clients to run on port 443, but I can easily imagine this interfering with webservers.

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025): I don't think we'll get much closer to achieving it than what can already be done: modifying all NetBird clients to run on port `443`, but I can easily imagine this interfering with webservers.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:18 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ne0YT commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):

@hurricanehrndz how do I do this ?

@ne0YT commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025): @hurricanehrndz how do I do this ?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:19 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lixmal commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):

If P2P is not possible (UDP), then the client will automatically use the relay connection (443, tcp or udp). So this is already implemented.

Additionally, if you really want to, you can set the UDP port to 443 in the client settings as well.
If you don't want any P2P attempts you can force relay with the env var NB_FORCE_RELAY=true.

@lixmal commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025): If P2P is not possible (UDP), then the client will automatically use the relay connection (443, tcp or udp). So this is already implemented. Additionally, if you really want to, you can set the UDP port to 443 in the client settings as well. If you don't want any P2P attempts you can force relay with the env var `NB_FORCE_RELAY=true`.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:19 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ne0YT commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025):

@lixmal what about the "management" part?

@ne0YT commented on GitHub (Aug 29, 2025): @lixmal what about the "management" part?
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#2233
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?