SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-07-27 16:32:34 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Feature request: Add “Approve peers” to self-hosted (parity with Cloud) #2257

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 07:06:36 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 3 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:36 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @Joao-1 on GitHub (Sep 8, 2025).

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We run NetBird in self-hosted mode. When a new peer joins with a setup key, it can communicate immediately. We need an admin gate so new devices have no network access until explicitly approved.

I’m aware that “Approve peers” exists in the Cloud offering. This request is for self-hosted parity.

Describe the solution you'd like

  • Org-level toggle: “Require peer approval”.
  • UI page listing “Pending peers” with Approve / Deny (optional note).
  • API/CLI to approve/revoke so we can automate.
  • Activity/audit entries for approvals/revocations.
  • Default behavior: peers pending approval have zero access until approved.

Describe alternatives you've considered

  • Quarantine group + deny-all policies, then moving peers to allowed groups.
  • “Approve users” combined with posture checks.

These help, but they don’t truly block device-to-device/network access until an explicit approval and add manual overhead.

Originally created by @Joao-1 on GitHub (Sep 8, 2025). **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** We run NetBird in self-hosted mode. When a new peer joins with a setup key, it can communicate immediately. We need an admin gate so new devices have no network access until explicitly approved. I’m aware that “Approve peers” exists in the Cloud offering. This request is for self-hosted parity. **Describe the solution you'd like** - Org-level toggle: “Require peer approval”. - UI page listing “Pending peers” with Approve / Deny (optional note). - API/CLI to approve/revoke so we can automate. - Activity/audit entries for approvals/revocations. - Default behavior: peers pending approval have zero access until approved. **Describe alternatives you've considered** - Quarantine group + deny-all policies, then moving peers to allowed groups. - “Approve users” combined with posture checks. These help, but they don’t truly block device-to-device/network access until an explicit approval and add manual overhead.
saavagebueno added the feature-request label 2025-11-20 07:06:36 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:37 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@sahps commented on GitHub (Sep 25, 2025):

Whilst I'd also like to see this feature make its way to self-hosted, you can achieve this today by not using the "All" group for any access policies, and don't pre-apply groups to peers or users. This way when new devices are added, they are members of no groups and have no access until groups are assigned.

@sahps commented on GitHub (Sep 25, 2025): Whilst I'd also like to see this feature make its way to self-hosted, you can achieve this today by not using the "All" group for any access policies, and don't pre-apply groups to peers or users. This way when new devices are added, they are members of no groups and have no access until groups are assigned.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:37 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@luukasn commented on GitHub (Oct 6, 2025):

This feature should really be added to self-hosted. I don't see why it would not be and why it isn't already in self-hosted versions.

I am currently using the workaround mentioned in the commant above and this feature would make things so much easier.

@luukasn commented on GitHub (Oct 6, 2025): This feature should really be added to self-hosted. I don't see why it would not be and why it isn't already in self-hosted versions. I am currently using the workaround mentioned in the commant above and this feature would make things so much easier.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:06:37 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@674904341 commented on GitHub (Nov 17, 2025):

This feature should really be added to self-hosted. I don't see why it would not be and why it isn't already in self-hosted versions.

I am currently using the workaround mentioned in the commant above and this feature would make things so much easier.

@674904341 commented on GitHub (Nov 17, 2025): This feature should really be added to self-hosted. I don't see why it would not be and why it isn't already in self-hosted versions. I am currently using the workaround mentioned in the commant above and this feature would make things so much easier.
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#2257
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?