SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-06-10 09:22:09 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Feature Request: Extend DNS Control with Policies and Posture Checks #2312

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 07:07:33 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 0 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 07:07:33 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @tkloda on GitHub (Sep 25, 2025).

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
NetBird currently allows us to assign DNS nameservers based on a peer's distribution group membership. While this is a useful feature for static assignments, it lacks the flexibility to handle dynamic situations based on a device's health or more complex rules.

The problem is that a peer's group membership is not always sufficient to determine the correct DNS settings. For instance, if a device within the developers group becomes non-compliant (e.g., its OS is out of date), we have no automated way to override its standard DNS settings and assign it a restricted "quarantine" DNS resolver. The current system is static and cannot react to changes in a device's security posture.

Describe the solution you'd like
I propose extending NetBird's Access Control policy engine to support DNS configuration as a manageable action. This would allow DNS settings to be dynamically applied based on both policies and the results of posture checks.

This system should be hierarchical:

  1. A DNS configuration defined in a matching Access Control Policy would take the highest priority.
  2. If no policy applies, the system would fall back to the DNS configuration assigned via the peer's distribution group.

Describe alternatives you've considered
The primary alternative is using the existing group-based DNS feature, but it has significant limitations. To handle a non-compliant device, we would have to manually create a "quarantine" group and manually move the peer into it. This process is slow, requires manual intervention, and completely defeats the purpose of having automated posture checks. It's a reactive manual task, not a proactive security policy.

Additional context
This feature would be a powerful evolution of NetBird's existing DNS capabilities. It fully aligns with a Zero Trust security model, where network access and services are determined by real-time device posture, not just static identity or group affiliation. By integrating DNS into the policy engine, DNS becomes a dynamic security enforcement tool, not just a simple network setting. This enables powerful, automated workflows for security, compliance, and network segmentation.

Originally created by @tkloda on GitHub (Sep 25, 2025). **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** NetBird currently allows us to assign DNS nameservers based on a peer's distribution group membership. While this is a useful feature for static assignments, it lacks the flexibility to handle dynamic situations based on a device's health or more complex rules. The problem is that a peer's group membership is not always sufficient to determine the correct DNS settings. For instance, if a device within the developers group becomes non-compliant (e.g., its OS is out of date), we have no automated way to override its standard DNS settings and assign it a restricted "quarantine" DNS resolver. The current system is static and cannot react to changes in a device's security posture. **Describe the solution you'd like** I propose extending NetBird's Access Control policy engine to support DNS configuration as a manageable action. This would allow DNS settings to be dynamically applied based on both policies and the results of posture checks. This system should be hierarchical: 1) A DNS configuration defined in a matching Access Control Policy would take the highest priority. 2) If no policy applies, the system would fall back to the DNS configuration assigned via the peer's distribution group. **Describe alternatives you've considered** The primary alternative is using the existing group-based DNS feature, but it has significant limitations. To handle a non-compliant device, we would have to manually create a "quarantine" group and manually move the peer into it. This process is slow, requires manual intervention, and completely defeats the purpose of having automated posture checks. It's a reactive manual task, not a proactive security policy. **Additional context** This feature would be a powerful evolution of NetBird's existing DNS capabilities. It fully aligns with a Zero Trust security model, where network access and services are determined by real-time device posture, not just static identity or group affiliation. By integrating DNS into the policy engine, DNS becomes a dynamic security enforcement tool, not just a simple network setting. This enables powerful, automated workflows for security, compliance, and network segmentation.
saavagebueno added the feature-request label 2025-11-20 07:07:33 -05:00
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#2312
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?