SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-05-09 17:51:57 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Posture check for peer's Public IP-Address #703

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 05:16:13 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 9 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:13 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @piotrekzurek on GitHub (Mar 14, 2024).

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Like with GeoIP posture check it would be nice to have ability to "pin" a peer to be able to connect only from one certain public IP address to the network.
Currently I use IPSEC to do external unlocking of encrypted disk volumes on servers that works in a restricted area and yet the customer does not want to be in possession of a unlocking key (or just can't do it themselves). Having ability to pin peer's IP address to certain value would allow to not use IPSEC in this scenario. This is used to make the unlocking technically not possible (or at least much, much harder to unlock) in case the server is stolen and put into some other network.

Describe the solution you'd like
Please consider adding a posture check for peer's Public IP-Address(es)/ranges.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Alternative is to make a single dedicated, separate vpn channel with IP pinning (site-to-site like in case of IPSEC).

Originally created by @piotrekzurek on GitHub (Mar 14, 2024). **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** Like with GeoIP posture check it would be nice to have ability to "pin" a peer to be able to connect only from one certain public IP address to the network. Currently I use IPSEC to do external unlocking of encrypted disk volumes on servers that works in a restricted area and yet the customer does not want to be in possession of a unlocking key (or just can't do it themselves). Having ability to pin peer's IP address to certain value would allow to not use IPSEC in this scenario. This is used to make the unlocking technically not possible (or at least much, much harder to unlock) in case the server is stolen and put into some other network. **Describe the solution you'd like** Please consider adding a posture check for peer's Public IP-Address(es)/ranges. **Describe alternatives you've considered** Alternative is to make a single dedicated, separate vpn channel with IP pinning (site-to-site like in case of IPSEC).
saavagebueno added the feature-request label 2025-11-20 05:16:13 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:14 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@piotrekzurek commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2024):

I have added the issue after being refused by the UI to create a posture check based on IP address whereas it actually works already and just needs to have a /32 mask added to the IP address I wanted to PIN the peer to. Kind of obvious but might be worth keeping this thread here in case anyone else looks for it.

Great, great app! Thank you. Looking forward to new features.

@piotrekzurek commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2024): I have added the issue after being refused by the UI to create a posture check based on IP address whereas it actually works already and just needs to have a /32 mask added to the IP address I wanted to PIN the peer to. Kind of obvious but might be worth keeping this thread here in case anyone else looks for it. Great, great app! Thank you. Looking forward to new features.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:14 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@piotrekzurek commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2024):

Actually when trying to use it with public IP addresses I couldn't. It's possible to create a policy that uses ranges of internal interfaces of the peer, not the public IP addresses (when it's behind NAT), so this would be still a great feature. Reopening...

@piotrekzurek commented on GitHub (Mar 14, 2024): Actually when trying to use it with public IP addresses I couldn't. It's possible to create a policy that uses ranges of internal interfaces of the peer, not the public IP addresses (when it's behind NAT), so this would be still a great feature. Reopening...
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:14 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Mar 15, 2024):

@piotrekzurek, thanks for your request. We will discuss the feature internally and provide an update once we have a better idea of when we could work on it.

@mlsmaycon commented on GitHub (Mar 15, 2024): @piotrekzurek, thanks for your request. We will discuss the feature internally and provide an update once we have a better idea of when we could work on it.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:14 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@spanishdexter commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2025):

Has there been any new developments in regards to this feature? The org I work for, would love to use Netbird to replace our current VPN solution, SoftEther, but this feature is a crucial feature to ensure our fleet of laptops don’t try to connect to the VPN when their already in the office while on the local subnets at our sites.

@spanishdexter commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2025): Has there been any new developments in regards to this feature? The org I work for, would love to use Netbird to replace our current VPN solution, SoftEther, but this feature is a crucial feature to ensure our fleet of laptops don’t try to connect to the VPN when their already in the office while on the local subnets at our sites.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:14 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2025):

Has there been any new developments in regards to this feature? The org I work for, would love to use Netbird to replace our current VPN solution, SoftEther, but this feature is a crucial feature to ensure our fleet of laptops don’t try to connect to the VPN when their already in the office while on the local subnets at our sites.

You should already be able to achieve your use case with a Posture Check configured with Peer Network Range set to your local site's subnet. This will match the subnet EXACTLY (no sub/super-net or overlaps calculations are taken into consideration right now).

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2025): > Has there been any new developments in regards to this feature? The org I work for, would love to use Netbird to replace our current VPN solution, SoftEther, but this feature is a crucial feature to ensure our fleet of laptops don’t try to connect to the VPN when their already in the office while on the local subnets at our sites. You should already be able to achieve your use case with a Posture Check configured with `Peer Network Range` set to your local site's subnet. This will match the subnet EXACTLY (no sub/super-net or overlaps calculations are taken into consideration right now).
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:14 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@spanishdexter commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2025):

Yes, I am aware of that, however a lot of our home users on their home networks, use the 192.168.x.x range. This is the same range our offices use. Thats where the VPN can unintentionally get disconnected as well.

@spanishdexter commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2025): Yes, I am aware of that, however a lot of our home users on their home networks, use the 192.168.x.x range. This is the same range our offices use. Thats where the VPN can unintentionally get disconnected as well.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:15 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2025):

Yes, I am aware of that, however a lot of our home users on their home networks, use the 192.168.x.x range. This is the same range our offices use. Thats where the VPN can unintentionally get disconnected as well.

This should not be a problem unless you're using exactly 192.168.0.0/24 (the default on most home devices), if you're using anything else: 192.168.10.0/24 or even the whole 192.168.0.0/16 you would be fine.

@nazarewk commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2025): > Yes, I am aware of that, however a lot of our home users on their home networks, use the 192.168.x.x range. This is the same range our offices use. Thats where the VPN can unintentionally get disconnected as well. This should not be a problem unless you're using **exactly** `192.168.0.0/24` (the default on most home devices), if you're using anything else: `192.168.10.0/24` or even the whole `192.168.0.0/16` you would be fine.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:15 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Hello so in our testing we have tried this out, it seems to be mostly working well for our other offices (192.168.10.0, 192.168.21.0, etc).

However, our main office is 192.168.0.0/23, and im trying to use a router for testing that is 192.168.0.0/24, to simulate a good sample of our home users personal routers.

Netbird is treating the /23 and /24 the same. I want people at the office to be disconnected while on the 192.168.0.0/23 network and connected when their at home on their 192.168.0.0/24 network. So the overlap is an issue for the moment…

@spanishdexter commented on GitHub (Mar 19, 2025): Hello so in our testing we have tried this out, it seems to be mostly working well for our other offices (192.168.10.0, 192.168.21.0, etc). However, our main office is 192.168.0.0/23, and im trying to use a router for testing that is 192.168.0.0/24, to simulate a good sample of our home users personal routers. Netbird is treating the /23 and /24 the same. I want people at the office to be disconnected while on the 192.168.0.0/23 network and connected when their at home on their 192.168.0.0/24 network. So the overlap is an issue for the moment…
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:16:15 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@spanishdexter commented on GitHub (Mar 21, 2025):

Update: I developed a quick work around until these features are natively included in the client.

Netbird has been awesome and this workaround lets me proceed with using it.

Thanks for building an awesome VPN solution.

https://github.com/spanishdexter/NetbirdIPCheck

@spanishdexter commented on GitHub (Mar 21, 2025): Update: I developed a quick work around until these features are natively included in the client. Netbird has been awesome and this workaround lets me proceed with using it. Thanks for building an awesome VPN solution. https://github.com/spanishdexter/NetbirdIPCheck
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#703
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?