SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-06-12 10:22:25 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Minimum client version posture check issue #961

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-20 05:20:40 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 3 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:20:40 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @JonathanManass on GitHub (Jun 10, 2024).

Describe the problem

I noticed that when adding a posture check requiring a certain version of the client, this would only block if both clients were under the required version.

If we have 3 clients, with one not at the minimum version of the posture check, it will still be able to connect to the other ones, if two clients are below the minimum version, they won't be able to communicate with each other.

It seems like it would be more useful to have the option of completely blocking access for a client not having the required version

To Reproduce

  1. Add a posture check requiring the netbird client to be in version 0.27.10
  2. Have three peers, one in version 0.27.9, two in 0.27.10
  3. All of them will be able to communicate

Expected behavior

As said, I would rather have it that if one peer is below the posture check required version and the two others are compliant, those two should communicate to each other, but not with the third non compliant peer

Are you using NetBird Cloud?

No, I'm selfhosting it.

NetBird version

0.27.10

Originally created by @JonathanManass on GitHub (Jun 10, 2024). **Describe the problem** I noticed that when adding a posture check requiring a certain version of the client, this would only block if both clients were under the required version. If we have 3 clients, with one not at the minimum version of the posture check, it will still be able to connect to the other ones, if two clients are below the minimum version, they won't be able to communicate with each other. It seems like it would be more useful to have the option of completely blocking access for a client not having the required version **To Reproduce** 1. Add a posture check requiring the netbird client to be in version 0.27.10 2. Have three peers, one in version 0.27.9, two in 0.27.10 3. All of them will be able to communicate **Expected behavior** As said, I would rather have it that if one peer is below the posture check required version and the two others are compliant, those two should communicate to each other, but not with the third non compliant peer **Are you using NetBird Cloud?** No, I'm selfhosting it. **NetBird version** 0.27.10
saavagebueno added the clientposture-checks labels 2025-11-20 05:20:40 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:20:41 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bcmmbaga commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2024):

Hello @JonathanManass, posture checks are applied only to policy source groups. This means that the source can only communicate with the destination if it meets the required rule.

Could you confirm if the peer with a version below the minimum required belongs to the source or destination group in the policy?

@bcmmbaga commented on GitHub (Jun 15, 2024): Hello @JonathanManass, posture checks are applied only to policy source groups. This means that the source can only communicate with the destination if it meets the required rule. Could you confirm if the peer with a version below the minimum required belongs to the source or destination group in the policy?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:20:41 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@JonathanManass commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024):

Hi @bcmmbaga, that was is. I had three groups as both source and destination in the same policy.
By moving them into seperate policies and only putting each group on only one of either side of the policy I got to the result I wanted.
Thanks for that, I would say however that specifying somewhere that posture checks are only applied to source groups might be worth it. Except if I missed it, it does not seem specified on the console when adding them or in the documentation specified on that page.

@JonathanManass commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024): Hi @bcmmbaga, that was is. I had three groups as both source and destination in the same policy. By moving them into seperate policies and only putting each group on only one of either side of the policy I got to the result I wanted. Thanks for that, I would say however that specifying somewhere that posture checks are only applied to source groups might be worth it. Except if I missed it, it does not seem specified on the console when adding them or in the documentation specified on that page.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:20:41 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bcmmbaga commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024):

Hi @bcmmbaga, that was is. I had three groups as both source and destination in the same policy. By moving them into seperate policies and only putting each group on only one of either side of the policy I got to the result I wanted. Thanks for that, I would say however that specifying somewhere that posture checks are only applied to source groups might be worth it. Except if I missed it, it does not seem specified on the console when adding them or in the documentation specified on that page.

Thanks for confirming that the solution worked!. We will include this clarification in the documentation. For now, I will close this issue.

Thanks again for your feedback!

@bcmmbaga commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024): > Hi @bcmmbaga, that was is. I had three groups as both source and destination in the same policy. By moving them into seperate policies and only putting each group on only one of either side of the policy I got to the result I wanted. Thanks for that, I would say however that specifying somewhere that posture checks are only applied to source groups might be worth it. Except if I missed it, it does not seem specified on the console when adding them or in the documentation specified on that page. Thanks for confirming that the solution worked!. We will include this clarification in the documentation. For now, I will close this issue. Thanks again for your feedback!
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 client posture-checks
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#961
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?