SVI/netbird
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbirdio/netbird.git synced 2026-07-28 08:52:37 -04:00
Code Issues 3.0k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Filter netbird status -d based on ACLs #999

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-11-20 05:21:29 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 4 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:21:29 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @ndziuba on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024).

For machines to connect they have to see and know each other but if ACL rules are in place that is forbidding them to connect then they should also not show up in the netbird status -d command.
As it will leak the machine to the peer.

This would enable to set up a group like traditional-vpn where users are just connecting to infrastructure machines but can't connect to each other and most importantly see each other, as this would leak for example user activity to peers and colleagues.

Describe the solution you'd like
Filter the peer list with ACL rules in netbird status -d based on reachability.

Originally created by @ndziuba on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024). For machines to connect they have to see and know each other but if ACL rules are in place that is forbidding them to connect then they should also not show up in the `netbird status -d` command. As it will leak the machine to the peer. This would enable to set up a group like `traditional-vpn` where users are just connecting to infrastructure machines but can't connect to each other and most importantly see each other, as this would leak for example user activity to peers and colleagues. **Describe the solution you'd like** Filter the peer list with ACL rules in `netbird status -d` based on reachability.
saavagebueno added the feature-request label 2025-11-20 05:21:29 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:21:30 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pascal-fischer commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024):

Hi @ndziuba,

this should already be the case. The peer only receives a network map with peers when there is at least 1 port allowed to be accessed from the peer. Can you double-check your policies to make sure none of them is allowing access to that peer?

@pascal-fischer commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024): Hi @ndziuba, this should already be the case. The peer only receives a network map with peers when there is at least 1 port allowed to be accessed from the peer. Can you double-check your policies to make sure none of them is allowing access to that peer?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:21:30 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

Yes, you are correct.
I got the result because my User was in a source and destination group.

But a problem that we still face is that the destination server can view all peers and we would like to hide them from machines that are accessed and managed by users.

@ndziuba commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024): Yes, you are correct. I got the result because my User was in a source and destination group. But a problem that we still face is that the destination server can view all peers and we would like to hide them from machines that are accessed and managed by users.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:21:30 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

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

#812 i found the following issue describing a similar feature

@ndziuba commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024): #812 i found the following issue describing a similar feature
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 05:21:31 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pascal-fischer commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024):

Ok got you point. Yes for a directional ACL the destination peer also sees all the information about the connected peers. We need to check how we can propagate this information to the client if a peer is accessing or being accessed by another peer to hide it from the status response.

@pascal-fischer commented on GitHub (Jun 20, 2024): Ok got you point. Yes for a directional ACL the destination peer also sees all the information about the connected peers. We need to check how we can propagate this information to the client if a peer is accessing or being accessed by another peer to hide it from the status response.
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#999
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?