starred/headscale
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/juanfont/headscale.git synced 2026-01-11 20:00:28 +01:00
Code Issues 98 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Reducing filter rules breaks exit node access #647

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 02:21:35 +01:00 by adam · 9 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 02:21:35 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @TotoTheDragon on GitHub (Feb 19, 2024).

Bug description

When setting up an ACL to allow access to a exit node, the access rules can be reduced because the ips defined are not in use by the network or routes.

Environment

  • OS: N/A
  • Headscale version:
  • Tailscale version: N/A
  • Headscale is behind a (reverse) proxy
  • Headscale runs in a container

To Reproduce

Logs and attachments

Trying to create the following setup:

  • user1-user3 are part of the group "team"
  • user "internal" contains internal services/servers
  • "internal" should not be able to access anything
  • "team" should be able to access all of "internal"
  • "team" members should be able to access all own devices but not other users
  • "internal" contains multiple exit nodes

If I just use the following ACL, the "team" members are able to successfully access all "internal" devices. However when trying to use a exit node inside "internal" it is not possible to ping/access any devices outside the tailscale network.

{ "action": "accept", "src": ["group:team"], "dst": ["internal:*"] },

{
  "groups": {
    "group:team": ["user3", "user2", "user1"]
  },
  "acls": [
    { "action": "accept", "src": ["group:team"], "dst": ["internal:*"] },
    {
      "action": "accept",
      "src": ["group:team"],
      "dst": [ "0.0.0.0/5:*",
               "8.0.0.0/7:*",
               "11.0.0.0/8:*",
               "12.0.0.0/6:*",
               "16.0.0.0/4:*",
               "32.0.0.0/3:*",
               "64.0.0.0/2:*",
               "128.0.0.0/3:*",
               "160.0.0.0/5:*",
               "168.0.0.0/6:*",
               "172.0.0.0/12:*",
               "172.32.0.0/11:*",
               "172.64.0.0/10:*",
               "172.128.0.0/9:*",
               "173.0.0.0/8:*",
               "174.0.0.0/7:*",
               "176.0.0.0/4:*",
               "192.0.0.0/9:*",
               "192.128.0.0/11:*",
               "192.160.0.0/13:*",
               "192.169.0.0/16:*",
               "192.170.0.0/15:*",
               "192.172.0.0/14:*",
               "192.176.0.0/12:*",
               "192.192.0.0/10:*",
               "193.0.0.0/8:*",
               "194.0.0.0/7:*",
               "196.0.0.0/6:*",
               "200.0.0.0/5:*",
               "208.0.0.0/4:*"
              ]
    },
    { "action": "accept", "src": ["user3"], "dst": ["user3:*"] },
    { "action": "accept", "src": ["user2"], "dst": ["user2:*"] },
    { "action": "accept", "src": ["user1"], "dst": ["user1:*"] }
  ]
}
Originally created by @TotoTheDragon on GitHub (Feb 19, 2024). <!-- Before posting a bug report, discuss the behaviour you are expecting with the Discord community to make sure that it is truly a bug. The issue tracker is not the place to ask for support or how to set up Headscale. Bug reports without the sufficient information will be closed. Headscale is a multinational community across the globe. Our language is English. All bug reports needs to be in English. --> ## Bug description <!-- A clear and concise description of what the bug is. Describe the expected bahavior and how it is currently different. If you are unsure if it is a bug, consider discussing it on our Discord server first. --> When setting up an ACL to allow access to a exit node, the access rules can be reduced because the ips defined are not in use by the network or routes. ## Environment <!-- Please add relevant information about your system. For example: - Version of headscale used - Version of tailscale client - OS (e.g. Linux, Mac, Cygwin, WSL, etc.) and version - Kernel version - The relevant config parameters you used - Log output --> - OS: N/A - Headscale version: - Tailscale version: N/A <!-- We do not support running Headscale in a container nor behind a (reverse) proxy. If either of these are true for your environment, ask the community in Discord instead of filing a bug report. --> - [ ] Headscale is behind a (reverse) proxy - [ ] Headscale runs in a container ## To Reproduce <!-- Steps to reproduce the behavior. --> ## Logs and attachments <!-- Please attach files with: - Client netmap dump (see below) - ACL configuration - Headscale configuration Dump the netmap of tailscale clients: `tailscale debug netmap > DESCRIPTIVE_NAME.json` Please provide information describing the netmap, which client, which headscale version etc. --> Trying to create the following setup: - user1-user3 are part of the group "team" - user "internal" contains internal services/servers - "internal" should not be able to access anything - "team" should be able to access all of "internal" - "team" members should be able to access all own devices but not other users - "internal" contains multiple exit nodes If I just use the following ACL, the "team" members are able to successfully access all "internal" devices. However when trying to use a exit node inside "internal" it is not possible to ping/access any devices outside the tailscale network. ``` { "action": "accept", "src": ["group:team"], "dst": ["internal:*"] },``` ``` { "groups": { "group:team": ["user3", "user2", "user1"] }, "acls": [ { "action": "accept", "src": ["group:team"], "dst": ["internal:*"] }, { "action": "accept", "src": ["group:team"], "dst": [ "0.0.0.0/5:*", "8.0.0.0/7:*", "11.0.0.0/8:*", "12.0.0.0/6:*", "16.0.0.0/4:*", "32.0.0.0/3:*", "64.0.0.0/2:*", "128.0.0.0/3:*", "160.0.0.0/5:*", "168.0.0.0/6:*", "172.0.0.0/12:*", "172.32.0.0/11:*", "172.64.0.0/10:*", "172.128.0.0/9:*", "173.0.0.0/8:*", "174.0.0.0/7:*", "176.0.0.0/4:*", "192.0.0.0/9:*", "192.128.0.0/11:*", "192.160.0.0/13:*", "192.169.0.0/16:*", "192.170.0.0/15:*", "192.172.0.0/14:*", "192.176.0.0/12:*", "192.192.0.0/10:*", "193.0.0.0/8:*", "194.0.0.0/7:*", "196.0.0.0/6:*", "200.0.0.0/5:*", "208.0.0.0/4:*" ] }, { "action": "accept", "src": ["user3"], "dst": ["user3:*"] }, { "action": "accept", "src": ["user2"], "dst": ["user2:*"] }, { "action": "accept", "src": ["user1"], "dst": ["user1:*"] } ] } ```
adam added the bug label 2025-12-29 02:21:35 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 02:21:35 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 02:21:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@TotoTheDragon commented on GitHub (Feb 19, 2024):

Some options to improve this:

  • Add more tests for reducing filter rules, then amend the function so it passes

  • Support autogroup:internet

@TotoTheDragon commented on GitHub (Feb 19, 2024): Some options to improve this: - Add more tests for reducing filter rules, then amend the function so it passes - Support `autogroup:internet`
adam commented 2025-12-29 02:21:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@TotoTheDragon commented on GitHub (Feb 19, 2024):

7a920ee701/hscontrol/policy/acls.go (L262)

I believe expanded and routeableIP might have to be switched here

@TotoTheDragon commented on GitHub (Feb 19, 2024): https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/blob/7a920ee701f6c1cc5152075bfcd7dae6f6d604c6/hscontrol/policy/acls.go#L262 I believe expanded and routeableIP might have to be switched here
adam commented 2025-12-29 02:21:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ml-mf commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2024):

7a920ee701/hscontrol/policy/acls.go (L262)

I believe expanded and routeableIP might have to be switched here

Can't we just check if a node is considered an exit node and allow exit nodes to accept all routable IPs? Or am I missing something here?

@ml-mf commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2024): > https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/blob/7a920ee701f6c1cc5152075bfcd7dae6f6d604c6/hscontrol/policy/acls.go#L262 > > I believe expanded and routeableIP might have to be switched here Can't we just check if a node is considered an exit node and allow exit nodes to accept all routable IPs? Or am I missing something here?
adam commented 2025-12-29 02:21:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@TotoTheDragon commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2024):

7a920ee701/hscontrol/policy/acls.go (L262)

I believe expanded and routeableIP might have to be switched here

Can't we just check if a node is considered an exit node and allow exit nodes to accept all routable IPs? Or am I missing something here?

Yes, but that leaves the same issue for things that arent exit nodes but have some sort of overlap. So instead we want to use the overlaps function

@TotoTheDragon commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2024): > > https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/blob/7a920ee701f6c1cc5152075bfcd7dae6f6d604c6/hscontrol/policy/acls.go#L262 > > > > I believe expanded and routeableIP might have to be switched here > > Can't we just check if a node is considered an exit node and allow exit nodes to accept all routable IPs? Or am I missing something here? Yes, but that leaves the same issue for things that arent exit nodes but have some sort of overlap. So instead we want to use the overlaps function
adam commented 2025-12-29 02:21:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Mar 4, 2024):

Sorry, I've missed this, I think it makes sense to expand this to ensure it doesnt remove the routes, I think both autogroup:internet and more tests (which I am always for) sounds sensible to start with.

I've added this to the 0.23.0 milestone

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Mar 4, 2024): Sorry, I've missed this, I think it makes sense to expand this to ensure it doesnt remove the routes, I think both `autogroup:internet` and more tests (which I am always for) sounds sensible to start with. I've added this to the 0.23.0 milestone
adam commented 2025-12-29 02:21:36 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kfkawalec commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2024):

There is a way to fix this problem without:
{ "action": "accept", "src": [""], "dst": [":*"] },

@kfkawalec commented on GitHub (Apr 25, 2024): There is a way to fix this problem without: { "action": "accept", "src": ["*"], "dst": ["*:*"] },
adam commented 2025-12-29 02:21:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@ml-mf commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2024):

There is a way to fix this problem without: { "action": "accept", "src": [""], "dst": [":*"] },

Can you elaborate on this a little more? I don't get how you think you solved this?

@ml-mf commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2024): > There is a way to fix this problem without: { "action": "accept", "src": ["_"], "dst": ["_:*"] }, Can you elaborate on this a little more? I don't get how you think you solved this?
adam commented 2025-12-29 02:21:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2024):

This should be addressed in https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/pull/1917, it also addresses #1817.

If any have the opportunity to test it before it gets merged that would be great!

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2024): This should be addressed in https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/pull/1917, it also addresses #1817. If any have the opportunity to test it before it gets merged that would be great!
adam commented 2025-12-29 02:21:37 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2024):

This issue should now have been addressed in https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/releases/tag/v0.23.0-alpha10, please let me know

@kradalby commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2024): This issue should now have been addressed in https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/releases/tag/v0.23.0-alpha10, please let me know
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
CLI
DERP
DNS
Nix
OIDC
SSH
bug
database
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
faq
good first issue
grants
help wanted
might-come
needs design doc
needs investigation
no-stale-bot
out of scope
performance
policy 📝
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
regression
routes
stale
tags
tailscale-feature-gap
well described ❤️
wontfix
No Label bug
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/headscale#647
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?