[Feature Request] LAN Access Control

nolancarougepro commented 1 week ago

As part of a university project, I’m working on adding a permission and rules specifically for controlling local network access. We want to get early feedback on this to increase the chances of our patches being merged into OpenSnitch.

Our extension is motivated by the observation that LAN network access can be more sensitive than Internet access because the user's LAN may contain (insecure) devices such as smart TVs, IoT gadgets, security cameras, and so on. While it’s already possible to block internal network access with custom rules, we believe simplifying this process and making it more user-friendly would be a great improvement.

Proposed Solution

For the GUI, when a prompt appears, alongside the existing options for internet access, users will see three additional radio buttons for local network access :

Reject access to the local network.
Deny access to the local network.
Allow access to the local network.

These options wouldn’t be mandatory. If the user doesn’t select anything, the default will be the same as the option selected for accessing the Internet (this ensures backwards compatibility in the behaviour of OpenSnitch).

gustavo-iniguez-goya commented 1 week ago

hi @nolancarougepro !

that sounds great. What did you have in mind for the daemon part? any changes to the rules?

nolancarougepro commented 1 week ago

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback ! For now, I’ve mainly focused on how we could modify the rule structure.

I’m proposing to add a new field, "lan_action", to control local network (LAN) access. The existing "action" field will continue to manage internet access, while "lan_action" will specifically control LAN access. This allows users to independently set permissions for LAN and internet connections.

For example :

{
  "action": "allow",
  "lan_action": "deny",
  "operator": {
    "type": "simple",
    "data": "/opt/google/chrome/chrome"
  }
}

By doing this, we can keep things backward-compatible, as older rules without the "lan_action" field will continue working by defaulting to the "action" for both LAN and internet access.

That’s the current thinking ! Open to any feedback.

gustavo-iniguez-goya commented 6 days ago

The problem I see with adding a new action item is that we may end up with more groups like "lan_action", "vpn_action", etc. The action item should be agnostic of where it's being applied, weather it's a domain, ip, network range, etc.

I guess the "lan_action" would check internally if the destination IP is private IP, right? Could you explain in detail what rule would be sent from the GUI to the daemon when the user selects [reject/deny/allow] to LAN?

From the RulesEditor dialog you can create rules to allow/deny connections/apps by private network ranges:

https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch/blob/c3939c7dfdb65881b8cd535c3c609f1b211de6d0/ui/opensnitch/dialogs/ruleseditor.py#L32-L38

Maybe the new options could just create a new rule to block/allow the connection by Path + dst.network: LAN?

nolancarougepro commented 6 days ago

I understand your concerns regarding the potential for creating multiple action groups (like lan_action, vpn_action). We can take the following approach :

Proposed Solution

Unified Action Structure : Instead of introducing new action types, we can retain the existing options (allow, deny, reject) for all connection types.
IP Verification : The daemon can check if the destination IP falls within private IP ranges (using the regex patterns defined in LAN_RANGES) to determine if it’s a LAN connection.
Rule Creation : When a user selects an action for a LAN connection, we can create a rule that includes :
- Path : The application attempting the connection.
- Destination : Marked as LAN.

For example :


    {
      "action": "allow/deny/reject",
      "operator": {
        "type": "simple",
        "data": "/path/to/application"
      },
      "dst": {
        "network": "LAN"  // or "WAN", "VPN", "Internet", etc.
      }
    }

This approach avoids cluttering our rule structure with multiple action types while maintaining straightforward logic and modularity. We won’t need to modify the GUI or introduce radio buttons for LAN action selection in the prompts.

Although multiple prompts for a single application provide granular control, improve security, raise user awareness, and allow for future scalability, they can also overwhelm users. However, this is necessary since each network destination (e.g., LAN, WAN, VPN, Internet) requires its own set of prompts for effective permission management.

What do you think about that ?

gustavo-iniguez-goya commented 3 days ago

Thank you for the explanation @nolancarougepro.

Let's focus for a moment in this sentence, which I think is the key of this enhancement request: "we believe simplifying this process and making it more user-friendly would be a great improvement.". I want to understand better what was the problem you had when creating rules for the LAN.

It'd be useful if you could describe your use case step by step of what you expected, for example:

a new pop-up appears to be allowed/denied an app/connection.
the user expects / wants to deny or approve it by default to the LAN, by just clicking on a button.

With this in mind, we could let the users customize the options of the pop-ups, by letting them choose the destination in the Preferences dialog:

Adding new "aliases" as needed:

The main use of opensnitch is to allow/deny connections to The Internet, but I think we can offer options to customize that behaviour.

By the way, who's going to use the opensnitch, uni students on uni computers? because the settings could be copied to the machines in advance.

On the other hand, having "aliases" also in the daemon it's not a bad idea (LAN, MULTICAST, etc) . It would help to write rules manually on servers, instead of having to write the regexp of the hell:

{   
    "type": "regexp",
    "operand": "dest.ip",
    "data": "^(127\\.\\d{1,3}\\.\\d{1,3}\\.\\d{1,3}|169\\.254\\.\\d{1,3}\\.\\d{1,3}|192\\.168\\.\\d{1,3}\\.\\d{1,3}|172\\.1[6-9]\\.\\d+\\.\\d+|172\\.2[0-9]\\.\\d+\\.\\d+|172\\.3[0-1]+\\.\\d{1,3}\\.\\d{1,3}|10\\.\\d{1,3}\\.\\d{1,3}\\.\\d{1,3}|::1|f[cde].*::.*)$"
}

And adding a new options outside of the operator{} item probably is not a good idea, because it'd open a new path in the code for checking connections, and it'd limit how the new option can be used. Placing it within the operator{} item allows for combination with additional options.

Right now the rule could be written as:

{
  "action": "allow/deny/reject",
  "operator": {
    "type": "list",
    "operand": "list",
    "sensitive": false,
    "data": "", 
    "list": [
      { 
        "type": "simple",
        "operand": "process.path",
        "data": "/path/to/application"
      },
      { 
        "type": "simple",
        "operand": "dest.network",
        "data": "LAN"
      } 
    ]
  }  
}

nolancarougepro commented 13 hours ago

Thanks for your feedback and examples. Our aim is to simplify LAN access management for non-technical users, similar to iOS, where a pop-up prompts them to allow or deny LAN access. We want to streamline this process so users can make decisions with a single click.

We initially considered adding a new checkbox to the GUI, but as you mentioned, that could lead to one for VPN and other options. We believe your example is a great solution. Adding a LAN alias when the daemon detects an attempt to access the internal network will simplify rule creation and avoid complex regex, making configuration much easier.

If this approach works for you, I’ll move forward with development.

Thanks again !

evilsocket / opensnitch

[Feature Request] LAN Access Control #1207

Proposed Solution

Proposed Solution