Repository navigation
Setup: let in addresses from other networks (--allow-from), 1.4.0 - #2
Merged
Merged
Conversation
….4.0 The firewall rule only covered the networks this machine is on, so a PC behind a router or on another VPN needed a ufw rule typed by hand, which a later port change left behind. The setup now asks for such addresses (or takes --allow-from), saves them in sync.env as PASSMAN_ALLOW_FROM, and manages their rules with the others: added, moved on a port change, removed with --allow-from none. Changing only them touches the firewall, never the service. On Windows they join the one inbound rule; upgrades keep them. passman_setup.py stays byte-identical in both server repos. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0112U7feygA25aiK8LrArXZB
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The setup's firewall rule covered only the networks this machine is on. A PC elsewhere (172.17.17.2 talking to the Ubuntu server on 10.10.10.3) needed a ufw rule typed by hand, and a port change left that rule on the old port.
What changes
setupasks a third question, "Also let in [none]:". It takes addresses or networks, comma-separated; Enter keeps the current ones and-clears them. Scripts use--allow-from ADDRESS, which can be repeated;noneclears.sync.envasPASSMAN_ALLOW_FROM. The server ignores this key.-RemoteAddress 'LocalSubnet','172.17.17.2').setup --keepon upgrade keeps them.--keep, and for this-machine-only./0("everyone"), IPv6, and anything that is not an address. A single address is stored without/32, so it matches a rule typed by hand.Tests
none, no restart), the Windows rule and keeping the addresses on upgrade. Existing setup tests now answer the third question./0refusal or the extras from the ufw sources each fails tests.-RemoteAddresslist was checked withNew-NetFirewallRule -WhatIfonly (a dry run).passman_setup.pyis byte-identical in PassMan-Server-Linux and PassMan-Server-Windows.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_0112U7feygA25aiK8LrArXZB