11–20 of 118 posts
uf, aws should definitly not count the requests against a bucket that is not configured for public use. Edit: if they do that, they should make it possible to firewall buckets via ips so that they are only accessible via certain ips
uf, aws should definitly not count the requests against a bucket that is not configured for public use. Edit: if they do that, they should make it possible to firewall buckets via ips so that they are only accessible via certain ips
Or at the very least the requester should b charged for the failed auth.
I don't use S3, but it's kind of insane that unauthorized requests contribute to your bill... couldn't a bored/malicious actor with a botnet just spam common bucket names?
I don't use S3, but it's kind of insane that unauthorized requests contribute to your bill... couldn't a bored/malicious actor with a botnet just spam common bucket names?
The problem is the cloud priorities availability over cost savings. We used to run our own infrastructure, that would just fall over if it got too many requests. This infrastructure never falls over; it just bills more. I don't know the right way to solve this, other than don't stick your S3 bucket on the public internet.
I don't use S3, but it's kind of insane that unauthorized requests contribute to your bill... couldn't a bored/malicious actor with a botnet just spam common bucket names?
We really need some kind of regulation to ban predatory cloud pricing.
A quick answer is to put the bucket behind cloudfront so that the denial is cached, but that's not totally free either. If they actually charge for unauth'd requests that's absurd
That doesn't work, the standard endpoint always remains available.