Bucketsquatting is finally dead
onecloudplease.com
Bucketsquatting is finally dead
1–10 of 187 posts
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#2Huh? Hash your bucket names
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#3[flagged]
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#4Huh? Hash your bucket names
I don't think that'd prevent this attack vector.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#5That took a decade to resolve? Surprising, but hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#6Huh? Hash your bucket names
if your bucket name is ever exposed and you later delete it, then this doesn't help you.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#7> If you wish to protect your existing buckets, you’ll need to create new buckets with the namespace pattern and migrate your data to those buckets.
My pet conspiracy theory: this article was written by bucket squatters who want to claim old bucket names after AI agents read this and blindly follow.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#8[flagged]
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#9> For Azure Blob Storage, storage accounts are scoped with an account name and container name, so this is far less of a concern.
The author probably misunderstood what "account name" is in Azure Storage's context, as it's pretty much the equivalent of S3's bucket name, and is definitely still a large concern.
A single pool of unique names for storage accounts across all customers has been a very large source of frustration, especially with the really short name limit of only 24 characters.
I hope Microsoft follows suit and introduces a unique namespace per customer as well.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#10Why all that stuff with namespaces when they could just not allow name reuse?