1tb for 40,- dollar?
What? Did i just became stupid?
AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
11–20 of 158 posts
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
HIPAA compliance, even on AWS is extremely expensive. I believe the best vendor to get HIPAA (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is to go with Google Cloud. Last time I checked did not charge any extra for HIPAA BAA signing. Edit: I stand corrected on this, AWS no longer requires dedicated hardware for BAA HIPAA: Sorry I didn't look this up, I had old information. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/apn/aws-hipaa-program-upda…
We're on Azure and they definitely don't charge for a BAA. And it doesn't appear that AWS does either.
AWS requires you to use single tenancy hardware to be covered by that BAA.
OH I stand corrected:
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/apn/aws-hipaa-program-update-re...
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#13OMG this will save me so much time if it works. I wish they had this feature a few years ago!
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#14We currently pay $250/month through some small vendor for hipaa compliant sftp hosting (that we transfer a whopping 50kb on a weekly basis). I always felt like it was a rip off, but azure/aws didn't have their own version. And I'm loathe to manage a VM. PaaS is my sugar bear. My eyes lit up when I saw this. We're an azure shop, but I'm not afraid to use AWS for limited cases. Then I saw - $.30/hr (so, $214/mo). Reall…
Let me guess, you use BrickFTP?
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#15We currently pay $250/month through some small vendor for hipaa compliant sftp hosting (that we transfer a whopping 50kb on a weekly basis). I always felt like it was a rip off, but azure/aws didn't have their own version. And I'm loathe to manage a VM. PaaS is my sugar bear. My eyes lit up when I saw this. We're an azure shop, but I'm not afraid to use AWS for limited cases. Then I saw - $.30/hr (so, $214/mo). Reall…
I don't know about comically easy, but should be doable to have some sort of shared frontend. $214 (even $100) is a really beefy vm, though. I wonder whats provisioned and why.
Nothing beefy, probably, but as for HIPAA compliance, AFAIK, you need to sign several specific contracts with your provider and blahblahblah, probably they're just billing you for the incovenience and for having the HIPAA seal.
"I'm HIPAA, the rest aren't, just pay for it".
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#16I'd be curious how this handles all the posix cases not well suited to object storage.
Renaming a folder than has a million files/folders inside is a single operation in SFTP, but 2 million operations on S3.
Does it handle writing at arbitrary offsets within a file? Does it download the file first then let you start writing?
What about just writing a few bytes at the beginning of a large existing file and then closing your SFTP handle?
How about 2 users accessing same file via SFTP at the same time?
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#17We currently pay $250/month through some small vendor for hipaa compliant sftp hosting (that we transfer a whopping 50kb on a weekly basis). I always felt like it was a rip off, but azure/aws didn't have their own version. And I'm loathe to manage a VM. PaaS is my sugar bear. My eyes lit up when I saw this. We're an azure shop, but I'm not afraid to use AWS for limited cases. Then I saw - $.30/hr (so, $214/mo). Reall…
Couldn't you use an Azure webapp? It has FTP and user management, though not as granular as this. You should be able to use IAM to only allow the user access to that one web app and they can set their own username/password. Not quite as simple as sending out creds from one interface, but it's an option. Not sure how many users you have, obviously if you had tons and tons of users it would become a choir, but if it's just a few users I'm thinking a webapp could handle that.
Alternatively, if trusted users enough, you could use an Azure blob and use CloudBerry. That one is probably not HIPPA compliant though.
I don't even know if this new AWS SFTP plan is HIPPA compliant, don't you have to have a log of file check in/outs? And user login logs?
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#18Enterprises will love this. There are so many legacy app flows kicked off via sftp/scp file drops. Being able to hook into those via lambda events on the associated S3 bucket will create a whole ecosystem of enterprise spaghetti for years to come.
The only downside is whitelisting but not on the SFTP server-side. Many enterprises restrict egress SFTP (usually for security reasons) so you need to provide IPs and they can’t frequently change because it can take enterprise network admins quite some time to deal with all of the bureaucracy and change control. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if modern networking gear can handle CNAMEs but there’s no guarantee th…
It's less whether the gear is modern and more about the layer that it operates at.
A network firewall doesn't see the DNS name that an internal system looked up in order to make an outbound connection. It just sees the source/destination IP/port. Processing a rule based on source/destination IP or CIDR and port is very fast, and all happens locally. Trying to make that device handle rules by IP address is pretty tricky. Does it do a reverse lookup on the destination IP? That may not give a result that's even remotely like what the client used, especially for cloud-hosted destinations.
For a lot of applications (probably including this one), a proxy is a good approach, because DNS resolution can be delegated to the proxy, and therefore the proxy can easily apply DNS-based rules as well as IP/CIDR-based rules. However, proxies tend to make people unhappy because they generally require at least some configuration on the client side. Microsoft used to sell a product[1] that made this transparent for Windows clients[2], but obviously that doesn't help for most modern shops where a lot of the systems are Linux, MacOS, etc.
[1] Internet Security and Acceleration Server ("ISA"), later renamed to Threat Management Gateway ("TMG"), now deprecated and approaching EOL.
[2] It hooked into the network stack and rerouted requests based on a proxy routing rule table. Imagine a centrally-managed proxychains, but with the system configured to default to check the proxychains config file for every outbound TCP connection.
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#19We currently pay $250/month through some small vendor for hipaa compliant sftp hosting (that we transfer a whopping 50kb on a weekly basis). I always felt like it was a rip off, but azure/aws didn't have their own version. And I'm loathe to manage a VM. PaaS is my sugar bear. My eyes lit up when I saw this. We're an azure shop, but I'm not afraid to use AWS for limited cases. Then I saw - $.30/hr (so, $214/mo). Reall…
For companies, $214/mo isn't
much if it makes an admin's life easier.
At the same time, Amazon isn't going to price it so it's attractive to everybody, because it sounds like they'd rather people not use it if possible. Sounds sensible to me, legacy stuff is always going to cost you one way or another.
Re: AWS Transfer for SFTP – Fully Managed SFTP Service for Amazon S3
#20We currently pay $250/month through some small vendor for hipaa compliant sftp hosting (that we transfer a whopping 50kb on a weekly basis). I always felt like it was a rip off, but azure/aws didn't have their own version. And I'm loathe to manage a VM. PaaS is my sugar bear. My eyes lit up when I saw this. We're an azure shop, but I'm not afraid to use AWS for limited cases. Then I saw - $.30/hr (so, $214/mo). Reall…
Can't you turn it on, run your scripts and turn off again? I agree that it's weirdly expensive though.
This is an enterprise offering. We gladly cough up more than this on almost every service so we don’t have to manage it. If something breaks, we just use our business support plan.