Why all that stuff with namespaces when they could just not allow name reuse?
[deleted]
Bucketsquatting is finally dead
11–20 of 187 posts
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#12I started treating long random bucketnames as secrets years ago. Ever since I noticed hackers were discovering buckets online with secrets and healthcare info.
This is where IaC shines.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#13[flagged]
It sounds like a sensitive subject, very delicate, and of no concern to law enforcement, for private videos of an artistic nature.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#14> 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 frust…
I recall being shocked the first time I used Azure and realizing so many resources aren’t namespaced to account level. Bizarre to me this wasn’t a v1 concern.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#15[flagged]
I'd ask politely to refrain from such comments :)
This is not me criticising you. I totally understand the urge to say it. We're all thinking the thing you're thinking of. It takes effort not to give into it ;)
The reason I personally would refrain from making such comments is that they have the potential to end up as highest ranked comment. That would be a shame. Topic of S3 bucketsquatting is rather important and very interesting.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#16Why all that stuff with namespaces when they could just not allow name reuse?
I'd allow re-use, but only by the original account. Not being able to re-create a bucket after deleting it would be annoying.
I think that's an important defense that AWS should implement for existing buckets, to complement account scoped bucket.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#17[dead]
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#18[flagged]
I'd ask politely to refrain from such comments :) This is not me criticising you. I totally understand the urge to say it. We're all thinking the thing you're thinking of. It takes effort not to give into it ;) The reason I personally would refrain from making such comments is that they have the potential to end up as highest ranked comment. That would be a shame. Topic of S3 bucketsquatting is rather important and v…
He is just comment squatting :)
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#19[flagged]
I'd ask politely to refrain from such comments :) This is not me criticising you. I totally understand the urge to say it. We're all thinking the thing you're thinking of. It takes effort not to give into it ;) The reason I personally would refrain from making such comments is that they have the potential to end up as highest ranked comment. That would be a shame. Topic of S3 bucketsquatting is rather important and v…
>We're all thinking the thing you're thinking of.
I wasn't but I sure am now.
Re: Bucketsquatting is finally dead
#20I started treating long random bucketnames as secrets years ago. Ever since I noticed hackers were discovering buckets online with secrets and healthcare info. This is where IaC shines.
I just started using hashes for names. The deployment tooling knows the "real" name. The actual deployment hash registers a salt+hash of that name to produce a pseudo-random string name.