AWS doesn't consider them sensitive, but some organizations do. My feeling is that I would rather avoid leaking any info about my AWS environments. Just because AWS doesn't think they can be dangerous doesn't mean someone else won't find a way.
If you want protection against that, you need to focus on better home security, hiring bodyguards, going to the police etc, and you’re better off assuming that the assassin will find your address regardless of whether or not you wear a t-shirt with it printed on.
Put another way: there’s a difference between “I don’t do this thing” and “I rely on not doing this thing for my safety”. The second one makes a lot more assumptions than the first one does, and those assumptions can lead to problems if they are false assumptions.
That was my point. The fact that some organizations consider AWS account IDs sensitive is independent of whether they rely on it being sensitive or not.
I might have taken all precautions against an assassin attack, yet I won't make the assassin's job easier by announcing my PII to them. The fact that I won't announce my PII says nothing about whether I took the security precautions.
There’s a difference between “making it easier for an attacker” and using it as a security control, even if it’s not the only security control. The point is that even if you don’t go around wearing a shirt with your address on it, that should never factor in to your designs for security. It should never be considered a security control, even a “defense in depth” one.
In fact, your threat model should ideally ask the question “assume someone does walk around with a shirt with my address on it, will I still be safe?” That doesn’t mean you’re actually going to go do it, but if the answer is yes, that’s how you know you’ve done your job.
Then I don't understand why you object so strongly to the tshirt example unless you're deliberately talking past the person that made it.
Since AWS does not, and has never, treated that information as secret, then there is absolutely no reason to consider it sensitive because there is no security guarantees with how AWS handles those IDs (as this article demonstrates).
Thus, either you're including them into your threat model as sensitive and thus immediately opening up yourself to vulnerabilities (bad security), or you're not including them at all (and thus not treating them as sensitive/secret/whatever). The argument the parent had (and that I agree with) is that you should do the latter unless AWS provides a means to work with those IDs securely (it won't because they're not secrets).
Any time a topic like this comes up, there are people on this forum that try to apply the "security by obscurity does not work" principle to every security topic under the sun, when in reality, that principle really only applies to the world of cryptography. In meat space, where humans operate on plaintext, keeping a secret is a very valid approach to some topics. This is why things like NDAs exist.
There is a lot of data that exists in a space somewhere between "100% secret" and "100% public". This is one of those situations, for many organizations.
> This is one of those situations, for many organizations.
And those organizations are wrong.
> by pretending it’s secret
No, nobody needs to pretend it is secret. You're missing my above point. There is not a dichotomy between secret and public. It is possible for something to be neither secret nor public.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/accounts/latest/reference/manage...
> While account IDs, like any identifying information, should be used and shared carefully, they are not considered secret, sensitive, or confidential information.