Comment by martin-lim | Hacker News Reader

Comment by martin-lim | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For me it looks like AWS has mainly different scenarios to handle. First, unauthenticated users are a big security pain for AWS and S3 because S3 is used for everything. But S3 was not designed for "secure" public access. As a result billing attacks are possible (e.g. [1]) and will not be fixed (by design). Second, authenticated AWS users are kind of trustworthy and these are never assumed to do any DDoS stuff or similar. Here, we have even more surface for billing attacks. I am waiting for the moment when this assumption breaks because credit cards do not make users trustworthy.

My personal suggestion is that you should never use S3 for public access. Public buckets are an open gate to your AWS bill. If you have private buckets the attack surface is reduced but even in this situation you cannot prevent billing attacks. Try to reduce the damage by activating Cost Anomaly Detection.

[1] https://blog.limbus-medtec.com/the-aws-s3-denial-of-wallet-a... [2] https://aws.amazon.com/aws-cost-management/aws-cost-anomaly-...

> I am waiting for the moment when this assumption breaks because credit cards do not make users trustworthy.

IMO it is already broken, or beginning to crack at least, with the advent of throwaway virtual cards.

> Try to reduce the damage by activating Cost Anomaly Detection.

Yeah, this sounds like it could be a better solution than just using CloudWatch Billing alarms and billing alerts that I mentioned elsewhere. It's hard to tell at-a-glance if Cost Anomaly Detection is built on top of CloudWatch Billing alarms, or if they're just totally separate products. I don't seed the latter mentioned in the docs for the former.

[1]: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudWatch/latest/monitori....

private in the sense that the connection will never make it to the S3 bucket, is that correct?

private in the sense that it is locked down to allowed source IP's or IAM-- then the connection still gets there and AWS incurs a charge for the Access Denied response, etc

Yes, private in the sense of "block public access" (your second point) (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/access...)

Sadly, the private in the sense of "never make it to the S3 bucket" is nearly impossible. May this can be achieved by choosing some "secret" S3 bucket name.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com