3 ms·
Mentioning AWS in this is just spreading anti-cloud FUD. AWS had literally nothing to do with this: the insurer could have just as easily made the same mistake
by morgante 11y ago
Mentioning AWS in this is just spreading anti-cloud FUD. AWS had literally nothing to do with this: the insurer could have just as easily made the same mistake in their own datacenter. They hold all the blame and trying to involve Amazon is pure sensationalism.
- fixermark 11y agoThe only exception to this line of reasoning is that S3 buckets have the option of being open to the world---an option that may not be as flip-the-switch simple if the insurer needed to cobble together their own solution, because why would that information ever need to be world-visible? Of course, cobbling together one's own solution opens up an entirely different (and generally larger) security surface.
- morgante 11y ago> The only exception to this line of reasoning is that S3 buckets have the option of being open to the world So do many/most cobbled-together solutions, many of which depend on FTPing files to a random web server and depending on .htaccess for protection.