4 ms·
They are private by default. This is just making public/private settings very explicit, and also helping to ensure that anything that was public before the def
by shepardrtc 8y ago
They are private by default. This is just making public/private settings very explicit, and also helping to ensure that anything that was public before the default setting was changed to private is known.
This is really just extra CYA because people who really don't know what they are doing are apparently still being put in charge of buckets by companies.
- privateSFacct 8y agoTotally true! Some folks use S3 kind of a like a quick dropbox to share big files even internally in an org. Bob in accounting to Sue in finance. One solution I've found if folks INSIST they do not want any login / security. Expose the bucket contents using time expiring shared links (presigned links). This has worked great in one use case I had where users INSISTED on no security with sensitive data. Users can then cut / paste / download / share links for a few hours (all they really want - send it to a few folks on a project). Even if their email is hacked you are OK. Not ideal, but better than nothing. If you look inside orgs, the desire for no security is sometimes surprisingly high!
- isostatic 8y ago> the desire for no security is sometimes surprisingly high! The desire for security to not get in the way is high.
- closeparen 8y agoThose folks are wrong, and the correct answer here is for AWS to stop them. Google Drive and Box are appropriate solutions for that use case. Maybe AWS should launch one too.
- scarface74 8y agoThe simplest way is to use CloudBerry. It maps an S3 bucket to a Windows drive.
- shepardrtc 8y agoYou could also set up a lifecycle policy to delete anything in the bucket after a day to add even more security.