4 ms·

S3 traffic cost is a funny topic. I remember ~3 years ago we had an issue with AWS, where they kept charging us for web traffic to an S3 bucket we deleted. When

S3 traffic cost is a funny topic. I remember ~3 years ago we had an issue with AWS, where they kept charging us for web traffic to an S3 bucket we deleted. When we complained, their response was like: Well, then stop sending traffic to that (non-existing) bucket. That of course wasn't going to happen as the URL was out in the wild and got requested quite often automatically by third-party services.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Did you not control the DNS for that hostname? Not supporting AWS' stance, but you should always maintain control of your traffic flow using DNS. Reverse proxying is the latest hype for SEO juice (blog.somewhere.com->somewhere.com/blog), but subdomains are the bees knees when you need to point traffic somewhere else on demand.
- Dunedan 8y ago
  Back then we already had the bucket for a few years and the person who set it up probably didn't think about the implications and simply chose to use the AWS-provided bucket URL. And that person isn't alone. If you look around, you'll find a lot of services on the internet which directly link to S3 buckets using thee AWS-provided endpoints.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    You don't know what you don't know. That's the danger.
  - soared 8y ago
    A tool my company always pulled data from was depreciated and the web ui and api got shutdown. They used the awe bucket url though for the web ui downloads and those had predictable url patterns. Turns out they didn’t stop generating the data we needed, so we still just go straight to their urls.
- sieabahlpark 8y ago
  If someone has the aws bucket name they only need to form the s3.amazonaws.com url and still request it.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    You can restrict access to a bucket so it only goes through a CloudFront url that you control. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/private-content-restricting-access-to-s3.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/Develope...
irrational 8y ago
If you cancelled your AWS account entirely, but people were still trying to reach that deleted S3 bucket, who would pay for that?

toomuchtodo 8y ago

Did you not control the DNS for that hostname? Not supporting AWS' stance, but you should always maintain control of your traffic flow using DNS. Reverse proxying is the latest hype for SEO juice (blog.somewhere.com->somewhere.com/blog), but subdomains are the bees knees when you need to point traffic somewhere else on demand.

Dunedan 8y ago
Back then we already had the bucket for a few years and the person who set it up probably didn't think about the implications and simply chose to use the AWS-provided bucket URL. And that person isn't alone. If you look around, you'll find a lot of services on the internet which directly link to S3 buckets using thee AWS-provided endpoints.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  You don't know what you don't know. That's the danger.
- soared 8y ago
  A tool my company always pulled data from was depreciated and the web ui and api got shutdown. They used the awe bucket url though for the web ui downloads and those had predictable url patterns. Turns out they didn’t stop generating the data we needed, so we still just go straight to their urls.
sieabahlpark 8y ago
If someone has the aws bucket name they only need to form the s3.amazonaws.com url and still request it.
- scarface74 8y ago
  You can restrict access to a bucket so it only goes through a CloudFront url that you control. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/private-content-restricting-access-to-s3.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/Develope...

irrational 8y ago

If you cancelled your AWS account entirely, but people were still trying to reach that deleted S3 bucket, who would pay for that?