3 ms·
> They've invested all their resources into building out the infrastructure, and have spent very little if any time on building the UX around it. In AWS you ne
by rumanator 6y ago
> They've invested all their resources into building out the infrastructure, and have spent very little if any time on building the UX around it.
In AWS you need to explicitly set a bucket as publicly accessible, which requires you to go through a couple of dialogs where you're expected to say "yes, yes I want to allow others to access this S3 bucket."
Afterwards you still get a bucket that does not have write access by default. To allow write access you need to specifically set bucket access policies that explicitly allow others to write to your bucket.
- ficklepickle 6y agoThis. It is actually quite difficult to make a bucket writable by anyone. I don't understand how it can be done accidentally.
- Corrado 6y agoIn the past, S3 buckets were created with much less sane defaults and you didn't have the ability to unilaterally forbid any public access that you do today. Also, configuring Bucket Profiles is a confusing and hard to test situation. And if that weren't enough, S3 buckets also have ACLs (though they are deprecated) that represent yet another way to configure access to your buckets. So, from the confusing UX to the multiple permissions settings, I can easily see how a company could get in this situation. In fact, the problem is so bad that AWS has revised the whole S3 thing several times, with each new iteration more secure than the last. Unfortunately, that doesn't help the company that configured their buckets 5 years ago and haven't touched them since.