5 ms·
That's the part that surprised me as well; it doesn't seem like a field that should be eligible for anything other than an exact match. I am unable to conceive
by efitz 3y ago
That's the part that surprised me as well; it doesn't seem like a field that should be eligible for anything other than an exact match. I am unable to conceive of a use case for pattern matching account IDs.
- sroussey 3y agoWell, that assumes that the ID is cryptographically random. Perhaps that is a bad assumption.
- pc86 3y agoEven if it's not that doesn't mean pattern matching IDs is good.
- sroussey 3y agoOh god, no. Seems like a bad idea indeed! But might give some insight into their system.
- dclowd9901 3y agoIf it's sequential, that somehow seems worse?
- jameshart 3y agoMy general assumption is not that they’re random, but at least that they’re not correlated; in particular that Amazon is not in the habit of handing out, like, account IDs 676363687000 - 676363687999 to a single organization. Even if they did hand out a sequential batch of 1000 account IDs, it would be more likely to be 676363687541 - 676363688540 than a set with a single consistent prefix. Odds are that an account wildcard match like 676363687* will just match a few hundred entirely random AWS accounts.
- dpedu 3y agoI once was involved in creating two (linked) amazon accounts at the "same" time, and ended up with account IDs of which the first 4 digits are identical.
- jameshart 3y agoA namespace you and only 100 million other accounts share - probably reasonable to just grant access to “1234*”.
- naniwaduni 3y ago> in particular that Amazon is not in the habit of handing out, like, account IDs 676363687000 - 676363687999 to a single organization Honestly, wouldn't surprise me that much if they were willing to accommodate this if for sufficiently large accounts. It'd still pretty sketchy to design your access control around, but it wouldn't be unrealistic.
- brickteacup 3y agoit's irrelevant whether they're "cryptographically" random, all that matters is that account IDs are not controlled by the user and therefore have no logical relation to any access-control policies the user may wish to implement
- twoodfin 3y agoIf for some reason you’re dealing with thousands of accounts that are architecturally indistinguishable, bucketing them by ID prefix isn’t a particularly wild thing to want to do.
- dclowd9901 3y agoCan you even block off IDs like this?
- tempay 3y agoIf you’re big enough to need it I’m sure it can be arranged.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoIf you're big enough to think you need it, you're also big enough to have people who can tell you it's a bad idea and there's a better tool for the job.
- leetcrew 3y agoaws support is not going to bend over backwards just to let you shoot yourself in the foot. it's more likely they grant an exception to one of the iam quotas.
- x3n0ph3n3 3y agoAt that point you should be using AWS Organizations and OUs.
- derefr 3y agoI think the GP is talking about granting access to a particular bucket to an unbounded number of customer AWS accounts — probably in requester-pays config. (Think: static data used by an Amazon Marketplace virtual appliance.)
- 3y ago