5 ms·
A quick answer is to put the bucket behind cloudfront so that the denial is cached, but that's not totally free either. If they actually charge for unauth'd re
by dangoodmanUT 2y ago
A quick answer is to put the bucket behind cloudfront so that the denial is cached, but that's not totally free either.
If they actually charge for unauth'd requests that's absurd
- kolanos 2y ago> Other than deleting the bucket, there’s nothing you can do to prevent it. You can’t protect your bucket with services like CloudFront or WAF when it’s being accessed directly through the S3 API.
- macok 2y agoYou can't protect your bucket with CloudFront if it's being access using S3 api.
- t0mas88 2y agoThat doesn't work, the standard endpoint always remains available.
- skinner927 2y agoI assume random names are the only way forward. Unfortunately a bucket name can’t be longer than 63 characters.
- infecto 2y agoSurprising people are not already doing this. Something that has been beat into me for at least a decade.
- ShroudedNight 2y agoYou can stuff >256 bits into 56 BASE32 digits. The 63 character limit seems like it would only be constraining if humans want meaningful bucket names.