2 ms·
Amazon S3 now supports up to 1M buckets per AWS account
- cebert 2y agoI wonder if there’s any concern about bucket name squatting following this announcement.
- rockwotj 2y agoI always found it interesting that bucket names are a global resource and not per account (so there would be an account ID prefix in the URL)
- benterix 2y agoAn account ID in the URL would a terrible idea security-wise. It might not matter for you, but there are scenarios where every bit of information is carefully collected and then put together in an attack attempt. While you may hear conflicting opinions on that, this post provides a decent summary: https://www.plerion.com/blog/the-final-answer-aws-account-ids-are-secrets https://www.plerion.com/blog/the-final-answer-aws-account-id...
- rockwotj 2y agoI mean lambda urls have some kind of masking going om, but the docs still state it might be possible to determine the account ID: > Lambda generates the <url-id> portion of the endpoint based on a number of factors, including your AWS account ID. Because this process is deterministic, it may be possible for anyone to retrieve your account ID from the <url-id>.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- whinvik 2y agoCurious. Why would someone want 1M buckets? What would be the usecase. And how would 1 manage that large amount of buckets. Create new dashboards?
- joshuanapoli 2y agoA separate bucket per (enterprise) customer is useful for SaaS; it can help prove tenant isolation, and it can help with sharing data with the customer.
- whinvik 2y agoThanks. That makes sense
- mike503 2y agoCosts $.02 per bucket over 2,000 buckets - https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/
- williamstein 2y agoDoes anybody know what the analogous story is for Google Cloud Storage? It seems to me to be unlimited with no per bucket cost, but I never found a definitive statement about this. It’s important for SAAS products with one bucket per customer…