Imagine you create an empty, private AWS S3 bucket in a region of your preference. What will your AWS bill be the next morning?
    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      It’s fine if you dislike a site. But the correct thing to do is not consume their content, not to work around it.

      • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        0·
        6 months ago

        Medium is the journalistic version of the gig economy apps, mixed with a bit of digital landlording. The correct thing to do here is to bypass any of Mediums paywalls you might run in to.

      • kevincox@lemmy.ml
        0·
        6 months ago

        Or use a browser extension to implement your preferences rather than push them onto others in a way that makes it harder for them to implement theirs.

        If an article links to medium.com my redirects kick in, my link flagging kicks in and everything else. If everyone uses some different service to “fix” medium I am stuck with what they like. There is valuable to keeping the canonical URL.

        I would also love to see domain blocks as a user preference in Lemmy. Just hide these sites that I don’t like.

    • onlinepersona@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      I woke up yesterday morning and felt a little bit hazy. My feet tingled a little and that was an indication of what was going to happen. My podometric senses were tingling! Hahaha, get it? So anyway, after having a light breakfast and sitting down in front of my desk to check my emails, one in particular stood out. Being in a hurry however, I left for work and…

      Article written like this are reason for me to stop reading. So annoying. This article is a breath of fresh air.

      Anti Commercial-AI license

    • 30p87@feddit.de
      0·
      6 months ago

      Chilling with nothing but my homeserver here. Backed up to the NAS, mirrored to my grandparents house. No charges, no misconfigurations, just Arch testing being more stable than any commercial service I know lol

  • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.todayEnglish
    0·
    6 months ago

    As it turns out, one of the popular open-source tools had a default configuration to store their backups in S3. And, as a placeholder for a bucket name, they used… the same name that I used for my bucket.

    • LostXOR@fedia.io
      0·
      6 months ago

      It’s completely insane that the tool would attempt to connect to a nonexistent bucket for backups by default instead of just… having them disabled completely?

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    0·
    6 months ago

    “By design” AWS bills project owners for unauthorized calls to the public S3 API.

    So what I’m reading from this is you can do a billing attack on anything hosted in AWS so long as you know one of their bucket names.

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      6 months ago

      Seriously, now that this is more widely known, it’ll for sure be taken advantage of a lot, to the point AWS will begrudgingly protect their customers once the damage is done.

  • wpuckering@lm.williampuckering.com
    0·
    6 months ago

    You shouldn’t be charged for unauthorized requests that didn’t successfully PUT data. If you know any person’s bucket name and region, that means you can maliciously rack up their bill just to hurt them financially.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        6 months ago

        lol dude, I’ve known several people who have worked at AWS for years, and the amount of duct tape and bailing wire Mickey Mouse shit that I’ve heard goes on there just… does not inspire confidence.

        • Sicklad@lemmy.world
          0·
          6 months ago

          Yeah in my last role we were probably the biggest user of a certain storage service that was still kinda new, there were quite a few times we found bugs, features that straight up didn’t work how the documentation stated, and aws sent us workaround scripts that seriously looked like an unpaid intern wrote.

          I’m not sure if GCP/Azure would be much different though.