https://medium.com/@TalBeerySec/a-short-note-on-aws-key-id-f...
These key IDs are included in the URL for pre-signed links to S3, so there's a good chance you've already been publishing your account ID.
https://medium.com/@TalBeerySec/a-short-note-on-aws-key-id-f...
These key IDs are included in the URL for pre-signed links to S3, so there's a good chance you've already been publishing your account ID.
This will probably be downvoted, but if you read this anyway: this is a good example of why "security by obscurity" is not a good defense. You will overlook something (a determined attacker will not)
Anything non-"security by obscurity" does not depend on you understanding something or not - it will apply, no matter what, as long as the attacker hasn't a genius on payroll which cracks e.g. AES-256 just so (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEkrWRHCDQU)
There is a way to view bananas at
/bananas/:bananaUUID
unsecured endpoint.
I don’t want people to get all my banana data, but as long as there isn’t an easy way to list banana uuids, that endpoint is basically effective security by obscurity.
Security through obscurity means substituting security for a flawed algorithm that is usually trivial to exploit if the attacker is made aware of the algorithm. Think things like no authentication and ROT13ing and Base64ing clientside. If the method leaks or is discovered, the whole system is broken.
You just told me your algorithm and I cannot get to your banana because the UUID key space is insanely large. So that's not security to obscurity.
Hopefully you're using version 4 UUIDs. Those set aside 6 bits to encode UUID details, keeping 122 bits of entropy. Since every banana needs its own identifier, subtract the number of bits needed to uniquely represent bananas. What's left will unavoidably be less guess-resistant than client secrets. Other versions of UUID use many more bits for low-entropy purposes.