Re:Amazon met with startups about investing, then launched c...
by swiftcoder on Friday July 24, 2020 @12:07AM
(#23935618)
> everything you do as an Amazon employee basically leaves a trail with your employee ID
That might be true in retail, but it wasn't anywhere close to true in AWS. When I left most engineers still had SSH access to the production hosts (and a not-insignificant portion of operations relied on that fact).
Re:Amazon met with startups about investing, then launched c...
by mcqueenjordan on Friday July 24, 2020 @03:39AM
(#23936782)
Leaving aside the question of what SSH access looks like today versus whenever you left...
There are many easy mechanisms to audit and monitor SSH sessions. So... no?
Re:Amazon met with startups about investing, then launched c...
by swiftcoder on Sunday July 26, 2020 @04:14PM
(#23959834)
They weren't audited at the time (nor was there a standardised way of doing so).
Re:Amazon met with startups about investing, then launched c...
by tekknik on Thursday July 23, 2020 @10:22PM
(#23935032)
Definitely not defending parent here, but in this day in age many people create burner accounts specifically to avoid tying any statements back to them. It’s pretty acceptable practice to create burner accounts on HN. That said, I agree, I doubt any of these claims are true.
Even if the customer had a misconfigured S3 bucket that was exposed to the public, it would still constitute as accessing customer data you're not meant to see.
As other users have provided insight on, everything you do as an Amazon employee basically leaves a trail with your employee ID, even if you had access to private information (which you wouldn't basically because it's locked behind several layers of security). Fireable and sueable offense which Amazon would definitely not allow, let alone endorse.