Re:The AWS S3 Denial of Wallet Amplification Attack
by jpambrun on Wednesday May 01, 2024 @08:04PM
(#40231189)
The consequence of your interpretation is that surprise billing is not even bounded by the physical limitations. This is absolutely not reasonable. I am the user with in the zip case. I knew this testing would incur a cost, but I could imagine it could be 20x my network speed and I have absolutely no control over what AWS claims to meter.
Re:The AWS S3 Denial of Wallet Amplification Attack
by vermilingua on Wednesday May 01, 2024 @05:58PM
(#40230048)
Then subsequent requests that hit the cache shouldn’t be charged by that logic.
Re:The AWS S3 Denial of Wallet Amplification Attack
by slt2021 on Wednesday May 01, 2024 @06:04PM
(#40230114)
s3 is a complex system, you could be hitting a different node with subsequent requests where this cache entry does not exist yet.
if you think egress is expensive, well storing data in RAM for cache purposes is 1000000x more expensive
a lot of stuff could be happening. Main problem is AWS (i think) is charging for egress out of S3 system, but customers are looking at their ingress at client side and there is mismatch
Re:The AWS S3 Denial of Wallet Amplification Attack
by jpambrun on Wednesday May 01, 2024 @08:07PM
(#40231208)
But you are not charged if it's not Internet egress, which makes your argument about compute/ram cost moot.
Re:The AWS S3 Denial of Wallet Amplification Attack
by yencabulator on Thursday May 02, 2024 @04:18PM
(#40240942)
If they charged for the extents that are actually read from S3 (even if the network connection was just closed), that'd be fine. But charging for terabytes when the actual connection consumed a few kilobytes is still wrong; surely they didn't e.g. buffer those terabytes of data from S3 disk storage into memory.
Charge for the buffer you fill: sure.
Charge the theoretical maximum: silly.
S3 is a block storage, so retrieving an object for such a high availability and high perf service means it tries to pull some X block of data and cache it before sending through the socket.
That X block of data is out of internal S3 storage, just not sent through the bigger Internet egress subsystem.
So technically aws may argue this is egress for s3, just not for aws