Re:How an empty S3 bucket can make your AWS bill explode
by yencabulator on Wednesday May 01, 2024 @10:00PM
(#40231972)
> They still do cost money for a web service to handle and if you (the customer) have screwed things up that's kinda on you.
They cost a lot less than a multiple disk write (PUT), a disk read (GET).
They cost the same to AWS whether the target bucket belongs to me, Amazon themselves, or does not exist.
And in this case, the customer definitely didn't "screw things up".
Charging for unauthorized requests is just weird and customer-hostile. Like, how am I supposed to prevent that?
I get that a service provider might want to "punish" a customer who misconfigures their systems and DoSes themselves with e.g. no backoff on 403 error, but I find it hard to believe that that's the common case -- and how is typo in authentication supposed to be so different from typo in bucket name?
They cost a lot less than a multiple disk write (PUT), a disk read (GET).
They cost the same to AWS whether the target bucket belongs to me, Amazon themselves, or does not exist.
And in this case, the customer definitely didn't "screw things up".
Charging for unauthorized requests is just weird and customer-hostile. Like, how am I supposed to prevent that?
I get that a service provider might want to "punish" a customer who misconfigures their systems and DoSes themselves with e.g. no backoff on 403 error, but I find it hard to believe that that's the common case -- and how is typo in authentication supposed to be so different from typo in bucket name?