back to article Won't duke, duke, duke the URLs: AWS backtracks on plans to block old-style S3 paths

Amazon Web Services has changed its mind about ending support for the URLs originally used by S3 (Simple Storage Service), though it is delaying rather than ending its deprecation plans. S3, introduced in 2006, is one of the oldest AWS services. It is cloud storage where files can be accessed programmatically or published to …

  1. renke

    Cool URIs don't change

    > Ending path-style support for existing buckets is more serious, because it breaks URLs for existing files

    Amazon should take a look at this 1998 article. Written by some guy called Tim Berners-Lee. Is he still known in the web biz?

    [snarking aside, Amazon's decision has also implications on privacy and censorship. It is quite easy to block access to e.g. unwantedpoliticalopinion.s3.amazonaws.com. But dropping all traffic to s3.amazonaws.com? The back lash will be rather huge.]

    1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

      Re: Cool URIs don't change

      "What, design a URI? I have to design URIs? Yes, you have to think about it."

      I'm so terribly embarrassed. Actually, this article hints at the failure of REST interfaces--they bind you to a particular tree-view of data which is not at all canonically represented by any particular tree.

    2. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  2. Rosie Davies

    Ambidextrous

    I am liking the new site feature for supporting both left and right hand sides of the pond, as per your fine example 30 September 30 (though possibly a th would help?)

    Could I propse non-Reg units go through a similar thing? Maybe 68 Farencius 20? 20 feetres 6.1?

    I didn't have anything of any value to add, no. Why do you ask?

    Rosie

  3. CrackedNoggin

    Other possible side effects:

    (1) DNS tables entries could potentially become far more numerous, increasing the burden on DNS servers to update and maintain status.

    At least the DNS servers will have to check whether the subdomain exists in the DNS table or the root should be used.

    (2) Increased security risk as described here:

    "There is no known security vulnerability in Let’s Encrypt that can be exploited. What is usually meant by hacker threat in this context is connected with the type of certificate validation. Let’s Encrypt and many other paid SSLs are domain-validated only (DV). This means that in order to issue the certificate, the CA (certificate authority) only checks if the certificate requester owns the domain. If a hacker manages to acquire access (usually through phishing) to your domain account at your domain registrar, they can create subdomains of your domain and issue security certificates for ​the subdomains as if they were the owner. This is called domain shadowing and can result in misleading people that they are visiting your website while in fact, it is a subdomain not related to ​your site at all."

    Although (2) shouldn't be an issue with AWS, it is a problem with increased used of subdomains in general, especially as other cloud providers are pressed into following AWS's example, especially if they want to pass through great firewalls.

  4. IGotOut Silver badge

    More time...

    otherwise a load of unsupported IoT may stop working.

    Oh dear.

    1. Korev Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: More time...

      Won’t that mean an overall increase in security on the Internet?

  5. RichardBarrell

    I hope for their sake that they never do it

    Turning them off unilaterally sounds like a very bad idea, no matter how much advance warning is given. It would be a blow to AWS's credibility. Like any platform, customers depend on it to not break their stuff.

    "Don't break your customer's stuff" is just about the first commandment for running a successful platform. (If not, it's definitely top 3.) Every time you break their stuff, customers will do a cost benefit analysis on moving onto one of your competitors instead of moving onto version n+1 of your platform. If you get a rep for doing it often, moving to your platform becomes unattractive.

    IMO the obviously correct thing to do is just suck it up and deal with the technical challenges, indefinitely. Charge more per request to the path style endpoints. Those customers will have a financial incentive and you can aggressively market to them "heyyyy you can reduce your AWS bill right now simply by changing how you use URLs." They'll get to it when the savings outweigh the risk & expense.

  6. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge
    Pint

    Headline

    Just wanted to post appreciation for the terrible headline!! :-)

    -----> Go on - it's Friday.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Quote: "...in-the-cloud companies have legacy problems too..."

    *

    Sorry, but this is just bulls**t........

    *

    .......because as every non-marketeer non-anorak knows.....

    *

    "cloud" == "server(s)"

    *

    ......and servers have been around for forty++ years.

    *

    PLEASE......cease and desist with the marketing jargon.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021