I'm trying to better understand how the overall flow should work with AWS Lambda and my Web App.
I would like to have the client upload a file to a public bucket (completely bypassing my API resources), with the client UI putting it into a folder for their account based on a GUID. From there, I've got lambda to run when it detects a change to the public bucket, then resizing the file and placing it into the processed bucket.
However, I need to update a row in my RDS Database.
Issue
I'm struggling to understand the best practice to use for identifying the row to update. Should I be uploading another file with the necessary details (where every image upload consists really of two files - an image and a json config)? Should the image be processed, and then the client receives some data and it makes an API request to update the row in the database? What is the right flow for this step?
Thanks.
You should use a pre-signed URL for the upload. This allows your application to put restrictions on the upload, such as file type, directory and size. It means that, when the file is uploaded, you already know who did the upload. It also prevents people from uploading randomly to the bucket, since it does not need to be public.
The upload can then use an Amazon S3 Event to trigger the Lambda function. The filename/location can be used to identify the user, so the database can be updated at the time that the file is processed.
See: Uploading Objects Using Presigned URLs - Amazon Simple Storage Service
I'd avoid uploading a file directly to S3 bypassing the API. Uploading file from your API allows you to control type of file, size etc as well as you will know who exactly is uploading the file (API authid or user id in API body). This is also a security risk to open a bucket to public for writes.
Your API clients can then upload the file via API, which then can store file on S3 (trigger another lambda for processing) and then update your RDS with appropriate meta-data for that user.
Related
I have a bucket that has multiple users, and would like to pre-sign urls for the client to upload to s3 (some files can be large, so I'd rather they not pass through the Node server. My question is this: Until the mongo database is hit, there is no mongo Object Id to tag as a prefix for the file. (I'm separating the files in this structure: (UserID/PostID/resource) so you can check all of a user's pictures by looking under /UserID, and you can target a specific post by also adding the PostID. Conversely, there is no Object URL until the client uploads the file, so I'm at a bit of an impasse.
Is it bad practice to rename files after they touch the bucket? I just can't pre-know the ObjectID (the post has to be created in Mongo first) - but the user has to select what files they want to upload before the object is created. I was thinking the best flow could be one of two situations:
Client sets files -> Mongo created Document -> Responds to client with ObjectID and pre-signed urls for each file with the key set to /UserID/PostID/name. After successful upload, it re-triggers an update function on the server to edit the urls of the post. after update, send success to client.
Client uploads files to root of bucket -> Mongo doc created where urls of uploaded s3 files are being stored -> iterate over list and prepend the UserID and newly-created PostID, updating mongo document -> success response to client
Is there another approach that I don't know about?
Answering your question:
Is it bad practice to rename files after they touch the server?
If you are planing to use S3 to save your files, there is no server, so there is no problems to change these files after you upload them.
The only thing that you need to understand is renaming a object you need to two requests:
copy the object with a new name
delete the old object with the old name
And this means that maybe can be a problem in costs/latency if you have a huge number of changes (but I can say for most of cases this will not be a problem)
I can say that the first option will be a good option for you, and the only thing that I would change is adding a Serverless processing for your object/files, using the AWS Lambda service will be a good option .
In this case instead of updating the files on the server, you will update using a Lambda function, you only need to add a trigger for your bucket in the PutObject event on S3, this way will can change the name of your files in the best processing time for your client and with low costs.
I'm trying to upload a file into a customer's S3. I'm given a presigned URL that allows me to do a PUT request. I have no access to their access and secret key so the use of the AWS SDK is out of the question.
The use case is that I am consuming a gRPC server streaming call and transforming it into a csv with some field changes. As the calls come in, I would want to be able to stream the transformed gRPC response into S3. I would need to do it via streaming cause the response can get rather large, upwards of >100mb, so loading everything into memory before uploading it into S3 is not ideal. Any ideas?
This is an open issue with pre-signed S3 upload URL:
https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-js/issues/1603
Currently, the only working solution for large upload through S3 pre-signed URL is to use multi-part upload. The biggest drawback of that approach is you need to let the server that signs the upload know the size of your file, as it will need to pre-sign each part individually. e.g: 100MB file upload will require 20 parts (each 5MB maximum) to be pre-signed individually.
Context
I am building Stateless REST APIs for a browser-based platform that needs to store some user-generated files. These files could potentially be in the GBs.
I am using AWS S3 for storage. I have used AWS SDK in the past for this to route the file uploads through the NodeJS server (Basically - Upload to Server, Server uploads to S3).
I am trying to figure out how to improve it using the Pre-signed urls. I understand the dynamics and the flow on how to get the presigned urls and how to upload the file to S3 directly.
I cannot use SQS or Lambda to trigger object created event.
The architecture needs to be AWS independent.
Question
The simplest of flows I need to achieve is pretty common -
User --> Opens Profile
Clicks Upload Photo
Client Sends Request to /getSignedUrl
Server Returns the signedURL for the file name/type
The client executes the PUT/POST request to upload the file to the signedUrl
Upload Successful
After this - my understanding is -
Client tells the server - File Uploaded Successfully
Server associates the S3 Url for the Photo to the User.
...and that's my problem. How do I associate the successfully uploaded file back to the user on the server in a secure way?
Not sure what I've been missing. It seems like a trivial use case but I haven't been able to find anything regarding it.
1/ I think for the avatar, you should set it as public-read.
When create signed upload url in the
GET: /signed-upload-url
You need to set the image as public-read. After that you are free to interact with image through the direct url. Since this is an avatar, so you can compress it, reduce the size of image by the AWS Lambda function.
2/ If you don't want to have the public-read, you need to associate with server to get signed-download-url to interact with image
GET: /signed-download-url
Im looking at Knox S3 library. In my web app, users are allowed to upload files. Im thinking of using Amazon S3.
In Knox, how to map the file uploaded to the user? Let say I want to know the files that a user uploaded. This will be stored in MongoDB.
Just an idea.
To figure out what data was uploaded by a specific user, you have two options:
Use an external data store (MongoDB or any other database) and record the relation between the uploaded object on S3 (it's key) and the user. This data recording would be done by your app logic when a new object is uploaded to S3.
Upload the data on S3 under a common prefix (e.g. all files uploaded by a user would be placed in /<user-id>/file.ext) and do a LIST request on the bucket to find all the keys under that prefix.
Usually the first option works best, especially if you need to record multiple relations between your S3 objects and other entities.
These scenarios are not specific to using Knox as an S3 client. They apply independent of the programming language or S3 library.
We are using Amazon S3 for images on our website and users upload the images/files directly to S3 through our website. In our policy file we ensure it "begins-with" "upload/". Anyone is able to see the full urls of these images since they are publicly readable images after they are uploaded. Could a hacker come in and use the policy data in the javascript and the url of the image to overwrite these images with their data? I see no way to prevent overwrites after uploading once. The only solution I've seen is to copy/rename the file to a folder that is not publicly writeable but that requires downloading the image then uploading it again to S3 (since Amazon can't really rename in place)
If I understood you correctly The images are uploaded to Amazon S3 storage via your server application.
So the Amazon S3 write permission has only your application. Clients can upload images only throw your application (which will store them on S3). Hacker can only force your application to upload image with same name and rewrite the original one.
How do you handle the situation when user upload a image with a name that already exists in your S3 storage?
Consider following actions:
First user upload a image some-name.jpg
Your app stores that image in S3 under name upload-some-name.jpg
Second user upload a image some-name.jpg
Will your application overwrite the original one stored in S3?
I think the question implies the content goes directly through to S3 from the browser, using a policy file supplied by the server. If that policy file has set an expiration, for example, one day in the future, then the policy becomes invalid after that. Additionally, you can set a starts-with condition on the writeable path.
So the only way a hacker could use your policy files to maliciously overwrite files is to get a new policy file, and then overwrite files only in the path specified. But by that point, you will have had the chance to refuse to provide the policy file, since I assume that is something that happens after authenticating your users.
So in short, I don't see a danger here if you are handing out properly constructed policy files and authenticating users before doing so. No need for making copies of stuff.
actually S3 does have a copy feature that works great
Copying Amazon S3 Objects
but as amra stated above, doubling your space by copying sounds inefficient
mybe itll be better to give the object some kind of unique id like a guid and set additional user metadata that begin with "x-amz-meta-" for some more information on the object, like the user that uploaded it, display name, etc...
on the other hand you could always check if the key exists already and prompt for an error