Jay Godse Jay Godse - 1 month ago 5x
Ruby Question

How to make images hosted on Amazon S3 less public but not completely private?

I fired up a sample application that uses Amazon S3 for image hosting. I managed to coax it into working. The application is hosted at github.com. The application lets you create users with a profile photo. When you upload the photo, the web application stores it on Amazon S3 instead of your local file system. (Very important if you host at heroku.com)

However, when I did a "view source" in the browser of the page I noticed that the URL of the picture was an Amazon S3 URL in the S3 bucket that I assigned to the app. I cut & pasted the URL and was able to view the picture in the same browser, and in in another browser in which I had no open sessions to my web app or to Amazon S3.

Is there any way that I could restrict access to that URL (and image) so that it is accessible only to browsers that are logged into my applications?

Most of the information I found about Amazon ACLs only talk about access for only the owner or to groups of users authenticated with Amazon or AmazonS3, or to everybody anonymously.

EDIT----UPDATE July 7, 2010

Amazon has just announced more ways to restrict access to S3 objects and buckets. Among other ways, you can now restrict access to an S3 object by qualifying the HTTP referrer. This looks interesting...I can't wait until they update their developer documents.


S3 is a separate service and does not know about your sessions.

The generic solution is to recognize the benefits and security properties that assigning each asset a separate, unique, and very long and random key, which forms part of the URL to that asset. If you so choose, you can even assign a key with 512 effective bits of randomness, and that URL will remain unguessable for a very long time.

  • Because someone who at time t has access to an asset can simply copy the asset for future reference, it makes sense to permit that person to know the URL and access the asset at any time.
  • Likewise, since that person can simply download the asset and distribute it to others, it makes sense to permit that person to distribute the URL to others to whom he would otherwise simply have distributed the asset itself.
  • Since all such access is read-only, and since writes are restricted to the website servers, there is no risk of malicious "hacking" from anyone who has this access.

You have to determine if this is sufficient security. If it isn't, then maybe S3 isn't for you, and maybe you need to store your images as binary columns in your database and cache them in memcached, which you can do on Heroku.