I created a aws sagemaker user profile using terraform. I tried to launch the sagemaker studio from the user profile but was confronted with this error: SageMaker is unable to use your associated ExecutionRole [arn:aws:iam::xxxxxxxxxxxx:role/sagemaker-workshop-data-ml] to create app. Verify that your associated ExecutionRole has permission for 'sagemaker:CreateApp'. The role has sagemaker full access policy attached to it, but that policy doesn't have the createApp permission which is weird. Are there any policies I can attach to the role with the sagemaker createApp permission, or do I need to attach a policy to the role through terraform?
Make sure your execution role does not have any permission boundaries. By default, the SageMakerFullAccess policy allows create app permissions - see this statement -
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"sagemaker:CreatePresignedDomainUrl",
"sagemaker:DescribeDomain",
"sagemaker:ListDomains",
"sagemaker:DescribeUserProfile",
"sagemaker:ListUserProfiles",
"sagemaker:*App",
"sagemaker:ListApps"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
You can add an inline policy such as below to make sure your role has permissions to create app -
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Sid": "AllowCreateApp",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": "sagemaker:CreateApp",
"Resource": "*"
}
]
}
Are you talking about arn:aws:iam::aws:policy/AmazonSageMakerFullAccess? If you take a look at this policy, you'll find this as one of the statements:
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"sagemaker:CreatePresignedDomainUrl",
"sagemaker:DescribeDomain",
"sagemaker:ListDomains",
"sagemaker:DescribeUserProfile",
"sagemaker:ListUserProfiles",
"sagemaker:DescribeSpace",
"sagemaker:ListSpaces",
"sagemaker:*App",
"sagemaker:ListApps"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
The sagemaker:*App action on "Resource": "*" means that the policy actually does have the sagemaker:CreateApp permission.
It is a common guardrail (even listed in the AWS Whitepaper on "SageMaker Studio Administration Best Practices") to limit notebook access to specific instances, and that guardrail denies on the CreateApp action. And the recommendation in the whitepaper is to control this at the service control policy level (in AWS Organizations, which you may not have visibility into), with this being an example policy:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Sid": "LimitInstanceTypesforNotebooks",
"Effect": "Deny",
"Action": [
"sagemaker:CreateApp"
],
"Resource": "*",
"Condition": {
"ForAnyValue:StringNotLike": {
"sagemaker:InstanceTypes": [
"ml.c5.large",
"ml.m5.large",
"ml.t3.medium",
"system"
]
}
}
}
]
}
Related
In the CI/CD section of the AWS SAM tutorial workshop, when I ran
sam pipeline init --bootstrap and went through the configurations, a role was created with this policy:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Action": "*",
"Resource": "*",
"Effect": "Allow"
}
]
}
Doesn't this grant the role complete permission over my AWS account which is a big no no? Or is it fine because the permission is granted to an AWS service, and not a user?
This is the trust relationship:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Principal": {
"Service": "cloudformation.amazonaws.com"
},
"Action": "sts:AssumeRole"
}
]
}
Having a role that exists with those permissionsis fine.
When you create a vanilla AWS Account (in other words I am not including those created by enterprise landing zones like Control Tower) it comes with a policy called AdministratorAccess and a role called Administrator.
The best practice is in who or what you allow to use that policy and when.
Roles are preferred over users, since roles provide security credentials. With a user you have durable credentials you need to secure.
In this case you are allowing CloudFormation to assume this role. This makes sense since CloudFormation often needs to be able to create and modify any resources including IAM roles. If you know you will not be creating or modifying IAM resources you can user a more restrictive role (least privilege), for example using the PowerUserAccess policy which looks like this:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"NotAction": [
"iam:*",
"organizations:*",
"account:*"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"iam:CreateServiceLinkedRole",
"iam:DeleteServiceLinkedRole",
"iam:ListRoles",
"organizations:DescribeOrganization",
"account:ListRegions"
],
"Resource": "*"
}
]
}
I have created an IAM user in my AWS account. IAM user requires permission to access Amazon data Lifecycle Manager. I had given the following permissions to the IAM user
AmazonEC2FullAccess,
AWSDataLifecycleManagerServiceRole
and AWSDataLifecycleManagerServiceRoleForAMIManagement.
But when I tried to access Amazon Data Lifecycle Manager with this IAM user account, I get this following statement on the lifecycle manager page
It is taking a bit longer than usual to fetch your data.
(The page keepy on loading for a longer period of time)
This message doesn't appear when I tried to access the same page with the same IAM user but this time with Administrator-Access.
Can somebody please let me know what's going wrong here, because I want to grant limited permission for my IAM user to manage my AWS resources.
The policies that you mencioned does not include permissions to access Data Lifecycle Manager.
This is another service that is not included on EC2 (this is why AmazonEC2FullAccess does not give you permissions). Additionally, AWSDataLifecycleManagerServiceRole and AWSDataLifecycleManagerServiceRoleForAMIManagement are managed policies to allow AWS Data Lifecycle Manager itself to take actions on AWS resources. So these policies should not be applied to IAM Users.
You need to create a custom IAM Policy with the proper permissions. In case of read only you can use this:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Sid": "DataLifecycleManagerRead",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"dlm:Get*",
"dlm:List*"
],
"Resource": "*"
}
]
}
UPDATE
To create policies through web console, some additional permissions are required because the web shows more information to help during creation process. So in order to have enough permissions to create policies via web use this (some of these are referenced on documentation but seems to be incomplete):
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"dlm:*",
"iam:GetRole",
"ec2:DescribeTags",
"iam:ListRoles",
"iam:PassRole",
"iam:CreateRole",
"iam:AttachRolePolicy"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"ec2:CreateSnapshot",
"ec2:CreateSnapshots",
"ec2:DeleteSnapshot",
"ec2:DescribeInstances",
"ec2:DescribeVolumes",
"ec2:DescribeSnapshots",
"ec2:EnableFastSnapshotRestores",
"ec2:DescribeFastSnapshotRestores",
"ec2:DisableFastSnapshotRestores",
"ec2:CopySnapshot",
"ec2:ModifySnapshotAttribute",
"ec2:DescribeSnapshotAttribute"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"ec2:CreateTags"
],
"Resource": "arn:aws:ec2:*::snapshot/*"
},
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"events:PutRule",
"events:DeleteRule",
"events:DescribeRule",
"events:EnableRule",
"events:DisableRule",
"events:ListTargetsByRule",
"events:PutTargets",
"events:RemoveTargets"
],
"Resource": "arn:aws:events:*:*:rule/AwsDataLifecycleRule.managed-cwe.*"
}
]
}
I'm trying to create an IAM role and assign it to an EC2 instance according to Attach an AWS IAM Role to an Existing Amazon EC2 Instance by Using the AWS CLI.
The policy looks like below:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Principal": {
"Service": "ec2.amazonaws.com"
},
"Action": "sts:AssumeRole"
}
]
}
But it gives this error:
This policy contains the following error: Has prohibited field Principal
There is a similar question here but it couldn't fix this issue.
Any help would be appreciated.
Faced the same issue when trying to update the "Trust Relationship" Or same known as "Trust Policy".
"Principal" comes to play only in "Trust Policy". May be by mistake you are updating normal policy falling under the permissions tab. Try updating the policy under "Trust Relationships" tab as below:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Principal": {
"Service": [
"ec2.amazonaws.com",
"lambda.amazonaws.com"
]
},
"Action": "sts:AssumeRole"
}
]
}
The easiest way to create a Service Role is:
Go to the IAM Console
Click Roles
Create new Role
Select an Amazon EC2 service role
Then attach your policies
It will create the trust policy for you.
Please note that the Trust Policy is stored in a separate location to the actual Policy (the bit that assigns permissions). Based upon the error message, it seems like you're putting the trust policy in the normal spot, because Roles don't need a principle (but trust policies do).
write a policy inside bucket --> permissions --> bucket policy --> save
Note: don't write policy in iam console and bucket and cloud-watch regions must be same. other region wont work.
use below policy
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Principal": {
"Service": "logs.YOUR-CLOUD-WATCH-REGION.amazonaws.com"
},
"Action": "s3:GetBucketAcl",
"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::YOUR-BUCKET-NAME"
},
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Principal": {
"Service": "logs.YOUR-CLOUD-WATCH-REGION.amazonaws.com"
},
"Action": "s3:PutObject",
"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::YOUR-BUCKET-NAME/*",
"Condition": {
"StringEquals": {
"s3:x-amz-acl": "bucket-owner-full-control"
}
}
}
]
}
I have some question about IAM permissions. I have IAM User. who has such minimal permissions
1) For IAM:
{
"Version": "2010-12-14",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"iam:ChangePassword"
],
"Resource": [
"arn:aws:iam::*:user/${aws:username}"
]
},
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"iam:GetAccountPasswordPolicy"
],
"Resource": "*"
}
]
}
2) For S3
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Sid": "Stmt1234567890123",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:DeleteObject",
"s3:GetObject",
"s3:ListBucket",
"s3:PutObject"
],
"Resource": [
"*"
]
}
]
}
And I need to write some Api, using Java SDK, which be ablle to check if user has this minimal permissions, but on this level of access, I can not get my own permissions, policies, roles. It is possible to do so with this level of access?
Using AWS java sdk you can get IAM permissions of yours and other IAM users. But you need to have required AWS resource permission.
For ex http://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/iam/list-user-policies.html
To list other user policies you should have IAM:list-user-policies.
Likewise whatever AWS resources you try to access require permissions to query the resource. Your permissions can be set directly to you in permissions or role with permissions have been assigned to you.
I had an issue with identifying IAM user permission and I had to write an API that had to be responsible for that. So used AWS java SDK, IAM module, where such ability had already presented. I used simulatePrincipalPolicy request
Created an AWS IAM policy for a user to give permission for only stopping and starting instance but if I give a particular instance ARN resource then it doesn’t work. Default EC2 Read only permission has been given to the user to describe EC2 instances and on top of that added customized sample policy as follows:
Sample policy:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Action": [
"ec2:Describe*",
"ec2:StopInstances",
"ec2:RunInstances",
"ec2:StartInstances"
],
"Effect": "Allow",
"Resource": "*"
This works
"Resource": "arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account id>:instance/<instance id>"
"Resource": "arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account id>:instance/*"
"Resource": "arn:aws:ec2:<region>::instance/*"
"Resource": "arn:aws:ec2:::instance/*"
"Resource": "arn:aws:ec2:::*"
These doesn’t work
}
]
}
Edited on 23rd January (To Show what exactly I have done)
Objective: Start and stop instance permission on a single EC2 instance to a user.
Tested different combo policies but none of them worked except "Resource": "*":
Logged in: admin_user (Full access)
Created an instance as follows:
Region: Oregon
Availability zone: us-west-2c
Instance Id: i-xxx3dxxx32xxxxxxe
Owner: xxx23xxx11
Created a user: testec2_user
Permissions given to the user:
EC2 read only (available policy)
Customized policy to permit only stop and start i-xxx38xxx32xx45 instance as follows:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Action": [
"ec2:Describe*",
"ec2:RunInstances"
],
"Effect": "Allow",
"Resource": "*"
},
{
"Action": [
"ec2:StopInstances",
"ec2:StartInstances"
],
"Effect": "Allow",
"Resource": "arn:aws:ec2:us-west-2c:xxx23xxx11:instance/i-xxx3dxxx32xxxxxxe"
}
] }
Logged in as testec2_user and tried starting up the stopped instance and received following error:
You are not authorized to perform this operation. Encoded authorization failure message
I have a plan for decoding the message received using sts decode authorization message of AWS.
DescribeInstances does not support resource-level permissions. (See Unsupported Resource-Level Permissions).
If an Amazon EC2 API action does not support resource-level
permissions, you can grant users permission to use the action, but you
have to specify a * for the resource element of your policy statement.
Read more
So, you could re-write your policy as:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Action": [
"ec2:Describe*",
"ec2:RunInstances"
],
"Effect": "Allow",
"Resource": "*"
},
{
"Action": [
"ec2:StopInstances",
"ec2:StartInstances"
],
"Effect": "Allow",
"Resource": "arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account>:instance/<instance-id>"
}
]
}
EDIT
RunInstances needs access to several resource types besides Instance (Such as Image, Key pair, Network interface, Placement group, Security group, Snapshot, Subnet and Volume) and accepts a specific ARN format for each resource type. So, arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account id>:instance/* would not be enough and you'll get an UnauthorizedOperation error. The "Resource" element should either be:
"Resource": "*"
Which is the easiest way, or:
"Resource": [
"arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account>:instance/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:<region>::image/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account>:key-pair/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account>:network-interface/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account>:placement-group/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account>:security-group/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:<region>::snapshot/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account>:subnet/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:<region>:<account>:volume/*"
]
Which is more complex but provides fine-grained control on each resource. For example, you can allow RunInstances execution for a specific EC2 image ID or subnet ID only. For more details, see the RunInstances section here.
Additional note on PassRole Permission
When executing RunInstances, if the EC2 instance should include an instance profile, the user who launches the EC2 instance must also have the IAM PassRole permission in order to associate a role with the instance during launch. For example:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
...
{
"Action": "iam:PassRole",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Resource":"arn:aws:iam::<account>:role/<role-name>"
}
]
}
This way, you make sure that a user doesn't pass a role to an EC2 instance where the role has more permissions than you want the user to have.
For more info on granting permission to launch EC2 instances with IAM roles, see this AWS blog article.
This is how you specify multiple resources:
…
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": "s3:*",
"Resource": [
"arn:aws:s3:::BUCKET-NAME/home/${aws:username}",
"arn:aws:s3:::BUCKET-NAME/home/${aws:username}/*"
]
}
]
}
Source:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/access_policies_examples.html
EDIT:
You can also use Conditions if you want to filter out instead of including all the required resources manually.