I am trying to follow this article for Secret Manager and tried applying attribute based access controll (ABAC) for AWS Lambda by using this user role policy linkage:
Create IAM user
Assign a role to this IAM user
Role is assigned an ABAC policy for lambda.
currently my ABAC policy for Lambda usage for different users in a project is as follows:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Sid": "LambdaPolicyForProject",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"cloudformation:DescribeStacks",
"cloudformation:ListStackResources",
"cloudwatch:GetMetricData",
"cloudwatch:ListMetrics",
"ec2:DescribeSecurityGroups",
"ec2:DescribeSubnets",
"ec2:DescribeVpcs",
"kms:ListAliases",
"iam:GetPolicy",
"iam:GetPolicyVersion",
"iam:GetRole",
"iam:GetRolePolicy",
"iam:ListAttachedRolePolicies",
"iam:ListRolePolicies",
"iam:ListRoles",
"logs:DescribeLogGroups",
"lambda:Get*",
"lambda:List*",
"states:DescribeStateMachine",
"states:ListStateMachines",
"tag:GetResources",
"xray:GetTraceSummaries",
"xray:BatchGetTraces"
],
"Resource": "*",
"Condition": {
"StringEquals": {
"aws:ResourceTag/accessproject": "${aws:PrincipalTag/accessproject}",
"aws:ResourceTag/accessteam": "${aws:PrincipalTag/accessteam}",
"aws:ResourceTag/costcenter": "${aws:PrincipalTag/costcenter}"
}
}
}
]
}
This does not work for a user when the costcenter, accessteam, accessproject tags are similar for both IAM user and lambda.
However, it works when I remove the condition in the above policy (this shows IAM is able to access lambda policy).
Can I know what I am missing from the tutorial above? I did cross check all tags for lambda, policies and IAM users, and they are same as per the docs.
The issue seems to be in the Actions you defined. According to the tutorial you followed:
[...] see Actions, Resources, and Condition Keys for AWS Secrets Manager. That page shows that actions performed on the Secret resource type support the secretsmanager:ResourceTag/tag-key condition key. Some Secrets Manager actions don't support that resource type, including GetRandomPassword and ListSecrets.
Have a look at actions, resources, and condition keys for AWS services and for each service make sure the action supports the aws:ResourceTag/${TagKey} condition. I didn't go through all the permissions but already the CloudWatch actions GetMetricData and ListMetrics do not support the aws:ResourceTag/${TagKey} condition. Same goes for ec2:DescribeSecurityGroups,
ec2:DescribeSubnets, ec2:DescribeVpcs, and probably a few more.
You must create additional statements to allow those actions i.e:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Sid": "LambdaPolicyForProject",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"cloudformation:DescribeStacks",
"cloudformation:ListStackResources",
"kms:ListAliases",
"iam:GetPolicy",
"iam:GetPolicyVersion",
"iam:GetRole",
"iam:GetRolePolicy",
"iam:ListAttachedRolePolicies",
"iam:ListRolePolicies",
"iam:ListRoles",
"logs:DescribeLogGroups",
"lambda:Get*",
"lambda:List*",
"states:DescribeStateMachine",
"states:ListStateMachines",
"tag:GetResources",
"xray:GetTraceSummaries",
"xray:BatchGetTraces"
],
"Resource": "*",
"Condition": {
"StringEquals": {
"aws:ResourceTag/accessproject": "${aws:PrincipalTag/accessproject}",
"aws:ResourceTag/accessteam": "${aws:PrincipalTag/accessteam}",
"aws:ResourceTag/costcenter": "${aws:PrincipalTag/costcenter}"
}
}
},{
"Sid": "LambdaPolicyForProjectNoTags",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"cloudwatch:GetMetricData",
"cloudwatch:ListMetrics",
"ec2:DescribeSecurityGroups",
"ec2:DescribeSubnets",
"ec2:DescribeVpcs"
],
"Resource": "*"
}
]
}
Once you have a working policy, please familiarize yourself with the IAM best practices as the use of wildcard resouce access should be avoided whenever possible (principle of granting least privilege).
Related
Is there a way by which I could check if an IAM User with some permissions satisfy a given policy set ?
Example.
I want to check if a user could trigger all the actions mentioned in the below policy. That too via some api calls or using the amazon sdk(Basically not manually). One way would be to try triggering some of the operations and do a check, but I was looking for some other method.
{
"Version": Ignore,
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"ec2:Describe*"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": "ec2:RunInstances",
"Resource": [
"arn:aws:ec2:*:*:subnet/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:*:*:instance/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:*:*:volume/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:*:*:network-interface/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:*:*:key-pair/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:*:*:security-group/*",
"arn:aws:ec2:*:*:image/*"
]
}
]
}
There is simulate-custom-policy which:
The simulation does not perform the API operations; it only checks the authorization to determine if the simulated policies allow or deny the operations. You can simulate resources that don't exist in your account
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 was trying to create an IAM policy that allows CloudFormation actions to be taken for specific resources in the account.
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Sid": "VisualEditor0",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"cloudformation:DetectStackDrift",
"cloudformation:CancelUpdateStack",
"cloudformation:DescribeStackInstance",
"cloudformation:DescribeStackResources",
"cloudformation:SignalResource",
"cloudformation:DescribeStackResource",
"cloudformation:CreateChangeSet",
"cloudformation:DeleteChangeSet",
"cloudformation:DescribeStacks",
"cloudformation:ContinueUpdateRollback",
"cloudformation:DetectStackResourceDrift",
"cloudformation:DescribeStackResourceDrifts",
"cloudformation:GetStackPolicy",
"cloudformation:GetTemplateSummary",
"cloudformation:DescribeStackEvents",
"cloudformation:CreateStack",
"cloudformation:GetTemplate",
"cloudformation:DeleteStack",
"cloudformation:TagResource",
"cloudformation:UpdateStack",
"cloudformation:DescribeChangeSet",
"cloudformation:ListChangeSets",
"cloudformation:ListStackResources"
],
"Resource": [
"arn:aws:cloudformation:*:*:stack/*/*",
"arn:aws:cloudformation:*:*:stackset/*:*",
"arn:aws:cloudformation:*:*:stack",
"arn:aws:cloudformation:*:*:stackset",
]
}
]
}
However, when I go to create a stack from a template saved in S3 (specifying S3 URL), I get blocked with an AccessDenied error.
User is not authorized to perform: cloudformation:GetTemplateSummary
If I add the following block, I do not run into the error.
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": "cloudformation:GetTemplateSummary",
"Resource": [
"*"
]
}
I'm working in a corporate environment where we're not allowed to have wildcards like that for resources. What is the proper way to specify resources for this action?
I found AWS's documentation for CloudFormation actions and resources (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/list_awscloudformation.html). It says the GetTemplateSummary action has stack and stackset resource types, but those resources were allowed in my original policy. What resource types does GetTemplateSummary act on?
I am having trouble connecting to AWS Transfer for SFTP. I successfully set up a server and tried to connect using WinSCP.
I set up an IAM role with trust relationships like follows:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Principal": {
"Service": "transfer.amazonaws.com"
},
"Action": "sts:AssumeRole"
}
]
}
I paired this with a scope down policy as described in the documentation using a home directory homebucket and home directory homedir
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Sid": "ListHomeDir",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:ListBucket",
"s3:GetBucketAcl"
],
"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::${transfer:HomeBucket}"
},
{
"Sid": "AWSTransferRequirements",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:ListAllMyBuckets",
"s3:GetBucketLocation"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
{
"Sid": "HomeDirObjectAccess",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:DeleteObjectVersion",
"s3:DeleteObject",
"s3:PutObject",
"s3:GetObjectAcl",
"s3:GetObject",
"s3:GetObjectVersionAcl",
"s3:GetObjectTagging",
"s3:PutObjectTagging",
"s3:PutObjectAcl",
"s3:GetObjectVersion"
],
"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::${transfer:HomeDirectory}*"
}
]
}
I was able to authenticate using an ssh key, but when it came to actually reading/writing files I just kept getting opaque errors like "Error looking up homedir" and failed "readdir". This all smells very much like problems with my IAM policy but I haven't been able to figure it out.
We had similar issues getting the scope down policy to work with our users on AWS Transfer. The solution that worked for us, was creating two different kinds of policies.
Policy to attach to the role which has general rights on the whole bucket.
Scope down policy to apply to the user which makes use of the transfer service variables like {transfer:UserName}.
We concluded that maybe only the extra attached policy is able to resolve the transfer service variables. We are not sure if this is correct and if this is the best solution, because this opens the possible risk when forgiving to attach the scope down policy to create a kind of "admin" user. So I'd be glad to get input to further lock this down a little bit.
Here is how it looks in my console when looking at the transfer user details:
Here are our two policies we use:
General policy to attach to IAM role
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Sid": "AllowListingOfUserFolder",
"Action": [
"s3:ListBucket",
"s3:GetBucketLocation"
],
"Effect": "Allow",
"Resource": [
"arn:aws:s3:::my-s3-bucket"
]
},
{
"Sid": "HomeDirObjectAccess",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:PutObject",
"s3:GetObject",
"s3:DeleteObjectVersion",
"s3:DeleteObject",
"s3:GetObjectVersion"
],
"Resource": "arn:aws:s3::: my-s3-bucket/*"
}
]
}
Scope down policy to apply to transfer user
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Sid": "AllowListingOfUserFolder",
"Action": [
"s3:ListBucket"
],
"Effect": "Allow",
"Resource": [
"arn:aws:s3:::${transfer:HomeBucket}"
],
"Condition": {
"StringLike": {
"s3:prefix": [
"${transfer:UserName}/*",
"${transfer:UserName}"
]
}
}
},
{
"Sid": "AWSTransferRequirements",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:ListAllMyBuckets",
"s3:GetBucketLocation"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
{
"Sid": "HomeDirObjectAccess",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:PutObject",
"s3:GetObject",
"s3:DeleteObjectVersion",
"s3:DeleteObject",
"s3:GetObjectVersion"
],
"Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::${transfer:HomeDirectory}*"
}
]
}
I had a similar problem but with a different error behavior. I managed to log in successfully, but then the connection was almost immediately closed.
I did the following things:
Make sure that the IAM role that allows bucket access also contains KMS access if your bucket is encrypted.
Make sure that the trust relationship is also part of that role.
Make sure that the server itself has a Cloudwatch role also with a trust relationship to transfer.amazonaws.com! This was the solution for me. I don't get why this is needed but without the trust relationship in the Cloudwatch role, my connection get's closed.
I hope that helps.
Edit: Added a picture for the settings of the CloudWatch role:
The bucket policy for the IAM user role can look like this:
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:ListBucket"
],
"Resource": [
"arn:aws:s3:::<your bucket>"
]
},
{
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:PutObject",
"s3:GetObject",
"s3:DeleteObject"
],
"Resource": [
"arn:aws:s3:::<your bucket>/*"
]
}
]
}
Finally, also add a Trust Relationship as shown above for the user IAM role.
If you can connect to your sftp but then get a readdir error when trying to list contents, e.g. with the command "ls", then that's a sign that you have no bucket permission. If your connection get's closed right away it seems to be a Trust Relationship issue or a KMS issue.
According to the somewhat cryptic documentation #limfinity was correct. To scope down access you need a general Role/Policy combination granting access to see the bucket. This role gets applied to the SFTP user you create. In addition you need a custom policy which grants CRUD rights only to the user's bucket. The custom policy is also applied to the SFTP user.
From page 24 of this doc... https://docs.aws.amazon.com/transfer/latest/userguide/sftp.ug.pdf#page=28&zoom=100,0,776
To create a scope-down policy, use the following policy variables in your IAM policy:
AWS Transfer for SFTP User Guide
Creating a Scope-Down Policy
• ${transfer:HomeBucket}
• ${transfer:HomeDirectory}
• ${transfer:HomeFolder}
• ${transfer:UserName}
Note
You can't use the variables listed preceding as policy variables in an IAM role definition. You create these variables in an IAM policy and supply them directly when setting up your user. Also, you can't use the ${aws:Username}variable in this scope-down policy. This variable refers to an IAM user name and not the user name required by AWS SFTP.
Can't comment, sorry if I'm posting incorrectly.
Careful with AWS's default policy!
This solution did work for me in that I was able to use scope-down policies for SFTP users as expected. However, there's a catch:
{
"Sid": "AWSTransferRequirements",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:ListAllMyBuckets",
"s3:GetBucketLocation"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
This section of the policy will enable SFTP users using this policy to change directory to root and list all of your account's buckets. They won't have access to read or write, but they can discover stuff which is probably unnecessary. I can confirm that changing the above to:
{
"Sid": "AWSTransferRequirements",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"s3:ListAllMyBuckets",
"s3:GetBucketLocation"
],
"Resource": "${transfer:HomeBucket}"
},
... appears to prevent SFTP users from listing buckets. However, they can still cd to directories if they happen to know buckets that exist -- again they dont' have read/write but this is still unnecessary access. I'm probably missing something to prevent this in my policy.
Proper jailing appears to be a backlog topic: https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=297509&tstart=0
We were using the updated version of SFTP with Username and Password and had to spend quite some time to figure out all details. For the new version, the Scope down policy needs to be specified as 'Policy' key within Secrets Manager. This is very important for the whole flow to work.
We have documented the full setup on our site here - https://coderise.io/sftp-on-aws-with-username-and-password/
Hope that helps!
I wanted to restrict IAM user from creating new group/roles and allow only if user attaches custom policy BaseDeny along with other policies. Meaning there has to be BaseDeny policy in every group/roles created by user in order for him to create new group/roles.
I tried to add following policy to the user to achieve this, however this is allowing only BaseDeny to be added, but I wanted to allow if user adds any other policy along with BaseDeny.
What condition is needed to achieve this? Or any other way to make this work?
{
"Version": "2012-10-17",
"Statement": [{
"Sid": "ManageUsersPermission",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"iam:ChangePassword",
"iam:CreateAccessKey",
"iam:CreateLoginProfile",
"iam:DeleteAccessKey",
"iam:DeleteLoginProfile",
"iam:UpdateAccessKey",
"iam:ListAttachedUserPolicies",
"iam:ListPolicies",
"iam:ListUserPolicies",
"iam:ListGroups",
"iam:ListGroupsForUser",
"iam:GetPolicy",
"iam:GetAccountSummary",
"iam:GetGroup",
"iam:ListGroupPolicies"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
{
"Sid": "CreateGroupRoleLimited",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"iam:CreateGroup",
"iam:AddUserToGroup",
"iam:CreateRole",
"iam:ListAttachedGroupPolicies",
"iam:ListAttachedRolePolicies"
],
"Resource": "*"
},
{
"Sid": "AttachDettachLimitedPolicy",
"Effect": "Allow",
"Action": [
"iam:AttachGroupPolicy",
"iam:AttachRolePolicy",
"iam:AttachUserPolicy"
],
"Resource": "*",
"Condition": {
"ArnLike": {
"iam:PolicyArn": [
"arn:aws:iam::*:policy/BaseDeny"
]
}
}
}
]
}
To solve this problem have a look at IAM Permissions Delegation
What you are trying to do is exactly what the delegation feature was built for. Instead of trying to make sure that a particular BaseDeny policy is included on new groups (one way to attempt to achieve a permissions boundary), follow the linked blog entry to create a permissions boundary that excludes what you wanted to deny with BaseDeny.
This is not possible.
The closest option would be to create an AWS Config rule to check for Roles/Groups that do not contain that policy.
This is checking "after-the-fact", but you could automate the rule to disable a Role/Group that violates the rule.
See: How to develop custom AWS Config rules using the Rule Development Kit | AWS Management Tools Blog