i have followed the steps of the documentation but i received:
User: arn:aws:sts::xxxxxxxxxxxx:assumed-role/CognitoRkUnauth_Role/CognitoIdentityCredentials is not authorized to perform: iam:PassRole on resource: arn:aws:iam::xxxxxxxxxx:role/CognitoRkUnauth_Role
The code fails en NotificationChannel. Without this i received the jobId correctly
var params = {
Video: {
S3Object: {
Bucket: 'mybucket',
Name: 'myvideoa1.mp4'
}
},
ClientRequestToken: 'LabelDetectionToken',
MinConfidence: 70,
NotificationChannel: {
SNSTopicArn: 'arn:aws:sns:us-east-1:xxxxxxxx:RekognitionVideo',
RoleArn: 'arn:aws:iam::xxxxxx:role/CognitoRkUnauth_Role'
},
JobTag: "DetectingLabels"
}
I set configuration to CognitoRkUnauth_Role instead of a iam user. Translation worked doing this.
In RoleArn I created another Role but it fails too.
I am not the root user.
I know I need to give more information but if someone can guide me, i will start again the configuration.
I am beginner in aws and i dont understand several things at all.
(english is not my first language)
Well, I had to create a new User. I think there is no reason for doing what i wanted to do :p
Related
im trying to deploy cognito for opensearch via terraform. I have a manually built cognito working and ow trying to port it to terraform.
does anyone know how to set the below part?:
Choose role from token
role resolution 'DENY'
Terraform for the identity pool:
resource "aws_cognito_identity_pool" "cognito-identity-pool" {
identity_pool_name = "opensearch-${var.domain_name}-identity-pool"
allow_unauthenticated_identities = false
cognito_identity_providers {
client_id = aws_cognito_user_pool_client.cognito-user-pool-client.id
provider_name = aws_cognito_user_pool.cognito-user-pool.endpoint
}
}
ive tried adding server_side_token_check = false but no joy..
You need to use a different resource, namely aws_cognito_identity_pool_roles_attachment [1]. In order to achieve the same thing you see in the AWS console, you need to add the following block:
resource "aws_cognito_identity_pool_roles_attachment" "name" {
identity_pool_id = aws_cognito_identity_pool.cognito-identity-pool.id
roles = {
"authenticated" = <your-role-arn>
}
role_mapping {
ambiguous_role_resolution = "Deny"
type = "Token"
identity_provider = "${aws_cognito_user_pool.cognito-user-pool.endpoint}:${aws_cognito_user_pool_client.cognito-user-pool-client.id}"
}
}
Note that the roles block is required and the key can be authenticated or unathenticated. Additionally, you will probably have to figure out what kind of permissions the role will need and create it. The example in the documentation can be used as a blueprint. There are also other settings like mapping_rule block which might be of use to you, but since the details are lacking I omitted it from the answer.
[1] https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/aws/latest/docs/resources/cognito_identity_pool_roles_attachment
I want to give the decrypt permission for proxy.
This proxy uses the a key in secret manager as username/password store.
and it uses key in KMS as Encryption key
This code makes role to acceess the secret manager automatically, but not KMS for decryption.
const dbProxy = new rds.DatabaseProxy(this, 'Proxy', {
proxyTarget: rds.ProxyTarget.fromCluster(dbCluster),
dbProxyName: `vr-${targetEnv}-rds-proxy`,
secrets: [dbCluster.secret!],// it makes the role to access the secret manager automatically.
securityGroups:[proxySecurityGroup],
requireTLS:false,
iamAuth:false,
vpc,
});
const kmsPolicy = new iam.PolicyStatement({
effect: iam.Effect.ALLOW,
actions: ["kms:Decrypt"],
resources: ["*"],
})
dbProxy.addToRolePolicy(kmsPolicy)
However, there comes this error.
Property 'addToRolePolicy' does not exist on type 'DatabaseProxy'
I want to fetch the default created role and add this kmsPolicy
I tried this too.
const mainEncSecretArn = kms.Key.fromKeyArn(this, "kms-key", "arn:aws:kms:ap-northeast-1:665852837485:key/bf3cf318-1376-44de-a014-181074f4899d");
mainEncSecretArn.grantDecrypt(dbProxy);
The error is
Argument of type 'DatabaseProxy' is not assignable to parameter of type 'IGrantable'.
Property 'grantPrincipal' is missing in type 'DatabaseProxy' but required in type 'IGrantable'.
After working today with AWS Support, i was told (verbatim):
I would suggest explicitly defining the KMS permissions in a IAM policy document rather than using the "fromAliasName" Function.
I have provided some references that should help you write and attach the necessary KMS permission policy that is equivalent to the one that would have been created by the "fromAliasName" Function
And here is manual version of what support is saying cannot be done with cdk yet:
// get your kms key arn:
const kmsKeyArn =
'arn:aws:kms:us-west-2:123456789012:key/12345678-1234-1234-1234-1234567890';
// you won't be able to use the default proxy role :(
const proxyRole = new iam.Role(this, 'proxy-role', {
assumedBy: new iam.ServicePrincipal('rds.amazonaws.com'),
});
proxyRole.attachInlinePolicy(
new iam.Policy(this, 'kms-proxy-decrypt-policy', {
statements: [
new iam.PolicyStatement({
// grant the permission:
actions: ['kms:Decrypt'],
// put your kms key arn here:
resources: [kmsKeyArn],
}),
],
})
);
const proxy = new rds.DatabaseProxy(this, 'db-proxy', {
// there is other stuff here:
...
// ..but assign the role here:
role: proxyRole,
})
I can't figure out how to replicate the functionality of the "Associate Identity Provider" button on AWS console screen pictured below with CDK.
You actually don't need to specify it, it is made automatically
exemple of Go CDK code
func SetKubernetesCluster(stack constructs.Construct) *awseks.Cluster {
cluster := awseks.NewCluster(stack, jsii.String("nft"), &awseks.ClusterProps{
ClusterName: jsii.String("nft"),
Version: awseks.KubernetesVersion_V1_21(),
OutputClusterName: jsii.Bool(true),
OutputConfigCommand: jsii.Bool(true),
})
awscdk.NewCfnOutput(stack, jsii.String("OIDC-issuer"), &awscdk.CfnOutputProps{
Value: cluster.ClusterOpenIdConnectIssuer(),
})
awscdk.NewCfnOutput(stack, jsii.String("OIDC-endpoint-url"), &awscdk.CfnOutputProps{
Value: cluster.ClusterOpenIdConnectIssuerUrl(),
})
return &cluster
}
I have written a CDK code for creating a connection but I am getting an error while creating:
User: arn:aws:iam::XXXXXXX:root is not authorized to perform: glue:CreateConnection on resource: arn:aws:glue:us-east-2:Connectionnew:catalog (Service: AWSGlue; Status Code: 400; Error Code: AccessDeniedException; Request ID: a8702efb-4467-4ffb-8fe0-18468f336299)
Below is my simple Code:
glue_connection = glue.CfnConnection(self, "Connectionnew",
catalog_id = "Connectionnew",
connection_input = {
"connectionType":"JDBC",
"Name":"JDBCConnection",
"connectionProperties": {
"JDBC_CONNECTION_URL": "jdbc:redshift://non-prod-royalties2.xxxxxxx.us-east-1.redshift.amazonaws.com:xxx/xxxxx",
"USERNAME":"xxxxxx",
"Password":"xxxxxxxx"
}
}
)
Please help me with this
Being that you are using the root account (which is not advisable), it's not an issue of your active AWS user having the incorrect permissions.
Likely, the connection details you are providing are incorrect. The username/password might be correct but the formatting of the JSON is questionable. I'd check to see if the JDBC keys are case-sensitive because that could be your issue.
I was able to get this issue resolved but putting the AWS accountnumber as below:
glue_connection = glue.CfnConnection(self, "Connectionnew", catalog_id = "AWSAccountNumber", connection_input = { "connectionType": "JDBC", "Name": "JDBCConnection", "connectionProperties": { "JDBC_CONNECTION_URL": "jdbcredshiftlink", "USERNAME": "xxxxxx", "PASSWORD": "xxxxxxxx" } } )
Hi i have been trying many possibilities, but now i would need some help.
I am using aws-cdk to create architecture by code and so far things have going well. Now i am running into this issue:
The final policy size is bigger than the limit (20480)
In understand what it means, but i have no idea how to solve it.
I am creating a lambdafunction to handle all requests:
const router = new lambda.Function(this, apiName + '-handler-temp', {
runtime: LambdaRuntime, // execution environment
code: lambda.Code.fromAsset('bin/lambda'), // code loaded from "lambda" directory
handler: 'index.handler', // file is "index", function is "handler"
vpc: vpc,
environment: {
DB_HOST: props?.rdsEndpoint as string,
DB_USER: props?.rdsDbUser as string,
DB_PASS: props?.rdsDBPass as string,
DB_PORT: props?.rdsPort as string,
DB_DIALECT: props?.rdsDbSchema as string,
DB_DATABASE: props?.rdsDBName as string,
},
layers: [layer],
timeout: Duration.seconds(30),
memorySize: 1024,
})
and the LambdaRestApi is defined like this:
const api = new LambdaRestApi(this, apiName, {
handler: router,
proxy: false,
cloudWatchRole: false,
description: 'API for Backend',
deployOptions: {
stageName: 'prod',
},
domainName: domainProperties,
})
I am creating Endpoints where i am using 23 times addMethod.
e.g.
const user = api.root.addResource('user')
user.addMethod(HttpMethod.POST)
user.addMethod(HttpMethod.GET)
user.addMethod(HttpMethod.PATCH)
since only one lambda is used to be invoked from apigateway, i am curious, how i can get control of only one policy to be used for lambda execution and it is not creating a new one every time.
I also tried to add property
role: role to the lambda function with this role definition:
const role = new Role(this, apiName + 'ApiGWPermissions', {
assumedBy: new ServicePrincipal('apigateway.amazonaws.com'),
})
role.addToPolicy(
new PolicyStatement({
resources: ['*'],
actions: ['lambda:InvokeFunction'],
})
)
but then i am running into different errors.
Has someone solved this riddle?
Cheers
As suggested in the CDK issue which Ian Walters mentioned, stripping the generated method permissions solved this for me. I'm using .Net but I'd expect that the approach should work for all language implementations. This function removes the permissions:
public void StripMethodPermissions(ConstructNode node) {
foreach (var child in node.Children) {
if (child is Amazon.CDK.AWS.APIGateway.Method) {
var method = ((Amazon.CDK.AWS.APIGateway.Method)child);
var permissions = method.Node.Children.Where(c => c is Amazon.CDK.AWS.Lambda.CfnPermission);
foreach (var permission in permissions) {
child.Node.TryRemoveChild(permission.Node.Id);
}
}
if (child.Node.Children.Length > 0) StripMethodPermissions(child.Node);
}
}
I'm using the technique like this:
var api = new RestApi(this, "MyRestApi", new RestApiProps {
RestApiName = "MyRestApiV1"
});
var handlerLambda = new Function(this, "RequestHandler", new FunctionProps {
Runtime = Runtime.DOTNET_CORE_3_1,
...
});
// Add resources and methods which use the handlerLambda here
// Remove all generated permissions
StripMethodPermissions(api.Root.Node);
// Add a single invoke permission for the lambda
handlerLambda.GrantInvoke(new ServicePrincipal("apigateway.amazonaws.com"));
Thanks to nija-at for showing the way
#Elliveny has the correct answer. Here is a code snitbit for Python which does the same thing (as I cannot post formatted code in comments):
from aws_cdk import (
aws_lambda as _lambda,
aws_events as events,
aws_iam as iam,
core,
)
for child in self.node.children:
if isinstance(child, events.Rule):
for eventChild in child.node.children:
if isinstance(eventChild, _lambda.CfnPermission):
child.node.try_remove_child(eventChild.node.id)
Remember that if you do this, you still need to grant invoke on your lambda for the "events.amazonaws.com" ServicePrincipal. Something like:
my_lambda.add_permission(
"RuleInvoke",
principal=iam.ServicePrincipal("events.amazonaws.com"),
action="lambda:InvokeFunction",
source_arn=f"arn:aws:events:{core.Aws.REGION}:{core.Aws.ACCOUNT_ID}:rule/your-rule-name-here*",
)
I hit a similar issue. There is a CDK issue that might help resolve it if addressed,
https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/issues/9327
Its also worth noting that by default lambda integrations have allowTestInvoke set to true, which pretty much is going to double the policy document size.
I'm not sure if you can alter the integration options for the lambda with LambdaRestApi though, I'm using RestApi directly.
A short term fix might be to use RestApi rather than LambdaRestApi and create the lambda integration directly with the allowTestInvoke option set to false.
The other thing I did that helped was to just create more than one lambda that worked the same way, but got attached to different routes (e.g. same code, permissions etc, just different logical id) to also reduce the policy document size a bit.
I'm a bit pressed for development time hence the work-arounds. Personally, I think the right solution would be to fix it in the CDK and propose a PR such that LambdaRestApi just did what the user would expect, wild-card permission for the lambda for all
You can increase the memory size of lambda by doing this
Type: AWS::Serverless::Function
Properties:
CodeUri: src/promoCodes/
Role: !GetAtt FunctionRole.Arn
Handler: promoCodesListCsvPDF.promoCodesListCsvPDF
Policies:
- AWSLambdaExecute # Managed Policy
- AWSLambdaBasicExecutionRole # Managed Policy
MemorySize: 512
Layers:
- !Ref NodeDependenciesLayer
Events:
promoCodesListCsvPDFEvent:
Type: Api
Properties:
Path: /api/promo-codes/csv-pdf
Method: POST