Amazon Web Services Developer User Permissions - amazon-web-services

I have an Amazon Web Services account which will be used to host the backed of an app. The backend uses PHP/MySQL and will most likely use an EC2 instance and RDS. I have my own account which has access to everything. I need to create an account for a developer to put the backend on AWS but I don't want them to have access to anything except what they need. I know how to create IAM users and Groups but I don't know which permissions to grant the developer. Under Select Policy Template there is a Power User template, is that good for a developer? Has anyone done this before?

The Power User Access template in AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) grants permission to do ANYTHING except using IAM. A user with this permission can view, create or remove any resources in your AWS account, but they could not create new users or modify any user permissions.
It is recommended that you only give people the least amount of privilege required to use AWS, so that they do not intentional nor accidentally do something unwanted. However, if you do not have enough knowledge of AWS to know what functionality is required, you will most likely need to trust the developer to configure the system for your needs.
A few tips:
Only give them access via an IAM User -- never give them your root credentials
If you don't know what permissions are required, then "Power User" is at least safer than "Administrator" since they cannot edit IAM settings
When they have completed their work, revoke their access so they cannot create any more AWS resources
Determine whether you also wish to revoke access to the EC2 instances (you'll have to do this on the instances themselves)
You may need to define some roles that will be used with Amazon EC2 -- these are defined in IAM, so the developer will not have permission to create the roles himself
Ask the developer for documentation of what he has deployed
Turn on Detailed Billing to identify what AWS charges you are receiving and check them against the documentation
Turn on CloudTrail to activate auditing of your account (it is activated per-region)
Alternatively, you could do all the AWS configuration (launching an EC2 instance, creating the database) and only let the developer login to the EC2 instance itself. That way, they would not need access to your AWS account.

Related

How to check which permissions I have as an IAM user

I'm totally new to AWS and learning about IAM. I was wondering if there is a way around for an IAM user to check what all permission he/she have? Like as a root user, I created a group of IAM users where they were only allowed to use S3 service but once I logged in as an IAM user, it was showing that I have access to other AWS services as well like running EC2 instances, etc which I reckon shouldn't be the case. Thanks!
No, it isn't possible to "show" which services you have access to use, because the policies can be quite complex (eg permission to access an S3 bucket, but only a particular sub-folder if coming from a given range of IP addresses).
You would need to look the the IAM Policies attached to the IAM User, plus the policies on any IAM Groups they are in. Then, some services like Amazon S3 have additional permissions such as Bucket Policies.
In addition, AWS Organizations can limit the permissions of all users within an AWS Account, so even if a user appears to be granted certain permissions, they might not actually be available for use.
In many situations, you'll only know if you can do something by actually trying it. For example, you might have Read Only permissions, which means you can see resources in the AWS Console, but you would receive an error when you try to change things.
All services are available in the AWS Console, but various parts of the console will only work if you have adequate permission.
Note that there's IAM Policy Simulator from AWS. You can select a service and check if a given user has access to any given action (or all actions relevant to a service)

AWS Programmatically deploy instance for someone else (AWS CLI OAuth?)

I'm looking for something that can programmatically spin up instances for other AWS users after oauth. Is there something like this that Amazon provides? So they can just login with AWS account and then I can make AWS calls on their behalf.
Is there anything like this out there?
There's no logging in here. You need a cross-account role, supplied by the owner of the other account.
There is nothing like this.
It would have massive security implications.
Note that the primary entity in AWS is not the user, it is the "account." Accounts have users, and those users can only do what the account has authorized them to do.
For one AWS account ("mine") to allow another AWS account ("yours") to perform actions on behalf of my account (technically, not on behalf of "me"), I have to explicitly give you permission to do so, via IAM. One solution is to create a role with the necessary permissions and delegate access to you.
But this is unlikely to be something a well-informed user would permit, since you could easily run up substantial expenses for the user. Allowing such external access would not be a good practice.
There is, however, a way for users to launch your software on EC2 and optionally pay you a license fee billed on your behalf by AWS, through the AWS Marketplace, which is oriented towards a one-click experience for the user.

AWS: Is there a way to make an user approve my app to do things on their behalf?

I am planning on a web page that creates an instance for an user using a specific AMI. Is there any AWS method to let the user approve my web application to do this using their credentials? (i. e. getting a secret token with certain privileges)
Similar to when you let a Facebook application have access to certain information of your profile. I am looking for a way to get a token from the user signed in so that I can create an instance for them.
I want to avoid the user the pain of doing all the manual steps of going to IAM, create a new user, get the token and then upload them to my site.
I looked into AWS Cognito but this doesn't seem to be what I am looking for.
Similar to when you let a Facebook application have access to certain information of your profile.
AWS and Facebook are not similar in any sense. Facebook is a web application. AWS something entirely different.
Facebook has users, but AWS has accounts, which in turn have users... but in AWS, don't need a user's permission to do things to resources -- what you actually need is an account's permission to do things to its resources, because resources are associated with the account, not the user.
I am looking for a way to get a token from the user signed in so that I can create an instance for them.
Users sign in to the AWS console. After this, there is no such concept as a user allowing an external application doing things under the "signed in" user's auspices.
The user has to have sufficient permissions to either create sufficiently-privileged temporary IAM credentials (such as with GetSessionToken or AssumeRole from the IAM API) and hand them over to you, or create an IAM user with sufficient privilege and hand the keys to that user over to you... or you provide them with the ARN of one of your IAM users, and your customer gives your user permission to perform the actions or assume a role in your customer's account, created for the purpose.
I want to avoid the user the pain of doing all the manual steps of going to IAM, create a new user, get the token and then upload them to my site.
That can't be avoided, by design... and, in any event, whatever exactly you are planning, your model seems flawed: it would only be a naïve user who would allow you to do this. I have accounts that are allowed to launch hundreds of instances concurrently. Does it make sense that I would allow a third party to have access to credentials that could run up a huge bill for me? (If AWS trusts a set of credentials to launch instances, then it trusts them to launch instances -- all the way up to the account's instance limits).
If you want a user to be able to launch an instance from your AMI, you can simply list it on the AWS Marketplace, or you can share the AMI with the user's account, or even just make the AMI public.

Amazon Web Services read-only account?

Is there an option to grant read-only access to an Amazon Web Services (AWS) account?
What I'd like to achieve is to be able to see instances and configurations without having to log in as a user who has administrative permissions to avoid accidental changes.
No. An AWS Account cannot be made "read-only".
However, you can create a User in Identity and Access Management (IAM) and assign them "Read Only" permissions, which means they can interact with AWS but cannot change anything. However, this would still require that they login or at least use a set of credentials with calling the API or using the Command-Line Interface (CLI).
If your main goal is to avoid accidental changes, try this:
Create a User in IAM who has minimal permissions (eg read-only, and probably also permissions to create new resources such as buckets and instances)
Create a Role in IAM that has elevated permissions
Setup the User with the ability to "assume" the Role within the web browser
This way, the User won't have 'dangerous' permissions unless they specifically request it. A visual indication then shows when they are using this alternate role (which can also grant access to a different AWS Account).
For details, see:
Blog: Cross-Account Access in the AWS Management Console
Article: Enable a New Feature in the AWS Management Console: Cross-Account Access

How do we provide our AWS app with access to customers' resources without requiring their secret key?

I am in the early stages of writing an AWS app for our users that will run our research algorithms using their AWS resources. For example, our code will need to spin up EC2 instances running our 'worker' app, access RDS databases, and create access SQS queues. The AWS Java SDK examples (we are writing this in Java) use a AwsCredentials.properties file to store the Access Key ID and Secret Access Key, which is fine for examples, but obviously not acceptable for our users, who are would be in essence giving us access to all their resources. What is a clean way to go about running our system on their behalf? I discovered AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) which seems to be for this purpose (I haven't got my head around it yet), esp. Cross-account access between AWS accounts. This post makes it sound straightforward:
Use the amazon IAM service to create a set of keys that only has
permission to perform the tasks that you require for your script.
http://aws.amazon.com/iam/
However, other posts (e.g., Within IAM, can I restrict a group of users to access/launch/terminate only certain EC2 AMIs or instances?) suggest there are limitations to using IAM with EC2 in particular.
Any advice would be really helpful!
The key limitation with regards to RDS and EC2 is that while you can restrict access to certain API actions there are no resource level constraints. For example with an IAM S3 policy you can restrict a user to only being able to perform certain actions on certain buckets. You can write a policy for EC2 that says that user is allowed to stop instances, but not one that says you can only stop certain instances.
Another option is for them to provide you with temporary credentials via the Security Token Service. Another variant on that is to use the new IAM roles service. With this an instance has a set of policies associated with it. You don't need to provide an AwsCredentials.proprties file because the SDK can fetch credentials from the metadata service.
Finally one last option might be consolidated billing. If the reason you are using their AWS resources is just because of the billing, then setup a new account which is billed from their account. The accounts are isolated from each other so you can't for example delete their instances by accident. Equally you can't access their RDS snapshots and things like that (access to an RDS instance via mysql (as opposed to the AWS api) would depend on the instance's security group). You can of course combine this with the previous options - they could provide you with credentials that only allow you to perform certain actions within that isolated account.