Open
Conversation
Contributor
|
Hi @VA6DAH thanks, this is a great suggestion, could you split the doc out into a basic policy example (the original) and a fine grain example? Other than that it looks great! |
Author
|
Will do, give me some time but I'll update the request soon.
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi Christopher,
I wanted to share the IAM policy I currently use in production. The main change, and you'll see once reading the JSON is that my policy uses new (~2022) fine-grained controls within Route 53 to limit the record type to TXT and only when the domain name contains at least _acme-challenge.
In theory, this limits the security implications if a bad actor got the access key.
More technical details can be found in Amazon Documentation: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/specifying-conditions-route53.html