Reputation: 1131
I'm reading the following tutorial:
https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/s3-upload-node#uploading-directly-to-s3
The first step is when a user chooses an image
function s3_upload(){
var s3upload = new S3Upload({
file_dom_selector: '#files',
s3_sign_put_url: '/sign_s3',
onProgress: function(percent, message) {
// some code
},
onFinishS3Put: function(public_url) {
// some cde
},
onError: function(status) {
// somecode
}
});
}
Now the s3_sign_put_url refers to a server side function that returns
app.get('/sign_s3', function(req, res){
...
// calculates signature (signature variable)
// sets expiration time (expires variable)
var credentials = {
signed_request: url+"?AWSAccessKeyId="+AWS_ACCESS_KEY+"&Expires="+expires+"&Signature="+signature,
url: url
};
...
}
If I already calculated a signature as function of (AWS_SECRET_KEY) like this:
var signature = crypto.createHmac('sha1', AWS_SECRET_KEY).update(put_request).digest('base64');
signature = encodeURIComponent(signature.trim());
signature = signature.replace('%2B','+');
Question: Why do I have to pass the AWS_SECRET_KEY value as part of the credentials object returned by s3_sign function? why isn't the signature enough to be returned? isn't this a security issue?
Upvotes: 0
Views: 77
Reputation: 178966
You aren't doing that.
The returned credentials contain the AWS_ACCESS_KEY, not the AWS_SECRET_KEY.
The access key is analogous to a username... it's needed by S3 so that it knows who created the signature. From this, S3 looks up the associated secret key internally, creates a signature for the request, and if it's the same signature as the one you generated and the supplied access key is associated with a user with permission to perform the operation, it succeeds.
The access key and secret key work as a pair, and one can't reasonably be derived from the other; the access key is not considered private, while the secret key is.
Upvotes: 1