If I want to use a S3 clone to host something somewhat sensitive (probably digitalocean, since it's cheapest and probably has a perfectly good quality), is it sensible to do it this way: https://s3clone.example.com/Ki3mCdA3eFrC5haIVvUkZaUOuceisGmv85ZXt4qgXoZuMwOL1IKiG21Cm6i4u83wMpQZNqEibh4CHNUr61s6rCwvAK0IUsCCwZO8MTZa4Lwbif6MosSXzG0XNQXvYBqS/file.pdf ?

The reason to do this over using the API For proper access control is that then I can cache these files with Cloudflare and save even more on bandwidth costs. The only concern that I can think of is that the URLs might get stored somewhere inadvertently (e.g. browser history on a public computer), but maybe there's a way to prevent this? I also can't find any articles/old questions/etc. about this.

  • I would much prefer signed URLs that have limited time duration. digitalocean.com/docs/spaces/resources/s3-sdk-examples/…
    – Z.T.
    Feb 5, 2021 at 21:02
  • @Z.T. Are you suggesting a system to cache the pre-signed URL, and reuse it to get Cloudflare's caching ability, or just generating a separate URL each time, sacrificing caching?
    – john01dav
    Feb 5, 2021 at 21:15
  • I'm suggesting to sacrifice caching. If you need caching and a link that doesn't expire and you can't invalidate by disabling the access key is not a problem, your solution would work. Then disabling the links would involve renaming the files and waiting for the cache to expire.
    – Z.T.
    Feb 5, 2021 at 21:40
  • relevant to the size of the token: F.Grieu '20 crypto.stackexchange.com/a/80441
    – brynk
    Feb 7, 2021 at 3:58


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .