All posts by Anshu Bathla

Four ways to grant cross-account access in AWS

Post Syndicated from Anshu Bathla original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/four-ways-to-grant-cross-account-access-in-aws/

As your Amazon Web Services (AWS) environment grows, you might develop a need to grant cross-account access to resources. This could be for various reasons, such as enabling centralized operations across multiple AWS accounts, sharing resources across teams or projects within your organization, or integrating with third-party services. However, granting cross-account access requires careful consideration of your security, availability, and manageability requirements.

In this blog post, we explore four different ways to grant cross-account access using resource-based policies. Each method has its own unique tradeoffs, and the best choice depends on your specific requirements and use case.

Evaluating different techniques for granting cross-account access

Cross-account access is granted by identity-based policies and resource-based policies in AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM). Identity-based policies attach to an IAM role, while resource-based polices attach to resources like Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) buckets and AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) keys. Resource-based policies require you to specify one or more principals (IAM users or roles) that are allowed to access the resource.

Your choice of how to specify the principal in a resource-based policy impacts some aspects of both the confidentiality and the availability of your solution. Understanding this impact and making the right tradeoffs for your use case is the focus of this post.

An example scenario

Imagine that you have an S3 bucket in your AWS account (Account A) that needs to be accessed by different principals in another AWS account (Account B). For this scenario, we assume that the principals in Account B have the necessary access to S3 in their identity-based policies, and we will focus on authoring the resource-based policies in Account A. While the methods explained here use Amazon S3, the concepts discussed apply to all AWS services that support resource-based policies. In the following sections, we walk through four different ways to grant cross-account access in this scenario and discuss the tradeoffs of each.

Method 1: Grant access to a specific IAM role using the Principal element of the resource-based policy

In this example, you use an S3 bucket policy to grant access to a specific IAM role (RoleFromAccountB) in Account B by specifying the IAM role’s Amazon Resource Name (ARN) in the Principal element of the policy in Account A.

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "AllowRoleInThePrincipalElement",
      "Principal": {
        "AWS": "arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/RoleFromAccountB"
      },
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": "s3:GetObject",
      "Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::amzn-s3-demo-bucket-account-a/*"
    }
  ]
}

Using this bucket policy, if someone in Account B deletes or recreates the role (RoleFromAccountB), then that role can no longer access the amzn-s3-demo-bucket-account-a bucket, even if that role is recreated with the same name. The reason is that when you save this policy, the role ARN is mapped to the unique ID of the role, which looks something like this: AROADBQP57FF2AEXAMPLE. You will see a role identifier in the Principal element of your resource-based policies if you view them after you delete the role that they referenced.

This behavior is intentional. The resource-based policy only allows the specific instance of the role that you set as principal at the time of policy creation. This helps prevent unintended access to your resources if you delete a role, but forget to update your resource-based policy to remove that role. This behavior can also cause an availability risk because the role (RoleFromAccountB) will have a new unique ID when it is recreated and will no longer have access to the bucket. Roles can be recreated for a number of reasons, including accidentally when you use tools such as infrastructure as code.

You might consider choosing this method if:

  • You own the roles in both Account A and Account B and can control the creation and deletion of these roles.
  • You want your resource-based policy in Account A to stop granting access when the specified role (RoleFromAccountB) is deleted.
  • You prioritize granular access control over potential availability concerns if the role (RoleFromAccountB) is deleted.

Method 2: Grant access to an account using the Principal element of the resource-based policy

In this example, you grant access to a specific account in the Principal element of the resource-based policy. This resource-based policy of Account A allows any user or role from Account B that also has an identity-based policy that grants them access to read the objects.

Note: You can use either "Principal": {"AWS": "111122223333"} or "Principal": {"AWS": "arn:aws:iam::111122223333:root"} in the Principal element. They are equivalent, and the long-form ARN does not represent the root user.

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "AllowAccountInThePrincipalElement",
      "Principal": {
        "AWS": "111122223333"
      },
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": "s3:GetObject",
      "Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::amzn-s3-demo-bucket-account-a/*"
    }
  ]
}

This resource-based policy helps avoid the potential availability issue discussed for Method 1. If a role in Account B that needs to have access to the bucket is recreated, it will still have access after the recreation of that role. This is because you don’t specify a role in the Principal element—instead, you specify an account. If you use Method 2, you must be comfortable delegating access control decisions to the owner of that account.

This approach explicitly delegates access control decisions to IAM in the other account (Account B). Principals in Account B have access to this bucket if allowed by their identity-based policies.

You might consider choosing this method if:

  • You need to grant access to many principals in Account B.
  • You want to delegate the access decision in the account where the principal exists (Account B).
  • You prioritize ease of management and availability over granular access control.

Method 3: Grant access to a specific IAM role using the aws:PrincipalArn condition

This method expands on Method 2 and adds a condition that grants access only to a specific IAM role. Similar to Method 2, you use the account number as the value of the Principal element, but also use the aws:PrincipalArn condition key to limit access to a specific principal in Account B.

The aws:PrincipalArn condition key is a global condition key that compares the ARN of the principal that made the request with the ARN that you specify in the policy. For IAM roles, the request context returns the ARN of the role, not the ARN of the user that assumed the role.

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "AllowAccountInPrincipalAndRoleInPrincipalArn",
      "Principal": {
        "AWS": "111122223333"
      },
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": "s3:GetObject",
      "Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::amzn-s3-demo-bucket-account-a/*",
      "Condition": {
        "ArnEquals": {
          "aws:PrincipalArn": "arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/RoleFromAccountB"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

This policy comes with the same availability benefits as the policy in Method 2: access to this resource will survive role recreation. This is because the role is translated to its unique identifier only when it is used in the Principal element. It is not translated to a unique identifier when it is used in a condition. If the role (RoleFromAccountB) in Account B is recreated, accidentally or intentionally, the policy will continue to grant access because the role matches the role ARN specified in the condition key of the resource-based policy in Account A. As a result, Method 3 provides a balanced approach to availability and security.

You might consider choosing this method if:

  • You are comfortable that this policy will continue to grant access to the role specified in the aws:PrincipalArn condition key if that role (RoleFromAccountB) is recreated.
  • You don’t own the Account B you are granting access to and don’t control when that role may be recreated.
  • You want a balance of availability and confidentiality.

Method 4: Grant access to an entire AWS Organizations organization

This method is focused on a different use case and is not an alternative to the methods listed earlier. Use this method if you have a resource (an S3 bucket, in this example) that you want to share with your entire organization, but not share with anyone outside of it.

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Sid": "AllowAccessToAnEntireOrganization",
      "Principal": {
        "AWS": "*"
      },
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": "s3:GetObject",
      "Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::amzn-s3-demo-bucket-account-a/*",
      "Condition": {
        "StringEquals": {
          "aws:PrincipalOrgId": "o-12345"
        },
        "StringNotEquals": {
          "aws:PrincipalAccount": "${aws:ResourceAccount}"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

There is no way to specify an organization by using the Principal element of a resource-based policy, so you must use the aws:PrincipalOrgId condition key to restrict access to a specific organization. In this policy, you specify a wildcard in the Principal element, which says that anyone can access the bucket. Then the condition reduces “anyone” to just those AWS account principals that belong to the specified organization and have an identity-based policy that allows them access.

You then add an additional conditional block that compares the aws:PrincipalAccount condition key to the aws:ResourceAccount condition key by using a policy variable. This extra conditional block is optional and excludes the account that owns the bucket (Account A) from the allow statement. The reason for using this extra conditional block is so that principals in Account A still require an allow statement in their identity-based policy to access this bucket. If you choose to exclude this aws:PrincipalAccount comparison, principals in Account A are granted access to the bucket without an explicit allow statement in their identity-based policy. Policy evaluation logic only requires either the identity-based policy or the resource-based policy (but not both) to allow a request when the principal and resource are in the same account.

You might consider choosing this method if:

  • You have a shared resource that should be accessible to your entire organization.

Conclusion

Choosing a method to grant cross-account access requires careful consideration of your requirements and use case. Each of the four methods discussed in this blog post has its own advantages and tradeoffs. By understanding these methods and their implications, you can decide on the most appropriate approach to grant cross-account access to your AWS resources. Remember to regularly review and audit your resource-based policies to verify that they align with your security and access requirements.

To learn how resource-based policies work with Amazon S3, see the blog post IAM Policies and Bucket Policies and ACLs! Oh My! Controlling Access to S3 Resources.

 
If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below. If you have questions about this post, contact AWS Support.
 

Anshu Bathla
Anshu Bathla

Anshu is a Lead Consultant – SRC at AWS, based in Gurugram, India. He works with customers across diverse verticals to help strengthen their security infrastructure and achieve their security goals. Outside of work, Anshu enjoys reading books and gardening at his home garden.
Jay Goradia
Jay Goradia

Jay is a Technical Account Manager (TAM) at AWS who works closely with enterprise customers to accelerate their cloud journey through strategic guidance and technical expertise. Using his security background, he helps organizations understand security best practices in AWS.

How to implement IAM policy checks with Visual Studio Code and IAM Access Analyzer

Post Syndicated from Anshu Bathla original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/how-to-implement-iam-policy-checks-with-visual-studio-code-and-iam-access-analyzer/

In a previous blog post, we introduced the IAM Access Analyzer custom policy check feature, which allows you to validate your policies against custom rules. Now we’re taking a step further and bringing these policy checks directly into your development environment with the AWS Toolkit for Visual Studio Code (VS Code).

In this blog post, we show how you can integrate IAM Access Analyzer custom policy check capability into VS Code, so you can identify overly permissive IAM policies and fine-tune access controls early in the development process. This proactive approach to security and compliance helps to ensure that your IAM policies are validated before they are deployed, reducing the risk of introducing misconfigurations or granting unintended access. It also saves developer time by providing fast feedback to developers when they write a policy that does not meet organizational standards.

What is the problem?

Although security teams oversee an organization’s overall security posture, developers create applications that require specific permissions. To enable developers to work efficiently while maintaining high security standards, organizations often seek ways to safely delegate the authoring of AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies to developers. Many AWS customers manually review developer-authored IAM policies before deploying them to production environments to help prevent granting excessive or unintended permissions. However, depending on the volume and complexity of policies, these manual reviews can be time-consuming, leading to development delays and potential bottlenecks in the deployment of applications and services. Organizations need to balance secure access management with the agility required for rapid application development and deployment.

How to use IAM Access Analyzer custom policy checks in VS Code

Custom policy checks are a feature in IAM Access Analyzer that are designed to help security teams proactively identify and analyze critical permissions within their IAM policies. In this section, we provide step-by-step instructions for using custom policy checks directly in VS Code.

Prerequisites

To complete the examples in our walkthrough, you first need to do the following:

  1. Install Python version 3.6 or later.
  2. Assuming you are already using the VS Code Integrated Development Environment (IDE), search for and install the AWS Toolkit extension.
  3. Configure your AWS role credentials to connect the toolkit to AWS.
  4. Install the IAM Policy Validator for AWS CloudFormation, available on GitHub. Alternatively, you can install the IAM Policy Validator for Terraform from GitHub if you are using Terraform as infrastructure-as-code in your organization.
  5. So that you can open IAM Access Analyzer policy checks in the VS Code editor, open the VS Code Command Palette by pressing Ctrl+Shift+P, search for IAM Policy Checks, and then choose AWS: Open IAM Policy Checks as shown in Figure 1.
    Figure 1: Search for the AWS: Open IAM Policy Checks option

    Figure 1: Search for the AWS: Open IAM Policy Checks option

By using the IAM policy checks option in VS Code, you can perform four types of checks:

We’ll walk through examples of each of these checks in the sections that follow.

Example 1: ValidatePolicy

In this example, we use the ValidatePolicy option provided by the IAM policy check plugin to validate IAM policies against IAM policy grammar and AWS best practices. When you run this check, you can view policy validation check findings that include security warnings, errors, general warnings, and suggestions for your policy. These actionable recommendations help you author policies that are aligned with AWS best practices.

To run the ValidatePolicy check

  1. Let’s use the following IAM policy for illustration purposes. You can see that resource * (a wildcard) is being used in the first statement, which indicates that the iam:PassRole action is allowed for all resources.
    {
        "Version": "2012-10-17",
        "Statement": [
          {
            "Effect": "Allow",
            "Action": "iam:PassRole",	
            "Resource": "*"
          },
          {
            "Effect": "Allow",
            "Action": ["s3:GetObject", "s3:PutObject"],
            "Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::amzn-s3-demo-bucket/*"
          }
        ]
      }
    

  2. In the VS Code editor, navigate to the IAM Policy Checks pane. Choose the document type JSON Policy Language and policy type Identity. Then choose Run Policy Validation.
    Figure 2: IAM Access Analyzer ValidatePolicy check results

    Figure 2: IAM Access Analyzer ValidatePolicy check results

    You can see that Access Analyzer has detected an issue, which is shown in the PROBLEMS pane.

    Figure 3: Problems pane with finding details for the ValidatePolicy check

    Figure 3: Problems pane with finding details for the ValidatePolicy check

    The security warning shown in Figure 3 states that the iam:PassRole action with a wildcard (*) in the resource can be overly permissive because it allows the ability to pass any IAM role in that account.

  3. Now, let’s modify the IAM policy by replacing the wildcard (*) with a specific role Amazon Resource Name (ARN).
    {
      "Version": "2012-10-17",
      "Statement": [
        {
          "Effect": "Allow",
          "Action": "iam:PassRole",
          "Resource": "arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/sample_role"
        },
        {
          "Effect": "Allow",
          "Action": ["s3:GetObject", "s3:PutObject"],
          "Resource": "arn:aws:s3:::amzn-s3-demo-bucket/*"
        }
      ]
    }
    

  4. Verify the policy again by running the ValidatePolicy check to make sure that it doesn’t generate findings after you updated the IAM policy.
    Figure 4: Results of the ValidatePolicy check after IAM policy correction

    Figure 4: Results of the ValidatePolicy check after IAM policy correction

Example 2: CheckNoPublicAccess

With the CheckNoPublicAccess option, you can verify whether your resource policy grants public access for supported resource types.

To run the CheckNoPublicAccess check

  1. To test whether a policy does not allow public access, create a new bucket using a CloudFormation template and attach a resource policy that grants access to any principal to see the objects in this bucket.

    WARNING: This sample bucket policy should not be used in production. Using a wildcard in the principal element of a bucket policy would allow any IAM principal to view the contents of the bucket.

    Resources:
              MyBucket:
                Type: 'AWS::S3::Bucket'
                Properties:
                  BucketName: amzn-s3-demo-bucket
    
              MyBucketPolicy:
                Type: 'AWS::S3::BucketPolicy'
                Properties:
                  Bucket:
                    Ref: 'MyBucket'
                  PolicyDocument:
                    Version: '2012-10-17'
                    Statement:
                      - Effect: Allow
                        Principal: "*"
                        Action: 's3:GetObject'
                        Resource:
                          Fn::Join:
                            - ''
                            - - 'arn:aws:s3:::'
                              - Ref: 'MyBucket'
                              - '/*'
    

  2. Select the document type CloudFormation template and then choose Run Custom Policy Check to see whether this resource policy passes the CheckNoPublicAccess check.
    Figure 5: IAM Access Analyzer CheckNoPublicAccess check results

    Figure 5: IAM Access Analyzer CheckNoPublicAccess check results

    The policy check returns a failed result because this bucket does allow public access.

    Figure 6: Problems pane finding details for CheckNoPublicAccess check

    Figure 6: Problems pane finding details for CheckNoPublicAccess check

  3. Next, fix this policy to allow access from a role within the same account by restricting the policy to a specific role ARN.
    Resources:
              MyBucket:
                Type: 'AWS::S3::Bucket'
                Properties:
                  BucketName: amzn-s3-demo-bucket
    
              MyBucketPolicy:
                Type: 'AWS::S3::BucketPolicy'
                Properties:
                  Bucket:
                    Ref: 'MyBucket'
                  PolicyDocument:
                    Version: '2012-10-17'
                    Statement:
                      - Effect: Allow
                        Principal: 
                          "AWS": 'arn:aws:iam::111122223333:role/sample_role'
                        Action: 's3:GetObject'
                        Resource:
                          Fn::Join:
                            - ''
                            - - 'arn:aws:s3:::'
                              - Ref: 'MyBucket'
                              - '/*'
    

  4. Re-run the CheckNoPublicAccess check. The resource policy no longer grants public access and the status of the policy check is PASS.

Example 3: CheckAccessNotGranted

The CheckAccessNotGranted option allows you to check whether a policy allows access to a list of IAM actions and resource ARNs. You can use this check to give developers fast feedback that certain permissions or access to certain resources are not allowed.

To run the CheckAccessNotGranted check

  1. Identify sensitive actions and resources.

    In the VS Code editor, under Custom Policy Checks, choose the check type CheckAccessNotGranted. Using a comma-separated list, create a list of actions and resource ARNs that you don’t want to allow in your IAM policy. You can also create a JSON file with your actions and resources by using the syntax shown in Figure 7. For this example, set the s3:PutBucketPolicy and dynamodb:DeleteTable IAM actions to “not allowed” in the IAM policy.

    Figure 7: Configure the CheckAccessNotGranted check

    Figure 7: Configure the CheckAccessNotGranted check

  2. Create a sample CloudFormation template that contains an IAM policy attached to an IAM role, as follows. This policy grants access to some of the actions that you deemed sensitive in Figure 7.
    Resources:
      CreateTagsLambdaRole:
        Type: AWS::IAM::Role
        Properties:
          AssumeRolePolicyDocument:
            Version: '2012-10-17'
            Statement:
            - Effect: Allow
              Principal:
                Service: lambda.amazonaws.com
              Action: sts:AssumeRole
          Policies:
          - PolicyName: my-application-access
            PolicyDocument:
              Version: '2012-10-17'
              Statement:
              - Effect: Allow
                Action:
                - ec2:DescribeInstances
                Resource: "*"
              - Effect: Allow
                Action:
                - s3:GetObject
                - s3:PutBucketPolicy
                - dynamodb:DeleteTable
                Resource: "*"            
              
          RoleName: sample-role
    

  3. In the VS Code editor, choose Run Custom Policy Check to identify whether one of the sensitive actions or resources is allowed in the IAM policy. The policy check returns FAIL because the policy has the actions s3:PutBucketPolicy and dynamodb:DeleteTable, which you marked as actions that you don’t want developers to grant access to. Remove the restricted actions from the policy and run the check again to see a PASS result for the policy check.

Example 4: CheckNoNewAccess

The CheckNoNewAccess option is a custom policy check that verifies whether your policy grants new access compared to a reference policy.

You use a reference policy to check whether a candidate policy allows more access than the reference policy does. In other words, the check passes if the candidate policy is a subset of the reference policy. A reference policy typically starts by allowing all access. You then add a statement or statements that deny the access that you want the reference policy to check for. For more details and examples of reference policies, see the iam-access-analyzer-custom-policy-check-samples repository on GitHub.

The ability to use a reference policy provides you with the flexibility to look for almost anything in an IAM policy. This is useful when you have custom requirements for your organization that may not be met with some of the other custom policy checks.

To run the CheckNoNewAccess check

  1. Create a reference policy: In your project, create a new JSON policy document that will serve as your reference policy.

    The following reference policy checks that an IAM role trust policy only grants access to an allowlisted set of AWS services. This enables you to allow builders to create roles, but constrain the use of those roles to the set of AWS services specified.

    In this reference policy, only the specified AWS service principals ec2.amazonaws.com, lambda.amazonaws.com, and ecs-tasks.amazonaws.com are allowed to assume the role.

    {
      "Version": "2012-10-17",
      "Statement": [
        {
          "Sid": "AllowThisSetOfServicePrincipals",
          "Effect": "Allow",
          "Principal": {
            "Service": [
              "ec2.amazonaws.com",
              "lambda.amazonaws.com",
              "ecs-tasks.amazonaws.com"
            ]
          },
          "Action": "sts:AssumeRole"
        },
        {
          "Sid": "AllowOtherSTSActions",
          "Effect": "Allow",
          "Principal": "*",
          "NotAction": "sts:AssumeRole"
        }
      ]
    }
    

  2. Enter the reference policy in the VS Code editor. In the IAM Policy Checks pane, select the check type CheckNoNewAccess. Then set the reference policy type to Resource, because this is a trust policy that defines which principals can assume the role. In addition, provide the path of the reference policy that you created in Step 1. You can also directly enter the reference policy as a JSON policy document, as shown in Figure 8.
    Figure 8: Enter the reference policy for the CheckNoNewAccess check

    Figure 8: Enter the reference policy for the CheckNoNewAccess check

  3. Create a CloudFormation template, as follows. This template creates an IAM role that allows the AWS service principals lambda.amazonaws.com and glue.amazonaws.com to assume the sample-application-role IAM role.
    Resources:
      SampleApplicationRole:
        Type: AWS::IAM::Role
        Properties:
          AssumeRolePolicyDocument:
            Version: '2012-10-17'
            Statement:
            - Effect: Allow
              Principal:
                Service: 
                - lambda.amazonaws.com
                - glue.amazonaws.com
              Action: sts:AssumeRole
          Policies:
          - PolicyName: my-application-access
            PolicyDocument:
              Version: '2012-10-17'
              Statement:
              - Effect: Allow
                Action:
                - s3:GetObject
                Resource: "arn:aws:s3::111122223333:amzn-s3-demo-bucket/*"            
          RoleName: sample-application-role
    

  4. In the VS Code editor, choose Run Custom Policy Check to check your CloudFormation template against the reference policy you configured in Step 1. The check will return FAIL and you will see a security warning in the editor in the PROBLEMS pane.
    Figure 9: Problems pane finding details for the CheckNoNewAccess check

    Figure 9: Problems pane finding details for the CheckNoNewAccess check

    The issue is that glue.amazonaws.com was not listed as a service principal that was allowed to assume a role in your reference policy. You can remove glue.amazonaws.com from the CloudFormation template and re-run the check to receive a PASS result.

Conclusion

In this post, we explored how you can use the integration of VS Code with IAM Access Analyzer in your development workflow to make sure that your IAM policies align with best practices and adhere to your organization’s security requirements. The four critical checks provided by IAM Access Analyzer can be summarized as follows:

  • The ValidatePolicy check provides actionable recommendations that help you author policies that are aligned with AWS best practices.
  • The CheckNoPublicAccess check helps protect resources from being exposed publicly and mitigates the risk of unauthorized public access.
  • The CheckAccesNotGranted check looks for specific IAM actions and resource ARNs to help enforce access restrictions and help prevent unauthorized access to critical data or services.
  • The CheckNoNewAccess check validates that the permissions granted in your IAM policies remain within the intended scope, as defined by your organization’s requirements.

Install or update the AWS Toolkit for VS Code today, and make sure that you have the CloudFormation Policy Validator or Terraform Policy Validator, to take advantage of these features.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

Anshu Bathla

Anshu Bathla

Anshu is a Lead Consultant – SRC at AWS, based in Gurugram, India. He works with customers across diverse verticals to help strengthen their security infrastructure and achieve their security goals. Outside of work, Anshu enjoys reading books and gardening at his home garden.

Manoj Kumar

Manoj Kumar

Manoj is a Lead Consultant – SRC at AWS, based in Gurugram, India. He collaborates with diverse clients to design and implement comprehensive AWS Cloud security solutions. His expertise helps organizations fortify their cloud infrastructures, achieve compliance objectives, and provide robust data protection while using the advanced security features of AWS to support their business objectives.