Secondary policy permission grants - Web Identity/Assume Role

0

Hey!

I have a policy statement for allowing an assumed role via web identity. It works fine. I have a role which this policy is attached to with permissions to invoke a lambda function. I can invoke a Lambda function with this role in AWS.

Here's my question - when invoking a lambda function via the web identity assumed rule (hypothetically let's say GCP) - it tells me that no policy allows me to invoke the lambda function - but that I have assumed the role. When I edit the specific policy for the web identity role assumption to also include the invoke the lamba function - this works fine.

The workaround seems fine - but my understanding is that I shouldn't need it. My role having the invoke lambda policy - and my web identity policy allowing me to assume that role - should be enough -no? Is there a quick refresher on why I need the secondary policy grant in the web identity grant?

  • Please accept the answer if it was useful for you

已提問 2 個月前檢視次數 105 次
1 個回答
2

When you assume a role via web identity, you get temporary credentials (access and secret keys) and use them to perform some actions, which are allowed by IAM policy

If this role assumes another role, temporary credentials change, so you need to use new creds to Execute Lambda (in your case)

profile picture
專家
已回答 2 個月前
profile picture
專家
Artem
已審閱 2 個月前
profile picture
專家
已審閱 2 個月前
  • Hey - I think the way I'm seeing it - my external account is assuming the role.

    role includes policy statements 1-5 (which includes lambda trust policy/invoke lambda/web identity policy)

    I thought the Role w. attached policy bundle would be enough to provide the web identity the lambda invoke role? I'll double check on my end if I misconfigured something. Right now - it looked like the Lambda resource permissions had to be placed in the web identity policy itself (vs the role).

您尚未登入。 登入 去張貼答案。

一個好的回答可以清楚地回答問題並提供建設性的意見回饋,同時有助於提問者的專業成長。

回答問題指南