Skip to main content

(Azure) Difference between Shared Access Signature and Shared Access Policy

In this post we will discuss about Shared Access Signature and Shared Access Policy, focusing on what are the different between them.

Let's start with Shared Access Signature (SAS). It provides delectated access to a specific Azure resource. We can specify the resources that we want to allow access, how long we allow access (start and end time) and what kind of operations can be done.
The SAS key is like a token, that can be used by a 3rd party to access a specific resource. In general, the SAS key is included in the URL that is used to access the resource.
A SAS token can be generated very easily and will be available until the expiration time. What happens when we realize that the token is in hands of an unauthorized person or system. Unfortunately we cannot revoce the token. What we can do in this case is to revoke all the SAS tokens that were created with a specific account key. By regenerating the primary account key of a Azure Storage for example we will invalidate all the SAS tokens that were generated with that specific account key.

Shared Access Policy (SAP) define a specific policy rule that can be used to generate SAS keys. All the access constrains that are define by a SAP will be inherit by the SAS key (resource, expiration time, start time and permissions).

In this way we can define a specific SAP that allow us read only access to a file and generate multiple SAS keys for different clients, based on that SAP. If we need to revoke the SAS key, we can remove the SAP with the given name and generate a new one (with a new name). In this way all SAS key that were generated for that SAP will be invalid.

When you are using SAP you are allowed to change the access tuple (expiration time, permission and so on). This can be done directly to SAP. But when we are using SAS, we are not allowed to edit the SAS key. The only thing that we can do is to revoke it (change the account key).

SAS and SAP Comparison
- -SAS-
-SAP-
Can be revoked separately
No
Yes
Can be changed
No
Yes
Number of keys per resource is limited
No
Yes, but we can generate for a SAP as many SAS we need
When generated, triggers an HTTP/S request to Azure
No
Yes

In conclusion, we can say that Shared Access Signature and Shared Access Policy are very similar, but in the same time there are some attributes that are specific to SAS or SAP. Based on our needs we can decided to use one or another.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to audit an Azure Cosmos DB

In this post, we will talk about how we can audit an Azure Cosmos DB database. Before jumping into the problem let us define the business requirement: As an Administrator I want to be able to audit all changes that were done to specific collection inside my Azure Cosmos DB. The requirement is simple, but can be a little tricky to implement fully. First of all when you are using Azure Cosmos DB or any other storage solution there are 99% odds that you’ll have more than one system that writes data to it. This means that you have or not have control on the systems that are doing any create/update/delete operations. Solution 1: Diagnostic Logs Cosmos DB allows us activate diagnostics logs and stream the output a storage account for achieving to other systems like Event Hub or Log Analytics. This would allow us to have information related to who, when, what, response code and how the access operation to our Cosmos DB was done. Beside this there is a field that specifies what was th...

Can User Technical Profile Influence AI Architecture Decisions?

In the last few days, I ran a small experiment on Devin/Windsurf/Cascade, BMAD, and LLM-based architecture decisions. The initial concern was simple: if an AI coding assistant knows something about the user, for example, that the user is a Java developer or a .NET developer, can this information influence the architecture and technology stack that the AI will propose? This question is important because many companies are starting to use AI tools not only for coding but also for product discovery, architecture, documentation, and technical decision-making. If the AI is influenced by the developer's personal profile, the result may not be fully neutral. It may look like a business or architecture decision, but in reality, it may be partially shaped by the context of the person using the tool. The test was done using BMAD with Devin/Windsurf/Cascade. The scenario was a unified field service operations platform. The task was to let BMAD refine the product, define the architecture and s...

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine: threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration: TeamCity .NET 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see...