[we_never_see_it]

I have hard times feeling any sympathy for these companies. When you trust an ad company like Google what did you expect? Maybe Google will shutdown this product and fix the secuity hole in the process.

[elzbardico]

Knowing the byzantine ways of Google support, I wouldn't be surprised if Google's reaction to this would be to ban the account of everyone involved in this episode.

[peddling-brink]

Google should shut down Cloud because they allow groups to be added to IAM?

That’s an interesting take.

[ghusto]

Fair enough, but it's also worth noting that this mistake is difficult to make in AWS. You can do it, but you have to be so explicit about what you're doing that I can't imagine anyone managing it accidentally.

The system is broken if this has happened _multiple_ times to this guy.

[elzbardico]

I think you misinterpreted OP. He is making a pun with the widespread beliefs that

a) Google doesn't care about giving user support for their products even if you pay

b) Over a not-so-long time the survival rate of every Google product seems to drop to zero unless it is related to search and ads.

So, the joke is that the problem would solve itself when google predictably kills this product.

[peddling-brink]

I’m not sure that’s a pun. But on re-read I am seeing the humor. On my first read I just saw the tired vitriol, “google == bad”.

[anon223345]

What it’s doing is actually useful, using a group to easily add people to roles is great

Not making the group do confirmation, or even acknowledging the addition is super stupid