<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Amazon Data Firehose | John Nessime</title>
	<atom:link href="https://john-nessime.com/blog/tag/amazon-data-firehose/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://john-nessime.com/blog/tag/amazon-data-firehose/</link>
	<description>Cloud, DevOps, Data &#38; AI — Built, Tested, Explained</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 06:49:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.4</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>The Real Cost of CloudWatch: Logs, Metrics, Retention and Cardinality</title>
		<link>https://john-nessime.com/blog/cloud-computing/cloudwatch-costs-logs-metrics-cardinality/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Nessime]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 06:44:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Cloud Computing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FinOps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Monitoring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amazon Data Firehose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AWS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cardinality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CloudWatch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost and Usage Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Explorer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Embedded Metric Format]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Log Retention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Logs Insights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Metric Filters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Observability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Runaway Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Showback]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VPC Flow Logs]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://john-nessime.com/blog/?p=785</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>CloudWatch rarely fails loudly, it accumulates. This is a breakdown of the four independent meters behind the bill: ingestion, storage, Logs Insights scans and custom metric cardinality. Why the same log line gets billed three times, why log groups never expire by default, how a single dimension can multiply your metrics bill without your traffic changing, and how to attribute the spend to specific log groups before you start deleting things.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://john-nessime.com/blog/cloud-computing/cloudwatch-costs-logs-metrics-cardinality/">The Real Cost of CloudWatch: Logs, Metrics, Retention and Cardinality</a> appeared first on <a href="https://john-nessime.com/blog">John Nessime</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Someone in finance forwards the AWS invoice with a single line highlighted. AmazonCloudWatch, sitting uncomfortably close to your compute spend. Nobody launched anything. Nobody enabled a new feature. The number just kept climbing, in a slope gentle enough that nobody noticed until it was big enough to be somebody&#8217;s problem.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That slope is the signature. CloudWatch rarely fails loudly, it accumulates: a log group created automatically by a service you enabled once, retention left at the default, a metric filter with a dimension nobody thought about, and a dashboard quietly calling the API every few seconds forever.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This post breaks down where CloudWatch costs actually come from, why the same log line gets charged more than once, how cardinality multiplies your bill without your traffic changing, and how to attribute spend to specific log groups before you delete anything. It is organised by cost lever rather than by feature, because that is the order you work in when the invoice lands.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The four meters behind your CloudWatch bill</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CloudWatch is not one product with one price. It is a set of independent meters that happen to share a console. Working out which meter is running is most of the job, because the fix for each is completely different.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Ingestion.</strong> Per GB of log data accepted into a log group. Usually the largest component on log-heavy accounts.</li>

<li><strong>Storage.</strong> Per GB-month for what is retained afterwards. Cheap per unit, but it compounds because it never stops unless you tell it to.</li>

<li><strong>Analysis.</strong> Logs Insights bills on data scanned by a query, not on rows returned and not per query.</li>

<li><strong>Metrics and API calls.</strong> Custom metrics bill per unique time series per month. Separately, calls like GetMetricData bill per metric requested, which is how third-party dashboards end up on an AWS invoice.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The thing worth internalising: a single log line can be billed three times. Once when it arrives, again every month it sits in storage, and again every time a query scans the block it lives in. None of that is hidden, but nothing in the console surfaces it either.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Ingestion is the meter that actually hurts</h2>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Uncompressed in, compressed out</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ingestion is metered on the uncompressed volume of events you send. Storage is billed on the compressed size CloudWatch keeps. Text logs compress well, so the stored figure can be a small fraction of what you were charged to get the data in.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That asymmetry is why people look at a log group holding a few gigabytes, decide it is harmless, and miss that it cost several times that to arrive. The <code>storedBytes</code> value shown on a log group is the compressed number. It tells you about your storage line, not your ingestion line.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">The log groups you never created</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most runaway ingestion comes from things switched on with a checkbox. VPC Flow Logs pointed at CloudWatch. EKS control plane logging with every type enabled. Lambda functions emitting a full structured payload per invocation. CloudTrail delivering to a log group as well as S3. RDS general query logs left on after a debugging session.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of those feel like a decision at the time, and all of them scale with traffic rather than headcount. That is why the slope keeps rising while the team stays the same size.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The most effective lever here is not a CloudWatch setting at all. It is cutting verbosity at the source, before the bytes leave your application. Dropping debug-level logging in production, sampling health check lines, trimming repeated stack frames. Filtering after ingestion does nothing for this meter, because you already paid.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Retention: the one-line fix almost nobody applies</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Log groups default to <strong>Never Expire</strong>. Not thirty days, not a year. Forever. Every log group created implicitly by another AWS service inherits that default, so an account accumulates hundreds of them without a single deliberate retention decision.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Find the offenders first. This lists every log group with no retention policy, alongside its compressed size:</p>



<pre class="wp-block-code"><code>aws logs describe-log-groups 
  --query 'logGroups[?!retentionInDays].[logGroupName,storedBytes]' 
  --output table</code></pre>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <code>?!retentionInDays</code> filter selects entries where the field is absent, which is how the API represents indefinite retention. There is no explicit &#8220;never&#8221; value to match on.</p>



<pre class="wp-block-code"><code>aws logs put-retention-policy 
  --log-group-name /aws/lambda/order-processor 
  --retention-in-days 30</code></pre>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Three things are worth knowing before running that across an account.</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>The value is an enum, not a free integer.</strong> Accepted values run 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 365, 400, 545, 731 and upward to ten years. Asking for 45 days is rejected.</li>

<li><strong>Deletion is not instant.</strong> Expired events are marked for deletion and typically removed within about three days. They stop contributing to your storage charge once marked, and are excluded from the reported <code>storedBytes</code>, so the billing effect lands before the data physically goes.</li>

<li><strong>Reverting means removing the policy, not setting zero.</strong> To go back to indefinite retention you call <code>delete-retention-policy</code> rather than passing a zero value.</li>
</ol>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Dry run before you bulk-apply. This prints what would change without touching anything:</p>



<pre class="wp-block-code"><code>aws logs describe-log-groups 
  --query 'logGroups[?!retentionInDays].logGroupName' 
  --output text | tr 't' 'n' | while read -r lg; do
    echo "would set 30-day retention on: $lg"
  done</code></pre>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Retention is where compliance and cost pull against each other, and cost should lose. If an auditor needs seven years of logs, seven years is the answer. The move is to export them to S3 and apply lifecycle rules there, rather than paying CloudWatch rates for archival data you will query twice a decade.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cardinality: the multiplier nobody sees coming</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the part that surprises people, because it breaks the intuition that cost tracks traffic. Cardinality can multiply your metrics bill by an order of magnitude while request volume stays flat.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CloudWatch treats every unique combination of namespace, metric name and dimension values as a separate metric. Not a variant of one metric. A separate, separately billed metric. Publish <code>OrderLatency</code> with a <code>Region</code> dimension holding three values and you have three metrics. Add a <code>CustomerId</code> dimension and you have three times however many customers you have.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The dangerous dimension values are the ones that look like identifiers: request IDs, trace IDs, pod names, session tokens, customer IDs, IP addresses, URL paths with IDs embedded in them. Each new value is a new billable series that persists and accrues.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Metric filters have a guard rail, and it bites</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Metrics extracted from logs by a metric filter bill as custom metrics. A filter can carry up to three dimensions, and AWS documents an explicit safety mechanism: CloudWatch Logs disables a metric filter that generates a thousand distinct dimension name/value pairs within a period.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That guard rail is useful, but read what it means operationally. Hitting it does not just cost money, it silently stops the filter, so the metric you built an alarm on stops receiving data. If that alarm treats missing data as not breaching, it goes quiet rather than firing. You lose the alert and keep the bill.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Audit what exists before adding more, and count what a namespace actually produces:</p>



<pre class="wp-block-code"><code>aws logs describe-metric-filters 
  --log-group-name /aws/lambda/order-processor

aws cloudwatch list-metrics 
  --namespace MyApp/Orders 
  --query 'length(Metrics)'</code></pre>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If that count is materially larger than the number of distinct things you consciously measure, you have found your multiplier.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">EMF does exactly what you tell it</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Embedded Metric Format is a good design: you emit structured events, CloudWatch extracts metrics from declared fields, and you get high-cardinality context in the logs with low-cardinality metrics for alarming. That split is the point.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The failure mode is promoting a high-cardinality field into the dimension set. AWS documents this plainly: declare something like a request ID as a dimension and EMF will, by design, create a custom metric for every unique combination. Keep identifiers in the log body as properties, and keep dimensions to values you would put on a dashboard axis.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Anomaly detection alarms cost more than they look</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An anomaly detection alarm does not evaluate one metric. It evaluates the source metric plus the upper and lower bounds of the predicted band, and those bounds are metrics too. That is roughly a threefold multiple against a standard threshold alarm, per alarm.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It earns its keep on genuinely seasonal signals where a static threshold produces constant noise. Switching an entire alarm estate to it &#8220;to be safe&#8221; triples a line item for very little detection benefit.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Query cost spikes exactly when you need it most</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Logs Insights bills on the volume a query scans. Not rows returned. Not query count. Scanned bytes. A query returning twelve lines that scans a terabyte costs the same as one returning a million lines that scans a terabyte.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">During an incident, an engineer runs a dozen exploratory queries across a wildcard log group selection and a wide time window. The pricing model charges you hardest at the moment the tool is most valuable, which is an uncomfortable incentive. Two habits reduce it without reducing your ability to debug:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Narrow the time window first, then the filter.</strong> Scanning is bounded by the selected range across the selected groups. Starting at fifteen minutes and widening is far cheaper than starting at a week and narrowing.</li>

<li><strong>Select specific log groups, not patterns.</strong> Querying across every Lambda log group multiplies scanned bytes by the number of functions when you only care about one.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Watch for scheduled queries too. A dashboard widget or automation running an Insights query every few minutes against a large log group is a fixed monthly cost nobody remembers creating.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Finding out where your CloudWatch costs come from</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Attribute before you cut. Deleting log groups because they look big is how teams lose the one log they needed three weeks later.</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Split the bill by meter.</strong> In Cost Explorer, filter service to CloudWatch and group by usage type. The region-prefixed usage types map to the meters directly: <code>DataProcessing-Bytes</code> is log ingestion, <code>TimedStorage-ByteHrs</code> is log storage, <code>DataScanned-Bytes</code> is Logs Insights, and <code>CW:Requests</code> and <code>CW:GMD-Metrics</code> cover API calls.</li>

<li><strong>Rank log groups by ingestion.</strong> The <code>IncomingBytes</code> metric in the <code>AWS/Logs</code> namespace, dimensioned by log group, is the per-group ingestion figure. Graph it with the Sum statistic. One documented gotcha: use an <em>absolute</em> range covering exactly thirty days, because a relative range or a different length produces a number that does not correspond to a billing month.</li>

<li><strong>Check stored bytes separately.</strong> A log group can be small in ingestion but large in storage because it has accumulated since the account was created. That is a retention problem, not a verbosity problem, and the fix differs.</li>

<li><strong>Count custom metrics per namespace.</strong> Compare the count against your mental model of what you measure. The gap is cardinality.</li>

<li><strong>Look inside the noisiest group.</strong> Once you know which log group dominates, find out which streams are responsible before changing any application code.</li>
</ol>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For that last step, a Logs Insights query over a short window is enough. Keep the range tight, because this query is itself billed on what it scans:</p>



<pre class="wp-block-code"><code>stats count(*) as events, sum(strlen(@message)) as approx_bytes by @logStream
| sort approx_bytes desc
| limit 20</code></pre>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That approximates byte volume per stream, which is usually enough to identify the chatty component. It is an approximation, not a billing figure, because it counts message characters rather than the metered event size.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you manage several accounts and want attribution done for you, cost platforms such as Vantage and CloudZero break CloudWatch spend down by usage type and resource without you building dashboards. Worth the spend if client reporting is part of the job. For one account and one engineer, Cost Explorer plus the steps above gets the same answer.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Cheaper destinations, and what they cost you</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Once you know your ingestion is dominated by logs you rarely read, there are three real options. None is free of trade-offs.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>The Infrequent Access log class.</strong> Set at the log group level, it ingests at a materially lower per-GB rate in exchange for a reduced feature set. Historically that meant no metric filters, no alarming from logs and no Live Tail, though the capability list has expanded since launch. Check the current log classes documentation rather than assuming, and note that a log group you extract metrics from is not a candidate.</li>

<li><strong>Subscription filter to S3 via Amazon Data Firehose.</strong> Sends log data to object storage where lifecycle rules and Athena queries apply. You trade Insights and the console experience for much cheaper long-term retention. Good for audit and forensic logs, poor for anything you troubleshoot weekly.</li>

<li><strong>A separate log stack.</strong> Grafana Cloud, or self-hosted Loki and Prometheus on a VPS from a provider like Contabo or InterServer, moves cost from per-GB metering to a fixed monthly box you administer. The economics can be dramatically better at volume. The price is that you now own retention, backups, upgrades and the availability of your own observability during an outage, which is exactly when you least want to be debugging it.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The honest version: CloudWatch is expensive partly because it is operated for you and wired into everything. At a few dozen gigabytes a month, migrating away costs more engineering time than it saves. At terabytes, the arithmetic flips hard.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Troubleshooting a bill that will not go down</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You set retention everywhere and storage barely moved.</strong> Check whether storage was ever the dominant cost. If your usage type breakdown was mostly <code>DataProcessing-Bytes</code>, retention was never going to fix it.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Custom metric count grows with no code changes.</strong> Something is emitting a dimension whose value set is open-ended. Look for deployment identifiers, container IDs, or a version string appended to a dimension.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>An alarm went quiet and the bill jumped the same week.</strong> Suspect a disabled metric filter. Check the filter still exists and is producing data, and verify the alarm&#8217;s missing data treatment. Alarms treating missing data as not breaching fail silently by design.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>API request charges you cannot place.</strong> External dashboards are the usual answer. A Grafana instance polling CloudWatch, or any tool calling GetMetricData on a short interval, bills per metric requested. Widening the refresh interval on dashboards nobody watches live is a quick win.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Costs dropped, then came back.</strong> Look at your infrastructure as code. If Terraform or CloudFormation creates log groups without a retention argument, every apply restores the default. Fixing it in the console fixes it until the next deploy.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Common mistakes</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Treating storage as the problem because it is the number the console shows. Ingestion is usually larger and invisible in the log group list.</li>

<li>Adding a dimension because it would be useful to filter by, without checking how many distinct values it can take.</li>

<li>Filtering logs after they reach CloudWatch. The ingestion charge already applied.</li>

<li>Deleting log groups to cut cost without checking whether anything alarms on them.</li>

<li>Setting retention in the console while the IaC that owns the log group has none configured.</li>

<li>Enabling every EKS control plane log type when only the audit log is consumed.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Best practices for controlling CloudWatch costs</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Make retention a required argument.</strong> If log groups come from Terraform or CloudFormation, treat a missing retention setting as a policy violation and fail the plan. Checkov and similar scanners have rules for exactly this.</li>

<li><strong>Decide verbosity per environment, not per service.</strong> Debug in staging, info in production, with a documented way to raise it temporarily during an incident.</li>

<li><strong>Keep dimensions bounded, identifiers in the message body.</strong> If you cannot enumerate a dimension&#8217;s possible values on a whiteboard, it does not belong in the dimension set.</li>

<li><strong>Alarm on the bill itself.</strong> A billing alarm on estimated charges, or an anomaly monitor scoped to CloudWatch, turns a quarterly surprise into a same-week signal.</li>

<li><strong>Review the top five log groups by ingestion monthly.</strong> Five minutes with the <code>IncomingBytes</code> graph catches new noise before it compounds.</li>

<li><strong>Route archival logs out deliberately.</strong> Anything kept for compliance rather than operations belongs in S3 with lifecycle rules from the start.</li>
</ul>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Frequently asked questions</h2>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Why is my CloudWatch bill so high when my traffic has not changed?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Two causes account for most cases. Storage accumulating because log groups default to indefinite retention, so the bill grows every month even at constant ingestion. Or metric cardinality, where a dimension with an open-ended value set keeps creating new billable series. Neither tracks request volume, which is why the bill and the traffic graph disagree.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Does deleting a log group reduce my bill immediately?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It stops future storage charges for that data and nothing else. Ingestion already billed is spent, and deleting the group does not stop whatever was writing to it, which will simply recreate it. Turn off the source first, then delete.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">What counts as one custom metric for billing?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One unique combination of namespace, metric name and dimension values. The same metric name published with three different dimension value sets is three billable metrics. This is the single most important sentence in CloudWatch pricing and the easiest one to skim past.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Should I switch log groups to the Infrequent Access class?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For logs you keep but rarely read, it is usually a straightforward saving on ingestion. For any group you extract metrics from, alarm on, or stream live, it is not a candidate. The feature gap between the classes has narrowed since launch, so check current documentation rather than ruling it out on old information.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Is Logs Insights charged per query or per gigabyte?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Per gigabyte scanned. Rows returned are irrelevant. A tightly filtered query over a wide range across many log groups is expensive; a broad query over fifteen minutes on one log group is cheap. Narrow the range before you narrow the filter.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Do VPC Flow Logs have to go to CloudWatch?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No. Flow logs can be delivered to S3 instead, avoiding CloudWatch ingestion and storage entirely, at the cost of losing Insights queries over them. If you analyse flow logs occasionally with Athena rather than continuously in the console, S3 is the better destination.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The one thing to take away</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">CloudWatch costs are not one number with one cause. They are four meters running independently, and each has a different fix: cut verbosity at the source for ingestion, set retention for storage, narrow scope for queries, bound your dimensions for metrics. Applying the wrong fix to the wrong meter is why so many cost-reduction efforts produce a bill that barely moves.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So attribute first. Split by usage type, rank log groups by <code>IncomingBytes</code>, count custom metrics per namespace. Ten minutes of that tells you which lever you are actually pulling, and stops you deleting the log group that turns out to be the only place a production alarm was getting its data.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Need a hand with your CloudWatch spend?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is well-defined work with a measurable outcome, which makes it a good fit for a short engagement. Things I can help with:</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Breaking your CloudWatch bill down by meter and by log group, so you know what you are paying for before anything changes</li>

<li>Auditing custom metric cardinality and identifying which dimensions are multiplying your series count</li>

<li>Building a retention policy that satisfies your compliance requirement without paying CloudWatch rates for archival data</li>

<li>Enforcing retention and log class in Terraform or CloudFormation so the fix survives the next deployment</li>

<li>Designing a subscription filter and S3 archive path for logs you need to keep but rarely query</li>

<li>Reviewing alarms and dashboards for anomaly detection and API polling costs that are not earning their keep</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you want a second opinion, send me your Cost Explorer breakdown grouped by usage type, or the output of <code>describe-log-groups</code> for the account. That is usually enough to say where the money is going before we talk about anything else.</p>



<div class="wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex">
<div class="wp-block-button"><a class="wp-block-button__link wp-element-button" href="https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01f15a912ad84a6620" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Work with me on Upwork</a></div>
</div>
<p>The post <a href="https://john-nessime.com/blog/cloud-computing/cloudwatch-costs-logs-metrics-cardinality/">The Real Cost of CloudWatch: Logs, Metrics, Retention and Cardinality</a> appeared first on <a href="https://john-nessime.com/blog">John Nessime</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amazon Macie PII Detection: The Buckets It Never Opened</title>
		<link>https://john-nessime.com/blog/cloud-computing/amazon-macie-pii-detection/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Nessime]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2026 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Cloud Computing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data Engineering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amazon Data Firehose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amazon Macie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amazon S3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AWS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AWS KMS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AWS Organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cloud Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data Classification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data Governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Data Lake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Encryption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EventBridge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PII Redaction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S3 Lifecycle Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Security Hub]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sensitive Data Discovery]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://john-nessime.com/blog/?p=405</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A Macie bucket labeled "Not sensitive" often just means Macie never read it. Extensionless objects, unsupported storage classes, unreachable KMS keys and quota truncation all produce silence that looks identical to a clean result. Here's how to measure coverage, fix the four gaps, tune identifiers, and keep the bill honest.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://john-nessime.com/blog/cloud-computing/amazon-macie-pii-detection/">Amazon Macie PII Detection: The Buckets It Never Opened</a> appeared first on <a href="https://john-nessime.com/blog">John Nessime</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The email came from legal, not from security. A customer had exercised a data access request, someone pulled the export by hand, and it contained email addresses and phone numbers sitting in a bucket Macie had labeled <em>Not sensitive</em>. Nobody had done anything wrong. The console was telling the truth as it understood it. It just didn&#8217;t understand very much about that bucket.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is the failure mode worth internalizing before anything else: Amazon Macie PII detection reports on what it managed to read, not on what is there. Objects it never opened produce no findings, and no findings looks identical to a clean result. The gap between &#8220;we scanned this&#8221; and &#8220;we found nothing&#8221; is where most Macie deployments quietly fail their first audit.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This post covers where that gap comes from and how to close it: the eligibility chain every object goes through, the four distinct reasons an object gets skipped, how to tune identifiers so the findings are worth reading, what actually drives the bill, and how to route results somewhere a human will act on them.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The eligibility chain behind Amazon Macie PII detection</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Every object passes the same gates before a byte gets inspected. The order matters, because each gate fails differently and needs a different fix.</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>Is it in a general purpose S3 bucket? Directory buckets are out of scope entirely.</li>



<li>Is the storage class supported? Standard, Standard-IA, One Zone-IA, Intelligent-Tiering, Glacier Instant Retrieval and Reduced Redundancy are in. Glacier Deep Archive and S3 Express One Zone are not.</li>



<li>Does the object key carry a recognized file extension? This is a string check on the name, not a content sniff.</li>



<li>Can Macie retrieve and decrypt it, given the bucket policy, object ACL and encryption key?</li>



<li>Does the content parse, and stay inside the per-file quotas?</li>



<li>Do the active data identifiers match anything in it?</li>
</ol>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Only the last gate produces a finding. Everything before it produces silence. Macie does record why each object was skipped, but that lives in coverage data and object samples, not on the findings page most people look at.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One detail explains a lot of confusion: when you first enable automated sensitive data discovery, every bucket gets a sensitivity score of 50 and the label <em>Not yet analyzed</em>. A bucket whose permissions block Macie stays there permanently. It never turns red. It sits mid-list, looking unremarkable next to buckets that genuinely were analyzed.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Gap one: objects Macie never opened</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Macie calls these <em>unclassifiable</em>. They fail the storage class or extension check, so no retrieval is attempted. This is the largest source of false confidence I&#8217;ve seen, and the cheapest to fix.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Missing file extensions</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Classifiability comes from the file name extension. A file full of customer records named <code>part-00003-a4f9</code> is invisible. The same bytes named <code>part-00003-a4f9.json</code> get inspected and produce findings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This bites hardest on streaming ingestion. Amazon Data Firehose writes to S3 without appending an extension unless compression, format conversion, or the explicit file extension setting adds one. An uncompressed JSON stream lands as a tree of extensionless objects. Athena and Glue read them fine, because they infer format from the table definition. Macie skips every one.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Fix it upstream: set the S3 file extension on the delivery configuration, or enable GZIP compression or Parquet conversion, both of which append a recognized extension. If you can&#8217;t change the producer, the fallback is a copy-and-rename step into a scan prefix, which costs you storage plus a pipeline to maintain. Fixing the producer is almost always cheaper.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Unsupported storage classes</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A lifecycle rule transitioning old exports to Glacier Deep Archive quietly removes them from scope. That may be the right storage decision, but it needs to be a conscious one, because archived customer data is still customer data when a regulator asks.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Macie exposes these counts per bucket, split by cause. This is the first query I run against a new account:</p>



<pre class="wp-block-code"><code># Buckets where Macie can't classify objects, broken down by cause
aws macie2 describe-buckets 
  --query 'buckets[?unclassifiableObjectCount.total &gt; `0`].{
      bucket: bucketName,
      classifiable: classifiableObjectCount,
      skipped_total: unclassifiableObjectCount.total,
      skipped_extension: unclassifiableObjectCount.fileType,
      skipped_storage_class: unclassifiableObjectCount.storageClass
    }' 
  --output table</code></pre>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Read the ratio, not the raw number. Forty thousand classifiable objects and twelve skipped is fine. Three classifiable and four hundred thousand skipped is a reporting artifact pretending to be a scan result, and that bucket&#8217;s sensitivity score means nothing.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Gap two: objects it opened and couldn&#8217;t read</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These are classification errors rather than eligibility failures. Macie selected the object, tried to fetch it, and was refused. Three causes, and they need three different people to fix them.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Customer-provided keys (SSE-C).</strong> Macie cannot supply the key material, so it cannot retrieve the object. No permissions fix exists. Re-encrypt with S3 managed or KMS keys if you want coverage.</li>



<li><strong>KMS key policy.</strong> For customer managed keys, the key policy must allow the Macie service-linked role, <code>AWSServiceRoleForAmazonMacie</code>, to decrypt. Cross-account buckets need the key owner to grant it, not the bucket owner. AWS publishes a permission analyzer script in the <code>aws-samples/amazon-macie-scripts</code> repository that enumerates every key Macie needs and generates the CLI commands to fix them.</li>



<li><strong>Restrictive bucket policies.</strong> An explicit <code>Deny</code> conditioned on source IP or VPC endpoint blocks Macie along with everything else. The working pattern excludes the service-linked role ARN from the deny using the <code>aws:PrincipalArn</code> condition key.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To see which objects Macie actually touched in a bucket, pull the object samples. It&#8217;s the closest thing to a scan log you get:</p>



<pre class="wp-block-code"><code># Objects automated discovery selected, with per-object status
aws macie2 list-resource-profile-artifacts 
  --resource-arn arn:aws:s3:::your-bucket-name</code></pre>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Anything with a status of <code>SKIPPED</code> is a lead. Take the key, check its encryption settings in S3, and you usually have your answer inside a minute.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Gap three: it read the file and nothing matched</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Macie ships managed data identifiers covering common PII, financial data and credentials across many countries. Automated discovery uses a recommended subset by default rather than all of them. Sensible, but it is a default, and it will miss things that matter to you.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Add the managed identifiers for your actual jurisdictions.</strong> If you hold records for customers in a country whose national ID identifier isn&#8217;t in the recommended set, you&#8217;re scanning for the wrong things with perfect efficiency. Pull the current list with <code>aws macie2 list-managed-data-identifiers</code> and compare it against where your customers live.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Write custom identifiers for what only you know is sensitive.</strong> Internal account numbers, case references, employee IDs. A custom identifier is a regex plus optional keywords and a proximity rule, and the keywords are what save you. A bare <code>[0-9]{8}</code> matches timestamps, order totals and row counts, and you drown. The same regex with keywords and a match distance only fires when the number sits near a word that gives it meaning.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Test the pattern before it goes near a job. This runs the criteria against sample text and returns match counts without creating anything:</p>



<pre class="wp-block-code"><code># Dry-run a custom identifier before creating it
aws macie2 test-custom-data-identifier 
  --regex 'ACC-[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{4}' 
  --keywords account customer acct 
  --maximum-match-distance 30 
  --sample-text 'customer account ACC-4821-9930 updated; total 1234-5678'</code></pre>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Run it against real samples, including the awkward ones, then against a file you know is clean and confirm zero. A pattern you only tested on positives is a pattern you haven&#8217;t tested.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The mirror image is allow lists, which tell Macie to ignore specific text or patterns: your support inbox address, your published press contact, the seeded test records in everyone&#8217;s staging fixtures. Without them the same non-issues appear in every scan until the team stops reading findings. Allow lists accept predefined text or regex, and the per-account and per-job quotas are tight enough that you should curate rather than dump.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Gap four: quota truncation inside large files</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Subtle, because the object <em>is</em> analyzed. Just not completely, and a partial result reports like a full one.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Per-file size quotas differ by format. Exceed the quota for a type and Macie analyzes none of that file, not part of it.</li>



<li>Archives have separate ceilings for nesting depth, extracted bytes and file count. If the metadata shows a breach up front, nothing is extracted. Cross a limit partway through and Macie stops, reporting only what it processed.</li>



<li>JSON and JSON Lines have a nested depth limit. Past it, the file is not analyzed at all.</li>



<li>Full names and mailing addresses cap out per file. After the cap Macie stops counting and stops reporting locations for that type, so the occurrence count is a floor, never a total.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Findings carry a status reason naming the limit that was hit, with values like <code>FILE_EXCEEDS_SIZE_LIMIT</code>, <code>ARCHIVE_NESTING_LEVEL_OVER_LIMIT</code> and <code>JSON_NESTING_LEVEL_OVER_LIMIT</code>. Filter on those before declaring a data lake of large compressed exports clean. Check current quota values in the Macie documentation rather than memorizing them, since they differ per format.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Automated discovery or a discovery job?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Automated sensitive data discovery</strong> evaluates your inventory daily and samples representative objects across as many buckets as it can, grouping by metadata like prefix, extension and last-modified date. It is breadth-first and it does not re-analyze unchanged objects. Its job is to tell you which buckets deserve attention. It is not designed to prove a bucket is clean, and reading it that way is the root of most Macie misunderstandings.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sensitive data discovery jobs</strong> are the depth tool. You choose the buckets, scope by prefix, extension, size or object tag, choose the identifiers, and run once or on a schedule. This is what you point at the bucket automated discovery just flagged.</p>



<pre class="wp-block-code"><code># One-time job over a single prefix, recommended identifiers, 30% sampling
aws macie2 create-classification-job 
  --job-type ONE_TIME 
  --name "exports-prefix-review" 
  --managed-data-identifier-selector RECOMMENDED 
  --sampling-percentage 30 
  --s3-job-definition '{
    "bucketDefinitions": [
      {"accountId": "111122223333", "buckets": ["your-bucket-name"]}
    ],
    "scoping": {
      "includes": {
        "and": [
          {"simpleScopeTerm": {
             "comparator": "STARTS_WITH",
             "key": "OBJECT_KEY",
             "values": ["exports/"]
          }}
        ]
      }
    }
  }'</code></pre>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One detail about <code>--sampling-percentage</code> that trips people up: it selects a random percentage of eligible <em>objects</em> and then analyzes each selected object completely. It does not read a fraction of each file. For a bucket where every object comes from one pipeline, 20 or 30 percent tells you what you need. For heterogeneous uploads, sampling is a coin flip and you want the full pass.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What actually drives the bill</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Macie bills on three dimensions, and the one that surprises people is not the one they budget for.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Bucket evaluation.</strong> Per general purpose bucket monitored, prorated daily, up to the account ceiling. Predictable, driven by bucket count rather than data volume.</li>



<li><strong>Object monitoring.</strong> Per object tracked while automated discovery is enabled. This is inventory bookkeeping, not content reading, and it runs whether or not anything gets scanned that day. On an account with a log archive holding hundreds of millions of tiny objects, it can dwarf the other two.</li>



<li><strong>Data inspected.</strong> Per GB actually analyzed, covering both automated discovery and jobs.</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So excluding buckets from automated discovery is a genuine cost lever, not just noise reduction. Log archives, CloudTrail destinations, build artifact stores and backup targets are usually safe exclusions. Exclude for the right reason though: a backup bucket holding database dumps of your customer table is exactly what you want scanned, however boring its name sounds.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The three dimensions appear as distinct usage types in the Cost and Usage Report, so they split cleanly. A FinOps platform like Vantage or CloudZero, or just a Cost Explorer view grouped by usage type, tells you within a day whether object monitoring or inspection is driving the number. That changes the fix entirely: object monitoring is solved by scoping, inspection by sampling and scheduling.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Getting findings somewhere a human sees them</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Findings that only exist in the Macie console get read during onboarding week and never again. Two things are worth wiring up on day one.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Publish findings outward.</strong> Macie emits findings to EventBridge and integrates with Security Hub. EventBridge earns its keep because you can filter on severity and finding type and route only what matters, whether that&#8217;s a Slack channel, a ticket, or a Lambda that tags the bucket. If you already centralize alerts in Grafana Cloud or similar, that path keeps sensitive data findings next to everything else on call sees.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Configure the discovery results repository.</strong> Findings tell you what was found and where. The detailed discovery results, including analysis logs for objects where nothing was found, need an S3 bucket and a KMS key configured to persist. Nothing is retained long term until you set this up, and &#8220;we scanned it and found nothing&#8221; is exactly the record an auditor asks for.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One operational note on the reveal feature, which retrieves sample occurrences so a human can confirm a finding is real. It needs a customer managed KMS key and it&#8217;s genuinely useful for triage. It also means someone is now looking at live customer PII, which belongs in your access model and audit trail. Same goes if an engineer downloads an object to investigate locally: that copy is unmanaged PII on a laptop and needs a secure deletion step, whether that&#8217;s a wipe tool from a vendor like O&amp;O Software or a documented and enforced process. Findings triage has a habit of creating the exposure it was meant to prevent.</p>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Troubleshooting a bucket that reports nothing</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When Amazon Macie PII detection reports nothing for a bucket you have doubts about, work down this in order. Each step rules out one gate, and stopping at the first hit saves you the rest.</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Check the sensitivity label.</strong> <em>Not yet analyzed</em> at score 50 means nothing was analyzed. Do not read that as clean.</li>



<li><strong>Check the coverage page.</strong> Macie names the issue directly: access denied, invalid encryption, invalid KMS key, permission denied, or unclassifiable.</li>



<li><strong>Compare classifiable and unclassifiable counts</strong> with the <code>describe-buckets</code> query above.</li>



<li><strong>List a few object keys.</strong> Run <code>aws s3 ls</code> against a prefix and look for extensions. Extensionless keys explain the whole thing.</li>



<li><strong>Check the storage class.</strong> A lifecycle rule may have moved everything somewhere Macie doesn&#8217;t read.</li>



<li><strong>Check encryption.</strong> SSE-C is unfixable without re-encryption. A customer managed KMS key is fixable with a key policy change.</li>



<li><strong>Check object samples</strong> with <code>list-resource-profile-artifacts</code> to see exactly what was selected and skipped.</li>



<li><strong>Only now question the identifiers.</strong> Run a targeted job with a custom identifier for the data you expect and see whether it fires.</li>
</ol>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Common mistakes</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Treating a low sensitivity score as evidence of no PII. It reflects what was found <em>and</em> how much was analyzed, so low coverage produces a low score.</li>



<li>Enabling Macie in one region and assuming account-wide coverage. Settings and results are per region, every time.</li>



<li>Running default identifiers in a business operating outside the jurisdictions the recommended set covers.</li>



<li>Building custom identifiers from regex alone, then abandoning Macie over the false positive volume.</li>



<li>Skipping the discovery results repository, then having no evidence trail when someone asks what was scanned and when.</li>



<li>Excluding buckets by name pattern without checking contents. Backup and export buckets are frequently the highest-risk ones you own.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Best practices</h2>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Measure coverage before findings. A coverage report is the first deliverable of a Macie rollout, not an afterthought.</li>



<li>Fix extensions at the producer rather than building a rename pipeline downstream.</li>



<li>Run the KMS permission analyzer script once per account, then again whenever a new customer managed key appears.</li>



<li>Use automated discovery for breadth and targeted jobs for depth, letting the first choose targets for the second.</li>



<li>Test every custom identifier against both a positive and a negative sample before it reaches a job.</li>



<li>Curate allow lists early. The cost of a noisy first month is a team that stops reading findings.</li>



<li>Re-check coverage after any change to bucket policies, KMS keys, lifecycle rules or ingestion pipelines. All four silently remove data from scope.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Frequently asked questions</h2>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Can Amazon Macie scan anything other than S3?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No. Macie analyzes objects in S3 general purpose buckets only. The documented workaround is bringing data to it: export RDS or Aurora snapshots to S3 in Parquet, or export a DynamoDB table to S3, then run a discovery job against the export. That works, but the export is now a second copy of your sensitive data with its own encryption and deletion requirements.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Does Macie scan new objects as they land?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Not per object. Automated discovery evaluates inventory on a daily cycle and prioritizes objects that are new or recently changed, so fresh data moves up the queue rather than triggering an immediate scan. If you need scanning tied to arrival, drive a discovery job from S3 event notifications through EventBridge and accept that you own that orchestration.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Why does a bucket I know has PII show a low sensitivity score?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Almost always coverage rather than detection. Check whether the objects are classifiable, whether Macie can decrypt them, and whether the label reads <em>Not yet analyzed</em>. If Macie genuinely read them and found nothing, the next suspect is the identifier set, and a targeted job with a custom identifier will tell you in one run.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Do I need both automated discovery and discovery jobs?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For most teams, yes. Automated discovery gives you the map at predictable cost. Jobs give you proof for a specific bucket at a specific time, which is what compliance evidence actually requires. Running only jobs means you never discover the bucket nobody told you about.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">How do I cut false positives without missing real PII?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In order of preference: add keywords and a proximity rule so matches need context; use allow lists for specific known-benign values like your published contact details and test fixtures; and only then remove managed identifiers that are consistently wrong for your data. Removing identifiers is the bluntest option and the easiest to regret, so leave it last.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading">Does Macie work across accounts in an organization?</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes, through AWS Organizations with a delegated administrator. Design around this: the administrator&#8217;s automated discovery settings apply to member accounts, members can&#8217;t change them, and members see coverage and sensitivity data for their own buckets but not the sensitive data findings themselves. That shapes who can actually remediate what.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The one thing worth remembering</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Amazon Macie PII detection is only as good as its coverage, and coverage fails silently by design. An object with the wrong extension, the wrong storage class, or an unreachable encryption key produces no finding, and no finding renders identically to a clean result. Before you hand a Macie report to anyone who will make a decision from it, put the coverage numbers next to it: how many objects were classifiable, how many were analyzed, how many were skipped and why.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Do that once and the rest of the service becomes straightforward. Skip it and you&#8217;re maintaining an expensive dashboard reporting on whichever subset of your data happened to be readable.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Need help getting Macie to actually see your data?</h2>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Most of the work in a Macie rollout isn&#8217;t turning it on. It&#8217;s the unglamorous part: proving what got scanned, fixing the reasons things didn&#8217;t, and making the output land somewhere a human acts on it. That&#8217;s the part I help with.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Coverage audits across your S3 estate, with per-bucket classifiable, analyzed and skipped counts and the specific cause of each gap</li>



<li>Fixing those causes: KMS key policies, bucket policies blocking the service-linked role, lifecycle rules archiving data out of scope, pipelines writing extensionless objects</li>



<li>Custom data identifiers and allow lists tuned against your real data and tested on positive and negative samples first</li>



<li>Cost shaping: working out whether object monitoring or data inspection drives your bill, and scoping discovery so the number is defensible</li>



<li>Findings pipelines through EventBridge or Security Hub into the alerting and ticketing you already run, with severity filtering that keeps signal above noise</li>



<li>Multi-account setup under AWS Organizations, including the delegated administrator model and who can see and remediate what</li>
</ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you want a second opinion, send me the output of the <code>describe-buckets</code> query above, or a screenshot of your coverage page, and I&#8217;ll tell you what&#8217;s actually being scanned.</p>



<div class="wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex">
<div class="wp-block-button"><a class="wp-block-button__link wp-element-button" href="https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01f15a912ad84a6620" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Work with me on Upwork</a></div>
</div>
<p>The post <a href="https://john-nessime.com/blog/cloud-computing/amazon-macie-pii-detection/">Amazon Macie PII Detection: The Buckets It Never Opened</a> appeared first on <a href="https://john-nessime.com/blog">John Nessime</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
