# S3 Storage with no Public access

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/s3-storage-with-no-public-access/251560>\
**Category:** Feature\
**Tags:** s3\
**Created:** [January 12, 2023, 1:46pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/s3-storage-with-no-public-access/251560 "2023-01-12T13:46:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Falco](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/falco/32/179432_2.png) [@Falco](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Falco)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2023, 2:54pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/s3-storage-with-no-public-access/251560/6 "2023-01-12T14:54:37Z")

</div>

That would address your needs, but it’s not something we plan to do in our roadmap, as having public buckets with file listing disabled and the actual files having individual private ACLs is working fine for us thus far.

Why isn’t public bucket with private files possible for your use case?

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/s3-storage-with-no-public-access/251560)._