Archive
#AWS #S3 Error – The request signature we calculated does not match the signature you provided. Check your key and signing method

If you’re working with the AWS SDK for .NET and encounter an error when uploading files to an Amazon S3 bucket, you’re not alone. A recent upgrade in the SDK may introduce unexpected behavior, leading to a “signature mismatch” error for uploads that previously worked smoothly. This blog post describes the problem, analyzes common solutions, and explains how AWS S3 pathing conventions have changed over time—impacting how we specify folders within S3 buckets.
The Problem: “The request signature we calculated does not match the signature you provided.”
When uploading a file to an Amazon S3 bucket using a .NET application, you may encounter this error:
“The request signature we calculated does not match the signature you provided. Check your key and signing method.”
The symptoms of this error can be puzzling. For example, a standard upload to the root of the bucket may succeed, but attempting to upload to a specific folder within the bucket could trigger the error. This was the case in a recent project, where an upload to the bucket carimagerydata succeeded, while uploads to carimagerydata/tx returned the signature mismatch error. The access key, secret key, and permissions were all configured correctly, but specifying the folder path still caused a failure.
Possible Solutions
When you encounter this issue, there are several things to investigate:
1. Bucket Region Configuration
Ensure that the AWS SDK is configured with the correct region for the S3 bucket. The SDK signs requests based on the region setting, and a mismatch between the region used in the code and the actual bucket region often results in signature errors.
csharpCopy codeAmazonS3Config config = new AmazonS3Config
{
RegionEndpoint = RegionEndpoint.YourBucketRegion // Ensure it's correct
};
2. Signature Version Settings
The AWS SDK uses Signature Version 4 by default, which is compatible with most regions and recommended by AWS. However, certain legacy setups or bucket configurations may expect Signature Version 2. Explicitly setting Signature Version 4 in the configuration can sometimes resolve these errors.
csharpCopy codeAmazonS3Config config = new AmazonS3Config
{
SignatureVersion = "4", // Explicitly specify Signature Version 4
RegionEndpoint = RegionEndpoint.YourBucketRegion
};
3. Permissions and Bucket Policies
Check if there are any bucket policies or IAM restrictions specific to the folder path you’re trying to upload to. If your bucket policy restricts access to certain paths, you’ll need to adjust it to allow uploads to the folder.
4. Path Style vs. Virtual-Hosted Style URL
Another possible issue arises from changes in how paths are handled. The AWS SDK has evolved over time, and the method of specifying paths within buckets has also changed. The SDK now defaults to virtual-hosted style URLs, where the bucket name is part of the domain (e.g., bucket-name.s3.amazonaws.com). Older setups, however, may expect path-style URLs, where the bucket name is part of the path (e.g., s3.amazonaws.com/bucket-name/key). Specifying path-style addressing in the configuration can sometimes fix compatibility issues:
csharpCopy codeAmazonS3Config config = new AmazonS3Config
{
UsePathStyle = true,
RegionEndpoint = RegionEndpoint.YourBucketRegion
};
Understanding the Key Change: Folder Path Format in S3
The reason these issues are so confusing is that AWS has changed the way folders (often called prefixes) are specified. Historically, users specified a bucket name combined with a folder path and then provided the object’s name. Now, however, the SDK expects a more unified format:
- Old Format:
bucket + path, object - New Format:
bucket, path + object
This means that in the new format, the folder path (e.g., /tx/) should be included as part of the object key rather than being treated as a separate parameter.
Solution: Specifying the Folder in the Object Key
To upload to a folder within a bucket, you should include the full path in the key itself. For example, if you want to upload yourfile.txt to the tx folder within carimagerydata, the key should be specified as "tx/yourfile.txt".
Here’s how to do it in C#:
csharpCopy codestring bucketName = "carimagerydata";
string keyName = "tx/yourfile.txt"; // Specify the folder in the key
string filePath = @"C:\path\to\your\file.txt";
AmazonS3Client client = new AmazonS3Client(accessKey, secretKey, RegionEndpoint.YourBucketRegion);
PutObjectRequest request = new PutObjectRequest
{
BucketName = bucketName,
Key = keyName, // Full path including folder
FilePath = filePath,
ContentType = "text/plain" // Example for text files, adjust as needed
};
PutObjectResponse response = await client.PutObjectAsync(request);
Conclusion
This error is a prime example of how changes in SDK conventions can impact legacy applications. The update to a more unified key format for specifying folder paths in S3 may seem minor, but it can cause unexpected issues if you’re unaware of it. By specifying the folder as part of the object key, you can avoid signature mismatch errors and ensure that your application is compatible with the latest AWS SDK practices.
Always remember to check SDK release notes for updates in configuration defaults, particularly when working with cloud services, as conventions and standards may change over time. This small adjustment can save a lot of time when troubleshooting!
Understanding TLS fingerprinting.

TLS fingerprinting is a way for Bot discovery software to help discover the difference between a browser and a bot. It works transparently and fast, but not infallable. What it depends on, is that when a secure HTTPS connection is made between client and server, there is an exchange of supported cyphers. based on the cyphers supported, this can be compared against the “claimed” user agent, to see if this would be the cyphers supported by this user-agent (Browser).
It’s easy for a bot to claim to be Chrome, just set the user agent to be the same as a modern version of Chrome, but it’s more difficult to support all the cyphers supported by Chrome, and thus, if the HTTP request says it’s Chrome, but doesn’t support all of Chrome’s Cyphers, then it probably isn’t Chrome, and it’s a Bot.
There is a really handy tool here; https://tls.peet.ws/api/all – which lists the cyphers used in the connection. If you use a browser, like Chrome, you’ll see this list of cyphers:
"ciphers": [
"TLS_GREASE (0xEAEA)",
"TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA"
]
Wheras if you visit it using Firefox, you’ll see this;
"ciphers": [
"TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256",
"TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA"
],
Use CURL or WebClient in C#, and you’ll see this
"ciphers": [
"TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA",
"TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA"
],
So, even with a cursory glance, you could check for TLS_GREASE or TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 and see if these are present, and declar the user as a bot if these cyphers are missing. More advanced coding could check the version of Chrome, the Operating System, and so forth, but the technique is that.
However, using the library TLS-Client in Python allows for more cyphers to be exchanged, and the TLS fingerprint looks much more similar (if not indistinguishable) from Chrome.
https://github.com/infiniteloopltd/TLS
session = tls_client.Session(
client_identifier="chrome_120",
random_tls_extension_order=True
)
page_url = "https://tls.peet.ws/api/all"
res = session.get(
page_url
)
print(res.text)
I am now curious to know If I can apply the same logic to C# …