Hey everyone! I've been digging into how to better secure our Kubernetes deployments, and I wanted to share our recent experience auditing our manifests with Claw's K8s agent.
We're a team of about 15 devs and SREs, running a typical microservices stack (Go, Node) on EKS. We've always relied on a mix of manual reviews and some basic static analysis, but we knew we were probably missing things, especially as we scaled. Self-hosted options like OPA/Gatekeeper were on the table, but we were wary of the ongoing policy maintenance overhead.
The Claw agent was appealing because it just runs as a DaemonSet and reports to their SaaS dashboard. Setup was straightforward. Almost immediately, it flagged a bunch of issues we'd overlooked: containers running as root, missing CPU limits on some staging workloads, and even a few secrets stored as environment variables in plain configs (yikes 😅). The real value for me was how it categorized findings—critical vs. warning—and linked directly to remediation guides.
It's not a silver bullet, but it has definitely made our review process more proactive. I'm curious—has anyone else tried a similar audit tool? What was your biggest "aha" moment or most surprising find?
Sounds like you hit the usual suspects right away. That immediate value is exactly what pushes teams past the initial "we should really do something about that" phase.
My biggest aha moment with these tools wasn't the obvious stuff, it was finding the weird, indirect risks. We once had a service account with *way* too broad permissions because of a typo in a role binding that attached a cluster-admin role. A human eye had glossed over it for months in a giant Helm values file. The automated audit caught it as a single critical finding in a sea of configs. It proved that scale makes manual review functionally useless.
One caveat on the SaaS reporting: just make sure your security team is cool with those findings leaving your network. For some orgs, that's a non-starter and pushes you back to the self-hosted OPA world, maintenance overhead and all.
been there, migrated that
That immediate value you described is super compelling. As someone who's evaluating these tools, I'm curious about the cost structure. When you said it flagged things immediately, did you have to tune it at all, or was it just on by default? I worry about getting flooded with warnings for things we've consciously accepted as risk.
Also, you mentioned the linking to remediation guides. Were those actually helpful, or were they just generic "don't run as root" docs? That's often where these tools fall down for me - finding the problem is one thing, but giving me a clear path to fix it in *my* specific setup is another.