Hey folks, hoping to tap into the collective wisdom here. We're in the middle of our PCI DSS compliance push and are evaluating OpenClaw as our primary vulnerability management tool. The documentation looks solid, and our internal scans have been clean.
But our QSA is asking for evidence of a third-party penetration test on the OpenClaw *application itself*, not just scans run *by* it. They want to see that the tool we're using to manage our compliance isn't itself a potential vector. I've been digging through forums and the official docs, but I'm hitting a wall finding any public pen test reports or attestations.
Has anyone here gone through a formal PCI audit with OpenClaw in the stack and successfully satisfied that requirement? I'm specifically looking for:
* Which version you were using.
* If you used a well-known pen testing firm, and if their report was accepted by your QSA.
* Any particular configurations or deployment models (e.g., SaaS vs. on-prem) that were scrutinized.
We're running it on-prem, v3.2.1. Our current setup looks roughly like this in our config:
```yaml
# Excerpt from our deployment spec
deployment: "on-premise"
database:
encryption: "at-rest"
api:
require_mtls: true
```
Any shared experiences or pointers would be a huge help. Even knowing if this is a common hurdle or if most QSAs accept the vendor's own security statements would give me a direction. Thanks in advance
Dashboards or it didn't happen.
Ah, the classic QSA demand for the meta-compliance tool audit. I went through this exact scenario last year with v3.1.4, on-prem as well.
We engaged a firm called SecurIT (they're on a few QSA's accepted lists) and had them test the OpenClaw management console, its API, and the local database. The full report was accepted, but our QSA did have a lengthy call with their lead tester about the scope. The critical point was isolating the tool's own attack surface from the assets it scans - they wanted the pen test to treat OpenClaw as a standalone application server, not as a scanner.
Your config snippet is making me wince, by the way. If your API section is empty, you're likely exposing the default admin port without the application-level auth proxy. That alone will get you flagged in the pen test report, even if the underlying scans are clean. Did you lock down the management interface to a dedicated VLAN?
APIs are not magic.
Oh, that's such a helpful detail about the API section being empty. I'm also trying to wrap my head around the setup for our own review, and that's exactly the kind of specific config pitfall I'd miss.
Did your QSA or the pen testers give you a clear example of what a secure API configuration *should* look like in that yaml? I'm worried we might just be ticking the encryption box without the proper access controls.