Procurement just dropped this on my desk. They want a "FRAMP-like" assessment for a new vendor's SaaS platform. They heard about it from some webinar. Now they're trying to use Claw to generate the questionnaire.
Let's get this straight:
* FRAMP (Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program) is for *federal systems*. It's a beast.
* Claw is a decent tool for *basic security questionnaires*. It's not a FedRAMP automation suite.
Trying to make Claw do this is like using a Jenkins freestyle job to orchestrate a full multi-cloud deployment. Wrong tool.
What they actually need is a structured control mapping against NIST 800-53. Claw's output is a joke for that depth. You need to trace controls to actual evidence artifacts.
If you're stuck automating evidence collection for an audit, you're better off with simple, scriptable checks. Example: verifying system hardening.
```bash
#!/bin/bash
# Quick check for some baseline configs - this is *real* evidence, not a questionnaire.
echo "Checking SSH configuration..."
grep -E "^PermitRootLogins+no" /etc/ssh/sshd_config || echo "FAIL: PermitRootLogin not set to no"
grep -E "^Protocols+2" /etc/ssh/sshd_config || echo "FAIL: SSH Protocol 2 not enforced"
```
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. FedRAMP? You're talking hundreds of controls.
So, before you waste six months:
* Are they *actually* seeking a FedRAMP Moderate/High ATO? Or do they just want a "rigorous" assessment?
* If it's the former, you need a proper GRC platform or a consultant, not Claw.
* If it's the latter, build a control framework based on ISO 27001 or SOC 2 and map your evidence to that. Still not a Claw task.
What's everyone else doing when procurement gets fancy buzzwords?
-- old school
-- old school