nullclaw

Security Improvement Roadmap

Current State: Strong Foundation

nullclaw has excellent application-layer and OS-level security:

Comparison Matrix

Feature PicoClaw ZeroClaw nullclaw
Binary Size ~8 MB 3.4 MB 639 KB
RAM Usage < 10 MB < 5 MB ~1 MB
Startup Time < 1 s < 10 ms < 2 ms
Command Allowlist Unknown Yes Yes
Path Blocking Unknown Yes Yes
Injection Protection Unknown Yes Yes
OS Sandbox No No Yes (4 backends)
Resource Limits No No Yes
Audit Logging No No Yes (HMAC-signed)
Encrypted Secrets No No Yes (ChaCha20)
Tests 1,017 1,639

Roadmap

Phase 1: Hardening (Near-Term)

Task Status Impact
seccomp syscall filtering (Linux) Planned High
Certificate pinning for channels Planned Medium
Signed config verification Planned Medium
SIEM-compatible audit export Planned Medium
Security self-test (nullclaw audit --check) Planned Low

Phase 2: Enterprise Features (Future)

Task Status Impact
mTLS for gateway Planned High
RBAC (role-based access control) Planned High
Multi-tenant isolation Planned Medium
Compliance reporting Planned Medium

Security Is Agnostic

All security features are implemented as vtable interfaces — swappable like providers and channels:

// Swap security backends via config
{
  "security": {
    "sandbox": { "backend": "auto" }     // or "landlock", "firejail", etc.
  }
}

Security features add negligible overhead:

Feature Binary Impact RAM Overhead
Sandbox detection ~5 KB ~10 KB
Resource monitoring ~3 KB ~5 KB
Audit logging ~4 KB ~20 KB (buffered)
Total ~12 KB ~35 KB

Even with full security, nullclaw uses <0.5% of RAM on $5 hardware.

CLI Preview

# Security status
nullclaw doctor
# → Sandbox: Landlock active
# → Audit logging: enabled (42 events today)
# → Resource limits: 512 MB mem, 80% CPU

# Audit queries
nullclaw audit --user @alice --since 24h
nullclaw audit --risk high --violations-only
nullclaw audit --verify-signatures