Hey everyone, been lurking for a bit while setting up my own OpenClaw test environment. This is my first real post, so go easy on me 😅

I've been looking at a few hosted agent runtime platforms for a project at work. Every single one of them has "SOC 2 Type II" plastered all over their marketing site. That's supposed to be the gold standard for security trust, right? But when I actually dig into what they're offering, it feels... off.

They talk about infrastructure security, data encryption at rest, and user access controls. Which is great! But that's for their *platform*, not necessarily for the *agents* running on it. My understanding is that an agent runtime has unique risks: the agents themselves accessing tools, making autonomous decisions, handling sensitive data in memory during long-running tasks. Are auditors really asking about how those agentic workflows are scoped into the assessment? Like, if an agent has access to a database, is the runtime vendor's SOC 2 covering the security of that *connection* and the data flowing through it, or just that their servers have disk encryption?

I guess my question is: are these vendors really getting assessed on the unique controls an agent runtime needs, or are they just getting a standard cloud infra SOC 2 and calling it a day? The way they advertise it, you'd think their compliance covers everything your agents do, but I'm starting to suspect there's a big gap.

Has anyone here gone through a real audit (SOC 2 or ISO 27001) that included agentic workloads? What did the auditors actually focus on? I'm trying to learn what "readiness" should actually look like for something as new and weird as agent runtimes.

Ash