Falcon flags it. Tamnoon leaves proven safe and closed, or refused.

Self-healing infrastructure restores desired state: a pod restarts, an instance is replaced, a group scales back up. It is availability automation and it exercises no judgment about safety. Tamnoon heals the security posture instead: it investigates the finding in context, decides whether a change is safe to make at all, refuses what it cannot prove, and leaves the receipt behind. Restarting a pod is not the same as knowing which bucket must stay public.

CrowdStrike automates hygiene on its own findings. Tamnoon works on what remains after that. It investigates each IOM read-only in your live environment, groups things together to increase efficiency of each action instead of going a single IOM at a time, closes what it can prove safe through your own change process, declines what it cannot with the evidence why, and answers for the outcome.

Yes. IOMs are posture findings, and posture is where Tamnoon works: each one investigated read-only and either closed, declined with evidence, or held for missing context. IOAs are behavioral detections. They stay with your SOC and the Falcon platform’s own response, and when an IOA and an IOM touch the same resource, the IOA is part of the evidence the verdict cites.

No. Tamnoon sits downstream of the Falcon Cloud Security you already run, reading detections through the Falcon API with read scopes. No scanner to replace, no contract to end, no second agent in production.

A tool that fires fixes blind is an autoimmune reaction: it attacks the body it is supposed to protect. Tamnoon starts from the opposite premise. Every fix is investigated read-only first, against live traffic, usage, dependencies and ownership. What it cannot prove safe it refuses, and the refusal ships with the evidence why. You were not wrong to pull the plug on a tool that could not tell you why a change was safe.