FortiCNAPP raises the alert. Tamnoon returns an answer, with its evidence.

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.

FortiCNAPP automates hygiene on its own findings. Tamnoon works on what remains after that. It investigates each alert read-only in your live environment, groups things together to increase efficiency of each action instead of going a single alert 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.

A composite alert is a story, and Tamnoon reads it as evidence. When Potentially Compromised AWS Keys arrives with its supporting facts, the posture questions underneath it, the unused key, the permissive policy, the unrotated secret, are investigated read-only and answered one by one. The behavioral response stays with your SOC, where it belongs.

No. Tamnoon sits downstream of the FortiCNAPP you already run, reading alerts through the API with read access. Your policies, alert rules and channels stay exactly as they are. No scanner to replace, no contract to end.

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.