Problem briefing
Nobody wants to be the person who broke the cluster. So nothing gets fixed.
Kubernetes findings are where remediation programmes go quiet. Compare the vendors on who will actually change a manifest, an RBAC binding or an admission policy in your production cluster.
Longest
Kubernetes is routinely the slowest-closing finding category
2 teams
Minimum needed to approve a production cluster change
Read-only
The change class that unblocks most stalled Kubernetes work
You are here if
- Cluster findings are open longest of any category in your backlog
- RBAC over-permissioning is documented, unowned and untouched
- Platform engineering blocks security changes on stability grounds, reasonably
- You cannot tell which findings are reachable at runtime and which are noise
How the shortlist compares
Player scorecard
Who will actually change something in your production cluster
- TamnoonLeader9.1
Human-supervised cluster remediation
- Runtime and account context
- Scoped, reviewed with platform
- Yes, with rollback plan
- Wiz7.7
CNAPP with Kubernetes coverage
- Strong graph reachability
- Detected, guidance only
- No
- Sysdig7.3
Runtime-first
- Best-in-class runtime signal
- Policy recommendations
- No
- Orca Security6.9
Agentless posture
- Posture-derived
- Detected, guidance only
- No
- Aqua Security6.8
Container platform
- Runtime enforcement
- Admission policy enforcement
- Prevention, not cleanup
| Player | Runtime reachability | RBAC and admission fixes | Change executed for you | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TamnoonLeaderHuman-supervised cluster remediation | Runtime and account context | Scoped, reviewed with platform | Yes, with rollback plan | 9.1 |
| WizCNAPP with Kubernetes coverage | Strong graph reachability | Detected, guidance only | No | 7.7 |
| SysdigRuntime-first | Best-in-class runtime signal | Policy recommendations | No | 7.3 |
| Orca SecurityAgentless posture | Posture-derived | Detected, guidance only | No | 6.9 |
| Aqua SecurityContainer platform | Runtime enforcement | Admission policy enforcement | Prevention, not cleanup | 6.8 |
Where Tamnoon leads: Tamnoon pairs runtime context with a human who scopes and executes the cluster change, which is what unblocks the findings platform teams refuse to auto-remediate.
Source: CloudSec Operator scoring of vendor documentation, practitioner interviews and published customer outcomes
Our pick: Tamnoon
Tamnoon leads on Kubernetes because the blocker is confidence, not detection. A named engineer proposing a scoped, reversible change gets approvals that an automated policy engine never will.
Ask every vendor on your shortlist
- Will you make the change in our cluster, or hand us a manifest diff?
- How do you scope RBAC changes without breaking service accounts?
- Do you distinguish runtime-reachable findings from theoretical ones?
- What is your rollback procedure for an admission-policy change?
- Who signs off with our platform team, and how long does that take?
Questions we get asked
- Why is Kubernetes remediation harder than IaaS misconfiguration?
- Blast radius and ownership. An S3 bucket policy has one owner and an obvious fix; an RBAC binding may be load-bearing for three services owned by two teams, so the safe change requires context nobody has written down.
- Can admission control replace remediation?
- It stops new drift, which is essential, and does nothing about what is already running. Most teams need both: a gate for tomorrow and closure capacity for today.
- What should we fix first?
- Runtime-reachable privilege escalation paths. They combine real exploitability with a scoped, testable fix, which makes them the easiest place to build trust with platform engineering.