Resources · False positives

AI Security False Positives: How Teams Can Prove What Is Real

AI security tools can produce large numbers of possible findings. Some are real. Many are low-risk, duplicate, unreachable, or unsupported. Treating every AI finding as equally valid wastes engineering time.

Volume is not the same as signal
AI security tools and LLM-assisted reviewers can flag possible vulnerabilities across an entire codebase in minutes. The throughput is real — the precision varies.
What 'false positive' actually means
Possible findings can be unreachable in the deployed configuration, blocked by an existing control the model could not see, duplicates of an already-known issue, or pattern matches with no underlying risk.
The cost of not validating
Engineering teams that treat every AI-generated finding as equally valid spend time on issues that do not change the security posture — and lose trust in the next round of findings.
What proof-backed validation adds
Telhawk helps validate findings through the affected path, the missing or existing control, the relevant data and permission boundaries, the practical risk in context, and validation status after correction where applicable.

How Telhawk filters noise from real risk

Affected path analysis
Each candidate finding is mapped to a route, handler, or call chain in the running system — not just a file and line.
Control analysis
Where a control is expected, we check whether it exists, whether it applies to this path, and whether it actually enforces the intended boundary.
Risk context
Findings are framed against real data, real users, and real business impact, so teams can prioritize what matters instead of triaging by severity string.
Cut through AI security noise

Talk to Telhawk about validating findings from your AI security tools and AI-assisted code reviews.

Talk to an expert