TELHAWKGet the free Beta

SOLUTIONS / AI SECURITY VALIDATION

Any model.
Check the code behind the claim.

AI can write the feature, identify a possible weakness, or propose a fix. Galen independently analyzes supported application code so your team can work from evidence about the path, the controls, and what the correction changes.

Available now: Galen Policy Beta and Managed Galen Security Audits. Self-service Galen Security is coming soon.

Explore Galen SecuritySee the approach

Deterministic analysis. Inspectable evidence. Your team’s decisions.

ILLUSTRATIVE BOUNDARYAn AI reviewer flags an invoice route
ACTORSigned-in customer
OPERATIONRead an invoice
PROTECTED RESOURCE

Another customer’s invoice

INTENDED BOUNDARY

The invoice must belong to the caller’s customer account.

The issue to investigate

The route loads an invoice by ID after checking only sign-in.

The supported path lacks the required ownership restriction on the selected invoice.

Conceptual example, not live Galen output. Recheck the actual implementation after a correction.

WHAT IS AT STAKE

Changing the model does not settle the security question.

A model can mistake a login check for an ownership restriction, miss a guard in another file, or propose a fix that does not govern the vulnerable operation. Another model agreeing with it does not establish that the application permits the claimed behavior.

The same problem appears in generated code. A feature may work while exposing a private field or granting broader access than intended. The useful question stays the same regardless of which model produced the code or the finding: what does this implementation actually allow?

AI-written code
Check the implementation rather than trusting its author.
AI-generated findings
Investigate the actual path and relevant control.
AI-proposed fixes
Re-evaluate the changed code against the original issue.

PUT GALEN TO WORK

Check the change.
Understand the wider risk.

GO DEEPER WITH AN AUDIT

Establish a finding from the application evidence.

Galen Security derives its own findings from deterministic code facts and checks the derivation behind emitted findings. A model-generated hypothesis can guide a scoped investigation, but the model’s explanation does not become proof merely because it sounds plausible.

The evidence can also change the answer. An earlier ownership guard may block a suspected exposure; a sign-in guard may leave it open. Review the affected path, what is established, and any remaining gaps. Then use the supported finding to prioritize the response, guide remediation, and recheck the correction.

For an agent-enabled application, follow the identity and permissions behind a tool call. A model’s instruction does not replace the backend access control. Scope the review around the handlers and APIs that expose information or perform privileged actions, then recheck the relevant boundary when the workflow changes.

Explore Galen Security

CHECK WHILE YOU BUILD

Check generated code while you build.

Galen Policy is a standalone command-line tool you or a coding agent runs in the repository. Its analysis is independent of the model that wrote the code. Use the returned evidence to focus a correction, then check the revised implementation.

For access behavior, review and approve the recovered baseline. Later checks can identify new permissions, removed guards, broader exposure, and ungoverned writes. The baseline keeps the application’s approved rules explicit when agents or developers change the implementation.

Explore Galen Policy

WHERE TO FOCUS

Three outputs. Three questions to establish.

Boundary or decisionWhat needs attentionEvidence to inspect
Generated featureDoes the working implementation preserve the intended boundary?The caller, operation, data exposure, and approved access behavior.
Suggested vulnerabilityCan the claimed unsafe behavior follow from this code?Reachable paths, value flows, relevant controls, and explicit gaps.
Proposed patchDoes the changed path address the original cause?The corrected implementation evaluated against the original finding.
Agent tool callDoes the backend enforce the authority of the intended user?The execution identity, callable operation, and relevant access controls.

A PRACTICAL STARTING POINT

From a model’s suggestion to a reviewable outcome.

  1. 01

    Define the question.

    Agree the code version, affected workflow, actor, and suspected boundary.

  2. 02

    Establish the evidence.

    Analyze the supported implementation and distinguish the finding from assumptions.

  3. 03

    Correct and check again.

    Use the evidence to guide the fix and preserve the outcome on the changed version.

BUILD WITH BETTER EVIDENCE

Keep the model. Strengthen the security decision.

Use Policy during development and Galen Security for deeper application review, with a managed audit when you want Telhawk to lead.

Discuss your applicationExplore Managed Security Audits