What we publish and why
We publish practical analysis on phishing, brand abuse, fake websites, domain risk and online fraud. It is written to be useful to a security, brand-protection or legal reader whether or not they ever engage us — so it favours accuracy and nuance over marketing.
How we research
We base factual claims on primary sources where we can: ICANN and registry policy, RDAP/WHOIS documentation, published standards and RFCs, platform abuse policies, and reputable security research. Where a topic is contested or evolving we say so, rather than presenting one view as settled. Threat tradecraft changes quickly; treat specifics as correct at the time of writing.
Honesty about limits
Detection is probabilistic and takedown depends on registrars, hosts and platforms nobody controls. We are explicit about false positives, about cases where a site will not come down, and about what a given technique cannot tell you. We would rather describe a limitation than oversell a capability.
No invented numbers
We do not publish statistics, success rates, client counts or credentials we cannot substantiate. Where we cite third-party research, we say whose it is. Where a figure comes from our own work with a client who cannot be named, we say that too — see the note on each case study.
Accuracy and corrections
If we publish something inaccurate, we fix it. Material corrections — anything that changes the meaning or the advice — are made promptly and noted on the article rather than quietly edited. Minor fixes are made without a note. Spotted an error? Email [email protected] with the URL and what you believe is wrong.
Use of AI
We may use AI tools to help draft, outline or edit. AI is never the final authority: a person is responsible for every published article, checks its facts, and stands behind it. We do not publish unreviewed machine-generated text.
Independence
Our analysis is not for sale. We do not publish sponsored content dressed as editorial. If a commercial relationship ever affected what we wrote about a specific vendor or product, we would disclose it on that article.
Related: Methodology · Trust & Evidence · Accessibility