Cyber-Threat.net is useful only if you can trust that what we write is what we think, and not what somebody paid us to think. This page sets out how we protect that. It builds on our editorial standards, which every piece is written to.
Where we stand today
Cyber-Threat.net is not owned by any security vendor, government body or industry association. We now carry advertising: affiliate links in some articles and in reviews of consumer kit. Advertisers pay for space, not for coverage, and the rules below apply to all of it.
Guides, resource pages and opinion pieces may use labelled affiliate links. So may reviews of consumer kit, under the rules in “Reviews and comparisons” below. Reviews of business and enterprise tools never carry them.
Nobody buys coverage
- We do not accept payment, in money or in kind, for coverage. That includes paying for a story, a review, a better score, a place in a comparison, a quote, or a link. Affiliate commission is different: a retailer or maker pays it only when a reader buys through a link we had already decided to include. It is explained below.
- No vendor, advertiser or sponsor sees a piece before publication, and none has any say over what we write, when we publish it or what it concludes.
- We do not agree to coverage as a condition of advertising, and we do not drop or soften coverage because someone advertises, or might.
- Withdrawing advertising will not get a story changed or removed. Neither will threatening to.
Advertising
Advertising is kept visibly separate from editorial content and labelled “Ad” in the placement itself. Promotions for our own work are labelled “From Cyber-Threat.net”.
Advertisers cannot choose which articles their adverts appear next to on the basis of what those articles say about them or their competitors.
Our reviews page may carry a single sponsor slot, labelled “Ad” and naming the sponsor. It is never placed inside a review or styled like one. A sponsor’s products are reviewed on the same terms as anyone else’s, and where we review a current sponsor’s product, the review says so.
Sponsored content
If we ever publish content paid for by a third party, it will:
- be labelled “Ad” at the top, before you reach any of the content, and name who paid for it;
- never appear under one of our editorial pen names; and
- never be presented as a review, comparison, news story or Hunt Lab item.
A sponsor will never be able to commission, edit or approve our editorial coverage of itself, its products or its competitors.
Affiliate links
Where we use affiliate links, meaning links that earn us a commission if you buy something, each one is marked “(Ad)”, and any article built around them is labelled “Ad” before you reach it. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Whether a product has an affiliate scheme plays no part in whether we cover it or what we say.
In reviews, affiliate links are allowed only for consumer kit, and only after the verdict has been written and signed off. Every product in such a review is linked in the same way. A product that pays us nothing gets a plain link to its maker, without the “(Ad)” mark. Each such review carries a note at the top saying it contains affiliate links and when the verdict was signed off. How we decide what counts as consumer kit is set out in How we review products.
Reviews and comparisons
Every review and comparison says what it is based on:
- Documentation: vendor documentation, advisories, release notes, public pricing and other published material, checked on a date we state.
- Hands-on testing: only where we say so, and with a description of what we tested, on what, and when.
We do not claim to have tested anything we have not tested. Vendors cannot buy a place in a comparison, a score or a verdict, and cannot buy their way out of one. Affiliate commission doesn’t change the order of a comparison, a score or a verdict. We don’t drop or add a product because of whether it pays us. Where we contact vendors to check facts, we may correct factual errors they point out, but our assessment is our own.
Review kit, gifts and travel
- Loans. If a vendor lends us hardware or a licence for review, we say so in the piece. Loaned hardware goes back when the review is done. Time-limited licences are allowed to lapse.
- Loaned kit. We do not keep kit lent for review. If a vendor declines to take an item back or fails to collect it, we donate it to charity with the vendor’s agreement or under the loan terms, and the review says so.
- Gifts. We do not accept gifts beyond the trivial, such as a conference lanyard or a coffee. Anything more is declined or returned.
- Travel and events. If a vendor or organiser pays for travel, accommodation or an event pass, the piece says so. Paying for travel buys no coverage and no approval of copy.
Conflicts of interest
We publish under house pen names, one for each regular beat. The rules apply to every one of them.
- Anyone writing for us must tell the editor about any interest that could reasonably be seen to affect their work. That includes employment, consultancy, a financial interest in a company, or a close personal connection.
- Where an interest is declared, the editor decides whether that person should write the piece at all. If they do, and the interest is relevant, the piece carries a short declaration, for example: “The writer has previously done paid work for a company mentioned in this article.”
- Our writers do not trade in shares of a company on the strength of information they have gathered for an article that has not yet been published.
Declarations describe the interest without identifying the person behind the pen name.
Telling us
If you think we have fallen short of any of this, use our contact page. If we got something wrong, it goes in our corrections log.