Independence
Editorial decisions at Conisec are made by editorial staff. No advertiser, sponsor, affiliate partner or covered entity has any influence over what we cover, how we characterise an incident, or whether we publish a correction.
Conflicts of interest
Contributors disclose holdings in any asset, protocol or company they write about, and any commercial or advisory relationship with a covered entity or security vendor. Disclosures appear at the top of the article, not in a footnote.
Security vendors
Security-product coverage is labelled, and any commercial relationship is disclosed. We do not run vendor marketing as a security warning. A publication that manufactures fear to sell a product is doing the opposite of what this one is for.
Commercial content
Sponsored content is labelled SPONSORED, is visually distinct from editorial, and is excluded from our news sitemap. It never appears on an incident page or on a page carrying an active warning. See our affiliate disclosure.
Sources and confidentiality
We protect the identity of sources who request confidentiality. We do not publish personal information about individuals who are not public figures acting in a public capacity, and we do not republish leaked personal data from a breach.
Personal holdings and conflicts
Anyone writing here discloses holdings that could reasonably be affected by what they cover, and does not write about a position they hold in a way calculated to move it. Nobody trades on the basis of reporting before it publishes.
Where a conflict cannot be avoided — a contributor holds an asset central to an incident — the piece is reassigned rather than disclosed and published anyway. A disclosure line is not a substitute for not having the conflict.
Gifts, travel and access
We do not accept paid travel, accommodation, event hospitality, hardware, tokens, allowlist spots or airdrops from companies we cover. Review hardware, if ever accepted, is returned or paid for at market price.
Access is not currency. We do not agree to favourable framing, copy approval or embargo terms that constrain what we may conclude in exchange for an interview or an early look.
Sources and anonymity
Anonymity is granted where a named source would face a real risk, not as a convenience for a source who would prefer not to be quoted. Where we grant it, we say in the piece why it was granted and what we did to test the claim. An anonymous assertion that we cannot corroborate against a document or a second source does not carry a story on its own.
Tooling and accountability
Software assists with drafting, structuring and checking work here, as it does in most newsrooms now. It does not change where accountability sits: no claim publishes until a human has checked it against the primary source, and the byline on the page is answerable for it. Where a page carries the clearly-labelled newsroom byline rather than a person’s name, that is explained in our editorial guidelines — it signals a compiled factual record, not an absence of an editor.
What we will not publish
- A loss figure, CVE, date or regulator statement we cannot trace to a primary source.
- A recovery, revocation or “checker” URL we have not verified against the project’s own official channel — the single most reliable way to hurt a reader after an incident.
- Instructions to move funds, revoke a specific approval, or interact with a contract address. We describe what is observable; acting on it is the reader’s decision.
- Anything paid for. See our affiliate disclosure.