Editorial Policy

Editorial Policy & Corrections

Security Advisor Hub is an independent evaluation publication. This policy explains how we research, how we write, how we handle disagreements, and how we correct mistakes — transparently.

Independent Evidence-led Correction-friendly

Our editorial principles

Our job is to help readers make decisions in moments where trust and risk matter. We do that by separating facts from interpretation and making trade-offs explicit.

Reader-first

We optimize for decision clarity — not clicks, hype, or vendor preferences.

Evidence-led

We ground claims in public documentation and verifiable sources wherever possible.

Consistent methodology

We apply the same rubric across providers so conclusions don’t contradict.

Transparent trade-offs

We explain strengths, limits, and “best for” scenarios — not blanket statements.

What we won’t do

We don’t publish pay-to-rank placements, “sponsored winners,” or vendor-written editorial copy. We also avoid definitive claims that can’t be supported by public evidence.

Independence & affiliate relationships

We may earn commissions through affiliate links — and that never determines scores, rankings, or inclusion.

Affiliate partnerships help fund research and updates. They do not buy influence. Our methodology is published so readers can see how evaluations work.

Learn more

How we research

We prioritize primary sources and documented facts. Where something is uncertain or changes frequently, we label it as such and avoid overconfident conclusions.

Typical inputs we use

Provider documentation: privacy policy, terms, feature docs, protocol support.
Verification signals: independent audits, transparency reports (when available).
Pricing terms: renewal rates, refunds, trial details, device limits (where disclosed).
Platform coverage: OS support, router support, app maturity and update cadence.
Secondary signals (cautious): large-scale public sentiment (app stores, Trustpilot), used as context — not a primary score driver.

What we avoid

We avoid repeating rumors, making definitive claims without support, or treating social proof as security proof. We also avoid implying intent (“fraud,” “scam,” etc.) unless there is clear, reputable evidence.

How we write: facts vs interpretation

Reviews combine two layers: what’s verifiable and what it means for a decision.

When we make recommendations, we signal the difference between documented facts (e.g., policy language, audit existence) and editorial interpretation (e.g., “best for switching” based on trade-offs and scenario weighting).

Example

Fact: A provider publishes an independent audit report (with scope and date).
Interpretation: That improves confidence for “privacy-first” buyers — depending on scope and freshness.

Updates & “Last reviewed”

Security tools change quickly. We maintain pages with an update cadence and visible freshness signals so you can judge recency.

When we update pages

Policy or terms changes (privacy, logging, refunds, renewals).
Major feature changes (protocols, kill switch behavior, platform support).
Meaningful pricing changes or plan restructuring.
Material incident disclosures or notable trust changes.
Scenario performance changes (e.g., access reliability) when verified by multiple signals.

Methodology versioning

If we change scoring criteria or scenario weighting, we update the methodology version and explain what changed.

Corrections, clarifications & disputes

We take accuracy seriously. If something is wrong, we want to fix it fast — and visibly.

How to request a correction

Send the page URL and the exact statement you believe is incorrect.
Include supporting source links (official documentation preferred).
Explain what the correct statement should be (and why).

What happens next

We review the evidence and update the page if warranted.
If we correct something material, we add a note indicating what changed.
If we disagree, we may clarify wording, add context, or explain our reasoning.

Contact: Use the contact form to request corrections:

Scope & limitations

We provide information to support decisions — not legal, financial, or individualized security advice.

Security depends on your threat model, device hygiene, configuration, and risk tolerance. We aim to be clear about what can be known publicly and what cannot.

In plain terms

Use our evaluations as a structured guide — then verify details that matter to you on the provider’s official site.

Want the full methodology?

See exactly how our rubric scoring and scenario weighting works — and how to interpret tags and rankings.

Methodology Tagging guide