Masthead
Who publishes this
Security Artifacts is written and edited by one person. Here is who that is, where the material comes from, and what happens when something turns out to be wrong.
Editor
Maysoon Ammar founded Security Artifacts and writes and edits everything published under the masthead. You can find her on LinkedIn.
Where the material comes from
Three different kinds of thing get published here, and they are not equally strong. The site labels which is which, and it is worth knowing the difference.
The Threat Wire
Automated. Every six hours the ingester pulls from a fixed list of sources: the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue, the NIST National Vulnerability Database, CISA advisories, and trade reporting from BleepingComputer and The Hacker News. Nothing is written by hand and nothing is added from anywhere else. Each entry links to its source so you can read the original rather than taking the summary on faith.
Research and analysis
Written here. Some pieces are lab work, built and broken on purpose so the whole method can be published. Others are analysis of a public advisory, and those say so in a line at the foot of the article. That distinction matters: analysis of an advisory explains a documented mechanism, but it is not a report of an intrusion anyone observed, and detection guidance derived from a mechanism has not been tested against a real attacker.
No client data appears here, and no employer telemetry. That constraint is deliberate. It means an artifact can be published whole instead of redacted until it teaches nothing.
Community
Written by members, under their own bylines. Every submission is reviewed before it appears. Moderation checks for material the poster is not free to share and for identifiers that should not be public, not for whether the conclusion is one we agree with. See the community guidelines for what that means in practice.
Corrections
Everyone gets things wrong. What matters is what happens next.
If something here is factually wrong, tell us and it gets fixed. Substantive corrections are marked on the article rather than edited away quietly, because a reader who acted on the original version needs to know it changed. Typos and broken links are just fixed.
If you think a detection rule or a piece of analysis is wrong, that is worth writing up rather than emailing. Post it to Community and the disagreement becomes something other people can learn from.
Contact
Corrections, questions, and anything that needs a human: use the address on the About page. If you want to write for the site, the submissions desk explains what we are looking for.
Independence
Security Artifacts takes no advertising and runs no sponsored posts. It is funded by subscriptions, which means the only thing it has to be good at is being worth paying for. There are no trackers and no analytics on the site.
If a vendor is written about here, no money changed hands over it, in either direction. Where a conflict of interest exists it gets stated in the article.