Security readers are professionally suspicious, and they check. Articles that misstate an affected version range or associate the incorrect identifier to a vulnerability do not merely fail; they are quoted back to you with a screenshot in a posting.
Our security writers use vendor advisories and primary research, as well as the national vulnerability database. Citations for each source are provided. For ongoing incidence reports, the article will differentiate between confirmed incidences and unconfirmed media reports.
Readers respond to what I write. Someone takes your affected versions line, along with everything else, and mobilizes this information by copying it and scheduling their tickets for patching around this information, resulting in a unintended error propagation to their work. Clarity is important for multiple reasons. Security writing grows toward alarm, and a reader who feels sold to will start to distrust the technical content and the sales pitch.
Vulnerability identifiers follow a format, and a computer doesn’t care about human uniqueness. As such, it’s good at generating text that has both confident writing and good punctuation. This is a definite identifier linked to the wrong software and may create a nonexistent identifier and a made up date that the software was patched. These are the lines that readers like to copy.
The source of each of the three examples the writer uses to begin this work is a primary source. Secondary source coverage is used to find the story and is never used to substantiate the facts, because mistakes in this subject are quickly reported by multiple outlets. Everything that was unverified at the time of writing is dated and labeled.
Each identifier, version range, severity score and date is checked against the advisory then the draft records the timestamp of that check. We then request that you have your own security people review it prior to publishing it. We cover security matters… we do not evaluate your environment or provide assurance to your readers regarding what is safe in their environment.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical cybersecurity article | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short | 800 | $80 | $0.80 | $80.80 |
| Standard | 1,500 | $150 | $1.50 | $151.50 |
| In-depth | 2,500 | $250 | $2.50 | $252.50 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
We match the brief to a writer who has already worked in that subject area. If you have worked with an Articled writer before and want them again, name them and we will check their availability first.
Fill in the order form with your brief and email address. No account needed. You get a confirmation by email, then the finished piece as a document within 3 days.
Yes, straight factually as published in the advisory and without hyperbole, as stated by the vendor, we will not attribute speculatively or provide detail, and any comparisons have been fact checked to ensure an accurate description of a competitor’s product.
It may summarize the vendor’s published advice and your general advice. It should not be written in a way that contextualizes the advice to any particular environment. Your security team should review the wording since the readers will make decisions regarding the patching of their own systems/resources.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Most writers omit error response text, or post the status codes with no surrounding context. Ours explained what they thought the caller did wrong with a short response per status. Because of this explanation, our support queue for that endpoint has gone quiet.
We have never recorded our three architecture talks but we have now. One of the teams who take note of things and join in a session and then compile a summary of the two positions once we’ve made our decision. Saw that as a good opportunity to strengthen their practice so no longer have any new hires asking questions. Parent 1: rewr22567 Parent 2: autograder
The steps are detailed and match interface options precisely. I thought images were included, but they aren’t, and it even says that. It just wasn’t obvious where. It took a day to add them, which is still better than the vendor supplied documentation.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees