Where our technical claims come from, how to tell us when we get something wrong, and what happens when you do. Accuracy is a process, not a promise.
When a page on this site makes a claim about a security standard, protocol, regulation, or product capability, we prefer to source it from official standards bodies and primary vendor documentation rather than secondhand commentary. Our preferred sources include:
Where a claim cannot be supported by an official source, we aim to present it as engineering judgment or experience rather than as established fact.
If you believe anything on this site is inaccurate - a technical statement, a standards reference, a product comparison, or a competitor capability - email [email protected]. You do not need to be a customer. It helps if you include:
Reports from vendors whose products we discuss are welcome and treated the same way as any other report: we verify against documentation, then correct.
We are committed to correcting verified errors in a timely manner. When a report reaches us, we review it against the sources above and update the page promptly if the error is confirmed. We do not leave known errors standing because they are commercially convenient.
Publication and last-modified dates on our pages reflect substantive changes to the content - corrections, updated facts, or meaningfully revised guidance. We do not bump dates for cosmetic edits, and we do not re-date old content to make it appear new.
For how our content is produced, reviewed, and attributed in the first place, see our Editorial Policy.
Send us the page URL and the statement in question. We will verify it against official documentation and correct it promptly if confirmed.