Artur Ślesik
Role: Founder of HackWatch.io and WEB-NET; Editorial Reviewer
Artur Ślesik is the founder of HackWatch.io and WEB-NET, a real named reviewer with 17+ years of experience building and maintaining web portals.
Open expert profileAbout the newsroom
About HackWatch
Updated April 15, 2026. This trust center explains how HackWatch reports, verifies incidents, handles corrections and separates editorial work from commercial activity.
HackWatch is an independent cybersecurity publication focused on phishing, fraud operations, data breaches, active exploitation and practical recovery guidance. We are built for readers who need a clear answer to two urgent questions: am I at risk, and what should I do right now?
Our story and real reviewers
HackWatch is operated as a practical cybersecurity watch center connected to WEB-NET Company, Jana III Sobieskiego 79, 05-120 Legionowo, Poland. The public editorial layer is intentionally limited to real named people we can verify today: Artur Ślesik, founder of HackWatch.io and WEB-NET, and Marcin Pocztowski, the infrastructure and security-audit practitioner behind MMPS.
Earlier generic editorial personas have been retired from public bylines. Until HackWatch onboards additional verified contributors, articles are reviewed under these real reviewer profiles and supported by transparent source links, correction channels and AI-assisted workflow disclosure.
Our Experts
HackWatch keeps the public expert roster intentionally narrow: only real people with visible accountability, defined review scope and public evidence are presented as editorial authority signals.
Marcin Pocztowski
Role: Infrastructure Security Editor at HackWatch.io
Quality role: Infrastructure Security Editor
Marcin Pocztowski is the owner of MMPS and an infrastructure security editor for HackWatch. His public technical record spans 20 years, from Security+ evidence dated January 2006 through Juniper, Cisco and RHCSA records, and he reviews server, network and vulnerability-response coverage for source accuracy and practical remediation.
Key certifications: Security+ evidence | RHCSA evidence | JNCIS-SEC evidence
Open expert profileWhat we cover
We prioritize actionable cyber incidents with real user impact: phishing campaigns, scam clusters, exposed data, exploited vulnerabilities, account compromise and response workflows.
What we avoid
We do not flood the site with thin rewrites, generic business announcements or lightly reworded product updates that add little security value for readers.
Who this is for
Our reporting is designed for security-aware consumers, small business operators, researchers, analysts and anyone who needs fast, practical incident triage without hype.
Editorial mission
HackWatch publishes fewer, stronger incident reports instead of mass-producing near-duplicate content. Each article is expected to answer five things clearly: what happened, who is affected, why it matters, what a reader should do immediately and what to monitor next.
We also invest in tool pages and recovery playbooks because real users often need a response path more than a headline. That means our editorial work is closely connected to practical workflows such as link verification, account recovery, breach response and identity-theft planning.
How stories are built
1. Source collection
We monitor security research outlets, vendor advisories, CERT and government notices, incident reports and corroborating public disclosures to identify emerging incident clusters.
2. Editorial validation
Alerts are reviewed for topical relevance, source quality, duplicate overlap, severity, response value and whether the incident deserves a full article instead of a brief mention.
3. Ongoing maintenance
When an incident evolves, we prefer updating a strong canonical article over publishing multiple weak variants about the same event.
Editorial standards
- Every alert should be backed by a visible source trail, publication timeline and named editor.
- Duplicate topics are merged into one maintained article whenever possible.
- We label sponsored or commercial content clearly and keep editorial decisions separate from advertising.
- We exclude weak vendor PR, investment fluff and product news without meaningful security impact.
- We favor articles that help users verify risk, contain exposure and recover access or trust quickly.
Source handling and verification
We aim to show readers why a report is trustworthy, not just what it says. For that reason, our incident coverage is designed to make source dates, corroborating records and recovery context visible. When a report is based on multiple disclosures, we consolidate them into one clearer story instead of splitting the same topic into several shallow posts.
If a submission or public record contains highly sensitive data, we review the public-interest value before quoting or linking it and prefer minimal disclosure when readers can still understand the incident safely.
Corrections and updates
Accuracy matters more than speed. If an incident changes, we update the existing article and note the change in the maintained page instead of publishing another lightly modified version. If a fact is incorrect, we correct it as soon as we can verify the change.
Correction requests should include the article URL, the disputed claim, the proposed correction and a source that supports the update. Send them to [email protected].
Advertising and commercial independence
HackWatch may publish advertising, sponsorships or commercial pages, but paid placement does not buy editorial coverage, change article conclusions or override our quality thresholds. Sponsored content and commercial inquiries are handled separately from the editorial workflow.
AI-assisted workflow disclosure
HackWatch may use automation and AI-assisted tools to monitor public sources, group related incidents, prepare drafts, summarize source material and improve editorial workflows. AI tools are not treated as sources, and human editorial review remains responsible for publication decisions, factual framing, corrections and final article quality.
Read the full AI disclosure in our editorial policy.
Trust and compliance
Trust and compliance references
HackWatch uses official public security frameworks and real certificate evidence where available; we avoid decorative or unverifiable security badges.
OWASP Top 10
Used as a reference for web-application risk, injection, access-control, authentication and secure implementation context.
Open official referenceMITRE ATT&CK
Used as a public knowledge base for adversary tactics, techniques, campaign behavior and threat-cluster language.
Open official referenceNIST Cybersecurity Framework
Used as a high-level reference for identify, protect, detect, respond and recover language in security guidance.
Open official referenceAuthors and accountability
Our articles are attributed to named editors and contributors. Author pages exist to help readers understand who is responsible for a report, what they cover and how HackWatch maintains editorial accountability across alerts, tools and recovery content. Browse the full directory on the authors page.
Editorial team
Artur Ślesik
Founder of HackWatch.io and WEB-NET; Editorial Reviewer
Artur Ślesik is the founder of HackWatch.io and WEB-NET, a real named reviewer with 17+ years of experience building and maintaining web portals.
Primary focus: Secure web portals, phishing prevention, user-facing recovery guides and practical web-security review
View author profile
Marcin Pocztowski
Infrastructure Security Editor at HackWatch.io
Marcin Pocztowski is the owner of MMPS and an infrastructure security editor for HackWatch. His public technical record spans 20 years, from Security+ evidence dated January 2006 through Juniper, Cisco and RHCSA records, and he reviews server, network and vulnerability-response coverage for source accuracy and practical remediation.
Primary focus: Server and network hardening, vulnerability response, patch prioritization and infrastructure security review
View author profileContact the newsroom
Editorial questions, incident tips and source material can be sent to [email protected]. For commercial, partnership or policy requests, use the dedicated contacts listed on the contact page.