Understand the issue.
Not just the headline.
There are more vulnerabilities than hours in the day. We make a little room for the ones that matter.
Critical, by design
Each weekly edition covers newly published CVEs with a CVSS score of 9.0 or higher. We explain the concepts before the mechanics, and prefer clear diagrams to walls of text. This is a reading room, not an exhaustive security monitoring service.
Good work deserves a link
If a substantial technical write-up already exists, we link to it. We do not generate a competing article or attempt a reproduction for that CVE. The goal is understanding, not more content.
Depth is a publication requirement
A severity description is not an article. Original drafts must explain prerequisite concepts, trace the trust boundary through concrete source or protocol evidence, include multiple grounded code/request examples and captioned Mermaid diagrams, and state what the evidence cannot prove. The editorial desk blocks approval when that depth gate is not met. Each article also has a separately reviewed technical brief for readers who want only the root cause, exploit path, evidence status, and fix.
Evidence, not confidence
Original articles distinguish source analysis from local reproduction. A code diff is not proof of exploitation. “Reproduced locally” requires an observed, recorded result in an isolated lab. A patched-version comparison earns a separate fix-verification label. Screenshots, when present, must come from actual runs.
An assistant with boundaries
Pi can search, clone, inspect, and build freely inside a disposable 4 GB research container. It uses the provider and model selected by the local editor in Pi; this site has no hidden fallback model. The sandbox receives no credentials or host files and reaches public HTTPS only through a private-address-blocking proxy. Potential exploit execution remains in a separate networkless virtual machine.
Honest limits
Insufficient information gets a notice, not an invented explanation. A failed reproduction is not evidence that software is safe. Scores, configurations, and advisories can change; always consult upstream guidance. We do not routinely revisit CVEs in later editions, and late-arriving scores can mean an entry is missed.
A human has the final say
Research and drafts can be assisted by automation, but publication always requires editorial approval. Public reading is free and will remain free. An optional weekly email summary is on the backlog; email delivery is not available yet.