Editorial policy

Last updated 21 September 2026. This is the standard we hold ourselves to. If we fall short of it, tell us at info@vestrova.online.

This site is funded by affiliate commissions. That is a real conflict of interest, and pretending otherwise would be the first dishonest thing on the page. What follows is how the conflict is managed, what the money is not allowed to buy, and what we refuse to do regardless of what it would earn.

1. Who writes here

Articles on vestrova.online are written and signed by Sandra Adams, who is the director of publication for Beatiful House s.r.o. and is responsible for everything published. Every article carries a named byline and a publication date. There are no house pseudonyms, no invented personas and no anonymous “editorial team” standing in for a person who does not exist.

Where an article is later revised, the revision is noted on the page rather than made silently.

2. How facts are established

The rules we apply, in order:

1. Primary sources first. A product’s feature list is taken from the manufacturer’s own current product page, not from a press release, an affiliate brief, a comparison site or another article. The date it was read is stated on the page.
2. Test results come from the testing laboratory. Detection and performance figures are taken from the published rounds of independent laboratories — AV-TEST and AV-Comparatives — and are cited with the product version and the month of the test, because a figure without a date is worthless.
3. Inference is labelled as inference. If a laboratory tested a different edition of a product from the one under discussion, we say so instead of quietly transferring the score.
4. Uncertainty is stated, not smoothed. Where we do not know something — local pricing, regional plan availability, how a term will be applied in practice — the article says we do not know and points you at who does.
5. No invented numbers, ever. If a statistic does not have a source we can name, it does not go in. This includes plausible-sounding round numbers, which are the easiest kind to fabricate and the hardest kind to notice.
6. The seller prevails. Every article says explicitly that where our description and the manufacturer’s own current information disagree, the manufacturer’s information is correct.

3. How this site is funded

vestrova.online carries no display advertising and asks for no subscription. Its income comes from affiliate commissions: when a reader follows a link marked partner link and later buys, the seller or its affiliate network pays Beatiful House s.r.o. a percentage. The reader pays the seller’s own price; nothing is added because the visit came from here.

Traffic to this site is also bought through advertising platforms. That is why a campaign parameter may appear in the address bar when you arrive.

4. Advertiser independence

Concretely, and without hedging:

• No advertiser, network or agency sees an article before it is published.
• No advertiser has the right to request a change, a deletion or a softening after publication. If an advertiser tells us a fact is wrong, we check it and correct it if they are right — that is fact-checking, and it applies equally to a reader who tells us the same thing. If an advertiser tells us a fair conclusion is unwelcome, nothing happens.
• Commission rates play no part in what we cover or what we conclude. We do not rank products by what they pay.
• We publish what a product does not include as prominently as what it does. The article on this site devotes an entire section to four features the advertised plan does not have, because that is the most useful information a buyer can be given.
• If we would not recommend something to a friend, we do not recommend it here, whatever it pays.

5. What we refuse to do

These are not aspirations. They are prohibitions, and an earlier version of this site broke several of them before it was rebuilt.

• No fake testimonials. We do not publish invented reader stories, made-up testimonials, fictional case studies or quotes attributed to people who do not exist. This site previously presented its article as a “reader-submitted story”. It was not one. That framing has been removed.
• No invented ratings. We publish no star ratings, no scores out of ten and no “editor’s choice” badges of our own devising. A number carries an authority it has not earned unless there is a published methodology behind it. Where we cite a score, it is a laboratory’s score, named and dated.
• No artificial urgency. No countdown timers, no “offer ends at midnight” unless the seller genuinely says so, no invented stock levels, no “only 3 licences left”, no fabricated viewer counts.
• No guaranteed outcomes. We do not claim that any product will keep you safe, prevent all infections, stop identity theft or protect you completely. No security product can promise that, and a publisher who repeats the promise is lying on the vendor’s behalf.
• No fear-mongering to sell. Risk is described at the size it actually is. We do not inflate it to make a purchase feel urgent.
• No hidden advertising. Every commercial link is labelled as a partner link at the point of the click, not only in a footer. A reader should never discover after the fact that what they read was monetised.
• No impersonation. We do not present ourselves as, or imply endorsement by, any brand we write about. We are not affiliated with Gen Digital Inc., Norton, LifeLock or any other rights holder named on this site.
• No scraped or borrowed media. The illustrations here are original SVG diagrams drawn for this site. We do not use product screenshots or stock photography on ad-funded pages.

6. Corrections

We would rather be corrected than be consistent.

1. Tell us. Email info@vestrova.online. Name the page and the sentence, and say what you believe is correct. Anyone may do this: readers, competitors, the manufacturer.
2. We check it against a primary source, normally within five working days.
3. We fix it. A factual error is corrected in the text, not left standing with a note beneath it.
4. We say what changed. A material correction — anything that could have changed a reader’s decision — is recorded on the page itself, in plain language, saying what the page used to claim and what it now says. The article on this site carries such a note about four feature claims it previously got wrong.
5. We do not delete quietly. Removing an embarrassing sentence and saying nothing is a way of misleading the readers who already acted on it.
6. We update the date. The last-reviewed date on a page reflects when the facts were last checked, not when the file was last touched.

7. Scope, and what we are not

This is a small independent publication commenting on consumer security software. It is not a testing laboratory: we do not run malware samples, and we never present laboratory findings as our own. It is not a shop: we sell nothing, take no payment and provide no product support. It is not professional security advice for an organisation. Where a question needs a specialist, the honest answer is to say so.

8. Complaints

If you believe something here breaches this policy, write to info@vestrova.online. It will be read by Sandra Adams, who is responsible for the content and cannot delegate the complaint to the person who caused it. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, the legal notice sets out the publisher’s full details and the relevant authorities.