Esuba vs doing it in-house.
Your team can take down a farm. The question is whether it has the hours. One toolkit in Case 001 meant reports to nine providers and heads-ups to about 35 companies in 12 days, plus daily checks on everything still live.
What the work involves
- Watching GitHub, self-hosted git, Telegram, X, Reddit, Hacker News and forums every weekday
- Capturing evidence before it's deleted: repos, commits, DNS, RDAP, hosting records and web archives, checksummed
- Finding the right abuse channel for each platform, host, registrar and mail provider, and using their forms when email won't do
- Following up after seven days of silence, on every asset
- Tying successor accounts and mirrors back to the same operator
- Warning the other companies the same toolkit is hitting
At a glance
| In-house team | Esuba | |
|---|---|---|
| Finds the toolkit | When there's time | Every weekday |
| Evidence hosts act on | Sometimes | With every report |
| Takedowns tracked until gone | Ad hoc | Daily checks |
| Warns other targets | No | Every company the operator is hitting |
| Tracks the operator | No | Operator profiles |
| Cost | An engineer's or analyst's time | $2,000 a month |
When in-house makes sense
If you already run a trust and safety team with time for open-source investigation and abuse reporting, you may not need us. Most AI startups don't: the people who would do it are the ones building the product.
Working together
Esuba doesn't replace your team's decisions. We report, track and warn; your engineers decide what to change in the signup flow, using our recommendations.
Questions
Can we start in-house and hand it over later?
Yes. Send us what you've found so far and we'll pick it up from there.