{"id":206,"date":"2026-10-02T05:00:35","date_gmt":"2026-10-02T05:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/automated-domain-takedown-technology\/"},"modified":"2026-10-02T05:00:35","modified_gmt":"2026-10-02T05:00:35","slug":"automated-domain-takedown-technology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/automated-domain-takedown-technology\/","title":{"rendered":"Automated Domain Takedown: How the Technology Works"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p>Automated domain takedown technology detects malicious domains, validates threats, compiles evidence, and routes reports to registrars, registries, or hosting providers that perform the actual mitigation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>The seven-stage pipeline of detection, enrichment, scoring, evidence packaging, routing, verification, and appeals surrounds but does not replace the enforcement authority held by registrars and registries.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>ICANN\u2019s April 2024 contractual amendments created binding obligations for generic top-level domain (gTLD) registrars and registries to act on well-evidenced Domain Name System (DNS) abuse, shifting from voluntary best practices to enforceable requirements.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>False positives remain a critical risk. Defensible programs use documented evidence standards, independent human review, and a clear appeals path to reduce wrongful takedowns and legal exposure.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Cyble delivers native managed takedown with a reported high success rate and deep darknet marketplace visibility, integrating findings directly into customer workflows.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"solid-button\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/request-demo\/?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">See Cyble\u2019s takedown workflow in action<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>What Automated Domain Takedown Technology Actually Does<\/h2>\n<p>Automation handles the takedown pipeline in four stages: continuous detection and monitoring for lookalike domains, artificial intelligence (AI) based phishing-intent verification, automated evidence packaging and abuse-channel submission to registrars, hosts, and Google Safe Browsing, and post-takedown verification with resurgence monitoring. The registrar, registry, or hosting provider performs the mitigation action itself, including suspension, deletion, or content removal. Automated domain takedown technology does not delete a domain.<\/p>\n<figure style=\"text-align: center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co\/1790472623015-6c24104519ba.png\" alt=\"Cyble Vision has malicious domains detection, identifying suspicious domains, phishing, and malicious ads.\" style=\"max-height: 500px\" loading=\"lazy\"><figcaption><em>Cyble Vision has malicious domains detection, identifying suspicious domains, phishing, and malicious ads.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>That distinction matters commercially in two ways. First, it determines what a buyer can hold a vendor accountable for. A vendor controls the quality of evidence it packages and the speed at which it routes a domain takedown request. It does not control whether a registrar acts within a given window.<\/p>\n<p>Second, it explains why takedown timelines vary by content type and jurisdiction. A lookalike domain (a near-identical domain registered to impersonate a brand) hosted under a gTLD bound by ICANN&#8217;s April 2024 contractual amendments moves through a different enforcement path than a phishing site takedown targeting a domain registered under a country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) governed by national law. Typosquatting (registering a misspelled variant of a brand name to intercept traffic) adds a further layer. The registrar may need to assess whether the registration was malicious or merely opportunistic before acting.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"solid-button\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/request-demo\/?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">Explore automated takedown with Cyble<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>How To Do A Domain Takedown: The Pipeline, Step By Step<\/h2>\n<p>The pipeline below runs through seven phases, from first signal to confirmed removal: detection, enrichment, scoring, evidence packaging, routing, verification, and appeals.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>\n<p><strong>Detection.<\/strong> A suspicious domain is identified through certificate transparency logs, newly registered domain feeds, brand-keyword monitoring, or customer reports. Detection is the entry point, not the action. A domain flagged here has not yet been verified as malicious.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><strong>Enrichment.<\/strong> The system resolves who the domain targets, what it hosts, whether it is live, and which infrastructure it shares with other campaigns. Enrichment converts a raw signal into a finding with enough context to score and act on.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><strong>Scoring.<\/strong> The finding is assessed for whether it is genuinely malicious and material before any request is filed. Scoring at this stage prevents low-confidence signals from generating domain takedown requests that registrars will reject or that harm legitimate domains.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><strong>Evidence Packaging.<\/strong> Screenshots, WHOIS and registration data, hosting details, and timestamps are captured in a form the receiving party accepts. The mechanics of reporting abuse for takedown remain fragmented, with different registrars and hosting providers accepting reports through different channels with different evidence requirements and jurisdictions. Packaging to the recipient&#8217;s standard is operationally significant.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><strong>Routing.<\/strong> The domain takedown request is sent to the correct abuse contact: the registrar, the registry, the hosting provider, or a browser or platform blocklist, depending on the abuse type. Routing errors are a primary cause of delayed or rejected takedowns.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><strong>Verification.<\/strong> The system confirms the site is actually down, not merely moved, and checks whether the same actor has stood up a replacement domain. Verification closes the loop and triggers re-engagement if the threat resurfaces.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><strong>Appeals And Human Review.<\/strong> This phase applies when a takedown is contested or a legitimate domain is caught in error. It is the control that makes an automated process defensible.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"solid-button\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/request-demo\/?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">See this seven-stage pipeline in a live demo<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>The Rules That Govern A Domain Takedown Request<\/h2>\n<p>Automated domain takedown technology operates inside a contractual and policy framework. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/icann.org\/en\/blogs\/details\/looking-beyond-the-numbers-understanding-malicious-domain-registration-data-10-08-2026-en\">The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) defines DNS abuse across five categories: botnets, malware, pharming, phishing, and spam, but only when spam serves as a delivery mechanism for one of the other four harms.<\/a> This definition was codified in April 2024 through amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, creating binding contractual obligations for registrars and registries to act when presented with actionable evidence of DNS abuse. Before 2024, these obligations existed primarily as voluntary best practices.<\/p>\n<figure style=\"text-align: center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co\/1787238464090-fee17b46d9bf.jpeg\" alt=\"A threat actor&apos;s advertisement for an Android banking botnet posted on a cybercrime forum.\" style=\"max-height: 500px\" loading=\"lazy\"><figcaption><em>Threats are advertised before they&#8217;re deployed. Monitoring cybercrime forums surfaces new malware, botnets, and access-for-sale while defenders still have time to act.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Under the April 2024 amendments, registrars must maintain accessible abuse reporting mechanisms and, when presented with actionable evidence, promptly take the appropriate mitigation actions reasonably necessary to stop or disrupt the abuse. Registry operators carry parallel obligations. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/icann.org\/en\/blogs\/details\/two-years-of-enforcing-dns-abuse-mitigation-requirements-progress-next-steps-02-06-2026-en\">Between 5 April 2024 and 5 April 2026, ICANN Contractual Compliance launched nearly 530 investigations related to the DNS abuse mitigation requirements, resolved more than 480 of them, and directly contributed to mitigating over 25,000 abusive domains<\/a>. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/icann.org\/en\/blogs\/details\/two-years-of-enforcing-dns-abuse-mitigation-requirements-progress-next-steps-02-06-2026-en\">ICANN issued four DNS abuse-related Notices of Breach during that period<\/a> and has since developed a proactive enforcement framework targeting contracted parties with high concentrations of reported DNS abuse and extended mitigation times.<\/p>\n<p>Enforcement is only half the picture. How abuse is measured also changed. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/icann.org\/octo-ssr\/daar\">In September 2025, ICANN retired its Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) system and replaced it with<\/a> <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/icann.org\/en\/announcements\/details\/icann-domain-metrica-introduces-uptime-measurement-capabilities-03-09-2026-en\">ICANN Domain Metrica<\/a>, a platform that consolidates registration data with abuse-related data and introduces a Time to Mitigation (TTM) metric estimating the interval between a reported domain&#8217;s first and last successful DNS resolution. For anyone evaluating a takedown provider, this matters. The public measurement layer changed in September 2025, so claims about domain abuse trends should be date-stamped against the correct system. DAAR figures and Domain Metrica figures are not directly comparable.<\/p>\n<p>Contractual rules are not the only framework that shapes a takedown request. Reporting standards also matter, and the UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) offers one that applies across jurisdictions. The NCSC&#8217;s cyber incident reporting service uses a structured six-section format, covering report details, organization details, incident basics, incident impact, attack identifiers, and attack-specific questions, and is monitored around the clock. Standardized reporting reduces the friction that slows a domain takedown request. A well-structured report with timestamped evidence, clear categorization, and a documented chain of custody is more likely to be processed promptly than an unstructured submission. The NCSC framework does not set rules for registrars. It provides a reporting standard that improves the quality of evidence reaching the parties that do.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"solid-button\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/request-demo\/?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">Review your takedown process with Cyble experts<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>What Automation Does Not Do<\/h2>\n<p>The software does not seize, delete, or suspend a domain. The registrar, registry, or hosting provider performs those actions. That boundary is a structural feature of how domain name governance works. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/icann.org\/en\/blogs\/details\/two-years-of-enforcing-dns-abuse-mitigation-requirements-progress-next-steps-02-06-2026-en\">ICANN&#8217;s contractual framework gives registrars and registries the authority, and since April 2024, the obligation, to act on well-evidenced abuse reports.<\/a> No automation tool has that authority.<\/p>\n<p>When a registrar does not act, escalation paths exist. The domain takedown request can be escalated to the registry operator, to the relevant national computer emergency response team (CERT) or authority, or to a platform or browser blocklist as an interim measure. Which path is available depends on jurisdiction and abuse type. A phishing site takedown targeting a gTLD has a different escalation path than one targeting a ccTLD governed by national law, where ICANN&#8217;s contractual framework does not apply.<\/p>\n<p>This is the practical reason a domain takedown service is judged on routing and follow-through, as well as on detection. A vendor that detects accurately but routes incorrectly, or that files and does not verify, delivers an incomplete service.<\/p>\n<h2>False Positives, Appeals, And Why Over-Automation Is A Risk<\/h2>\n<p>False positives in automated domain takedown are a first-class operational and legal risk, and they are the topic most absent from published explanations of the technology.<\/p>\n<p>A legitimate domain can get caught in an automated takedown pipeline through discovery via search engines, large-scale URL collection, lightweight crawling, and internal seed lists of previously flagged domains; pattern matching on weak signals such as keywords (download, archive, old version, mirror), file extensions (zip, exe, dmg), release-tree directory structures, brand names, and version numbers; accumulation of these weak signals until a confidence threshold is crossed; and notices sent to risk-averse intermediaries such as hosting providers, content delivery networks (CDNs), registrars, ad networks, and search engines. Even a detection system running at 96% accuracy still incorrectly flags legitimate authorized uses, because a model matching a string or shape cannot read intent.<\/p>\n<p>An unverified takedown request can harm a third party materially. When a takedown lands on a legitimate domain, the site goes offline, email stops, application programming interfaces (APIs) fail, and subdomains become unreachable. Legal exposures from wrongful takedowns include tortious interference claims and misrepresentation liability under applicable law.<\/p>\n<p>Under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), a defensible appeals path has three components: a response to the complaint filed within 20 days of commencement (with an automatic four-day extension available), a documented evidence standard the respondent can obtain and respond to, and a stated response window, with the registrar waiting ten business days after a transfer or cancellation decision during which documented court proceedings in the mutual jurisdiction suspend implementation. PhishDestroy&#8217;s proposed Verified Abuse Response Framework (PD-WP-2026-01, published 2 August 2026) recommends that every restrictive action record a reason code, evidence tier, and responsible decision-maker, and that reversal propagate through the same signed channel as the original action. Human review is a control. A program that cannot reverse a wrongful takedown quickly is not a defensible program.<\/p>\n<h2>How To Evaluate A Domain Takedown Service<\/h2>\n<p>The questions below are the ones to ask during a proof of concept (POC). They are mechanism-level questions that separate a domain takedown service from a monitoring feed.<\/p>\n<p>Start with ownership: does the provider file the domain takedown request itself, or refer the request to a partner or the customer&#8217;s own team? Ownership only matters if coverage is broad enough, so ask which abuse channels and jurisdictions it covers, and whether that coverage extends to ccTLDs governed by national frameworks outside ICANN&#8217;s contractual reach. Finally, pin down the service level agreement (SLA) and which abuse types or jurisdictions fall outside it.<\/p>\n<p>Next, examine how a takedown is verified. Ask whether the provider confirms the site is down and checks for replacement infrastructure, or closes the case on filing. Then review the appeals process and who reviews a contested case. Confirm whether the reviewer is independent of the person who filed the original request.<\/p>\n<p>Reporting and integration complete the picture. Determine what reporting the buyer receives and whether it integrates with the security information and event management (SIEM), security orchestration, automation and response (SOAR), or ticketing systems the team already uses. Confirm whether findings and takedown status can be consumed via application programming interface (API) or through threat intelligence sharing standards.<\/p>\n<p>Answers to these questions, rather than a vendor&#8217;s detection volume, are what separate a domain takedown service from a monitoring feed.<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"solid-button\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/request-demo\/?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">Compare your current process with Cyble\u2019s approach<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>Where Cyble Fits<\/h2>\n<p>This section connects the evaluation criteria above to how Cyble delivers managed takedown in practice. Cyble&#8217;s <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/solutions\/brand-intelligence\/?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">native managed takedown<\/a> is part of the platform, not a referral to a partner. Automated workflows combine with global enforcement to remove phishing sites, lookalike domains, fake mobile applications, impersonation accounts, and leaked data at scale, across jurisdictions, delivered against SLAs.<\/p>\n<figure style=\"text-align: center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co\/1790472719745-28525252ee82.png\" alt=\"Cyble has natively-managed takedown, with SLAs and a reported 98% success rate closes the gap between knowing and acting.\" style=\"max-height: 500px\" loading=\"lazy\"><figcaption><em>Cyble has natively-managed takedown, with SLAs and a reported 98% success rate closes the gap between knowing and acting.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/products\/cyble-vision\/?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">Cyble Vision<\/a> monitors the surface, deep, and dark web for brand abuse, lookalike domains, and phishing infrastructure, resolves findings to the customer&#8217;s own entities, and attaches the takedown path to the finding rather than leaving it as an exercise for the reader. Cyble reports visibility into 15,000+ darknet marketplaces and a 95% signal-to-noise ratio (Cyble internal telemetry). The detection-to-removal motion is one workflow, not two vendors.<\/p>\n<figure style=\"text-align: center\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn.aigrowthmarketer.co\/1790472833026-2f44fb225a39.png\" alt=\"Cyble uses AI to monitor the deep and dark web at scale.\" style=\"max-height: 500px\" loading=\"lazy\"><figcaption><em>Cyble uses AI to monitor the deep and dark web at scale.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Findings reach the tools the team already uses through <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/cyble-integrations\/?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">70+ integrations<\/a> and REST APIs, with Malware Information Sharing Platform (MISP) support for intelligence sharing, so a takedown workflow does not become another console to check. Capabilities, coverage, and service levels vary by subscription tier and region.<\/p>\n<h2>Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n<h3>What is automated domain takedown technology?<\/h3>\n<p>Automated domain takedown technology is the software-driven pipeline that detects a malicious or impersonating domain, assembles evidence of abuse, routes that evidence to the party with authority to act, and tracks the outcome through to confirmed removal. The automation handles detection, enrichment, scoring, evidence packaging, routing, and verification. The registrar, registry, or hosting provider performs the actual mitigation, including suspension or deletion, rather than the software.<\/p>\n<h3>How long does a domain takedown take?<\/h3>\n<p>Timelines vary by content type, registrar, and jurisdiction. A phishing site hosted on a gTLD bound by ICANN&#8217;s April 2024 contractual amendments moves through a different enforcement path than one hosted under a ccTLD governed by national law. The abuse type also matters. A single-purpose malicious registration is a different case from a compromised legitimate domain, and registrars are expected to weigh collateral harm before acting. No fixed number of hours or days applies universally.<\/p>\n<h3>What happens if a takedown request is refused?<\/h3>\n<p>When a registrar does not act on a well-evidenced abuse report, escalation paths include the registry operator, the relevant national CERT or authority, and platform or browser blocklists as interim measures. Under ICANN&#8217;s contractual framework, a registrar that fails to meet its DNS abuse mitigation obligations can be subject to a Notice of Breach and further contractual remedies. Which escalation path is available depends on the jurisdiction and the top-level domain involved.<\/p>\n<h3>Can a legitimate domain be taken down by mistake?<\/h3>\n<p>Yes. <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noindex nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.icann.org\/en\/system\/files\/files\/detecting-malicious-domain-registration-batches-13feb26-en.pdf\">Several mechanisms can push a legitimate domain into a malicious score. Shared hosting can create collateral damage when a co-tenant is compromised. Parked or redirecting content can look like abuse. Lookalike detectors can flag names that merely resemble a brand. Keyword-based detection can misfire when common words appear in longer domain names. Reseller accounts are sometimes cited as a cause, but they mainly complicate attribution and enable bulk registration.<\/a> A defensible takedown program addresses this through pre-filing verification, a documented evidence standard, and an appeals path with an independent human reviewer. A program that cannot reverse a wrongful takedown promptly creates legal and reputational exposure for the organization filing the request.<\/p>\n<h2>Conclusion And Next Steps<\/h2>\n<p>Automated domain takedown technology handles detection, enrichment, scoring, evidence packaging, routing, and verification. The registrar, registry, or hosting provider performs the mitigation. That enforcement boundary, described earlier, is structural and shapes how security or fraud teams hold a provider accountable.<\/p>\n<p>The appeals path is the second structural point. A takedown program without a documented, independent appeals process is a liability. Human review is a control, not a failure mode.<\/p>\n<p>Practical next steps are clear. Map which abuse types, such as phishing sites, lookalike domains, fake applications, and impersonation accounts, matter most to the organization. Identify who owns the takedown workflow internally and whether that ownership is clear across security, fraud, and legal functions. Then ask providers the evaluation questions above during a POC, and verify that their answers extend to routing, verification, and appeals, as well as detection.<\/p>\n<p><em>Results depend on the customer&#8217;s environment, asset scope, and configuration. Cyble&#8217;s 98% takedown success rate, 15,000+ darknet marketplaces, and 95% signal-to-noise ratio are Cyble internal telemetry.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" class=\"solid-button\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/request-demo\/?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">See what Cyble finds in your environment<\/a><\/p>\n<h2>Read Next<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/best-dark-web-monitoring-tools?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">Best Dark Web Monitoring Tools for Businesses in 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/endpoint-threat-intelligence-integration?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">How To Integrate Threat Intelligence With Endpoint Security<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/dark-web-credential-monitoring?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">Dark Web Credential Monitoring: How It Works<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/benefits-dark-web-credential-monitoring?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">The Benefits of Dark Web Credential Monitoring: A Guide<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/best-ai-cybersecurity-tools-2026?utm_source=ai-growht-agent&amp;utm_term=automated-domain-takedown-technology\">Best AI Cybersecurity Tools for Enterprises in 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Learn how automated domain takedown technology works. Cyble helps you detect and remove malicious domains fast. Start protecting your brand today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":205,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/205"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cyble.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}