Channel
@Cyber_Security_Channel
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Advertising · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
56,321subscribers
+27 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 31,623–100,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001121373769 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @Cyber_Security_Channel |
| Description | Be Cyber Aware. Subscribe. Our chat: t.me/cybersecuritynewschat Our vacancies channel: @CyberSecurityJobs LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/securitynews/ 📩 Collab: cybersecnewsinfo@gmail.com Paid Ads: @cybersecadmin |
| Created | Between 1 June 2017 and 30 June 2020— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 12 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 9 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 12 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/Cyber_Security_Channel |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 12 Aug 2026, 22:13 | 56,321 | +21 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 19:53 | 56,300 | -12 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 18:05 | 56,312 | -2 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 19:03 | 56,314 | -10 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 18:36 | 56,324 | +9 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 21:41 | 56,315 | +8 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 22:28 | 56,307 | +13 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 02:00 | 56,294 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 01:54 | 56,294 | first reading |
24 posts held, back to 2 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 18 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 14 of 17 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 24 (2 July 2026 – 12 August 2026) |
| Views total | 74,410 |
| Reactions total | 97 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 13 Aug 2026, 07:57 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 13 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. A count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints these counters in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈142,000 means somewhere between 141,500 and 142,499.
144 reactions across 20 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 47.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 68 | 47.2% | |
| 👍 | 42 | 29.2% | |
| 👎 | 13 | 9.03% | |
| 🔥 | 12 | 8.33% | |
| 👀 | 8 | 5.56% | |
| 😁 | 1 | 0.694% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 21 of the 24 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 144reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 24 most recent posts we hold, published 2 July 2026 to 12 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
An ad marker, not a judgement about a post. A post is counted here because it carries one of two explicit markings: an erid token, which Russian law has required on paid placements since 2022 and which is issued against a specific advertising contract, or a #реклама / #ad hashtag in the body, which is the channel declaring it itself. The first is documentary; the second is a self-declaration and is weaker. No classifier reads the text and decides — nothing on this site guesses that a post is an advertisement.
This is a floor, and it can only ever be a floor.A channel that runs paid placements without marking them produces no marker for us to count, and an unmarked ad is indistinguishable from an ordinary post on the public surface. The ad load above therefore means “the share of posts that declared themselves”, never “the share of posts that were paid for”. A low figure is not evidence of a channel that runs few ads.
Both figures are medians, and no ratio between them is published. Each is a view reading that actually occurred on a post, picked by percentile_disc rather than averaged, so one viral post cannot move it and no interpolated value is invented between two readings. The sample on one side is under five posts, which is too thin to compare. The two figures are shown side by side with the count behind each, and deliberately not divided into a headline like “ads get x% fewer views” — an arithmetic that is easy to print and, at this sample size, means nothing.
Measured over the 24 most recent posts we hold, published 2 July 2026 to 12 August 2026. Views are the latest single reading held for each post, and any reading at or above 1,000 is rounded by Telegram to three significant figures.
Ceva Logistics Breach Hits Banks, Retailers, and Steam Gamers Shipping giant Ceva Logistics confirmed a cyberattack that breached eight European warehouses and stole customer data. Exposed records include names, home addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses, rippling out to Dutch retailer Bol, De Bijenkorf, football club Ajax, banking giant ING, and Ace & Tate. Valve discovered the breach on August 7 and warn…
❤3
🎥 Smile, You’re on Camera! North Korean IT Workers Got Hired and Exposed Live Researchers created a fake company, hired suspected DPRK operatives linked to Lazarus Group, and watched their activity unfold inside controlled @anyrun_app Sandbox environments. Along the way, they uncovered: 🪪 Fake IDs and stolen identities 🖥️ Remote access tools and system reconnaissance 🤖 AI-assisted coding and document alteration …
❤6👍4
Framework Discloses Data Breach via Metabase Zero-Day Framework notified customers that a zero-day flaw in vendor Metabase let attackers into its cloud database, the company disclosed Thursday. The breach exposed names, emails, phone numbers, and addresses, though payment data was untouched. A spokesperson would not give an exact count, confirming only that "all customers" were hit among Framework's hundreds of th…
❤1👍1
The Assets You Don’t Know You Own: Attack Surface Sprawl Is a Discovery Problem, Not a Tooling Problem Attack surface expansion is frequently framed as a tooling gap, but the evidence points elsewhere — toward a persistent, structural failure in attack surface discovery, asset discovery, and visibility. Cyber_Security_Channel
👍3
Apple Challenges UK Government's iCloud Backdoor Demand Apple has filed a legal complaint against the UK government over a secret order demanding backdoor access to encrypted iCloud data. The company brought the case to the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which hears government surveillance disputes. The challenge targets a technical capability notice issued last year that would force Apple to grant access to …
👍8❤1🔥1
CareCloud Breach Exposes Medical Records of 345,000 Patients U.S. health tech giant CareCloud has confirmed that hackers stole patient data from one of its AWS-hosted health record stores. New regulatory filings show the intrusion, which ran from March 10 to 16, has affected at least 345,000 people across the U.S. so far. Stolen data includes names, Social Security numbers, passport and driver's license numbers, a…
❤3👀3
July 2026 in Cyber: AI Agents Went on Offense, Vuln Loads Broke Records Autonomous AI agents showed up on both sides — Hugging Face was breached by an external agent looping through a swarm of sandboxes, and AgentBaiting seeded 800+ fake AI skills and MCP servers pushing SmartLoader. Microsoft dropped 622 CVEs in one Patch Tuesday — triple June's record, plus zero-days in AD FS and SharePoint. WordPress «wp2shell»…
❤8🔥2
Microsoft Patch Tuesday: 622 CVEs, «the mother of all» Releases Microsoft disclosed 622 vulnerabilities in July — triple Junes previous record of 206 — including 63 critical and two exploited zero-days (CVE-2026-56155 in AD FS, CVE-2026-56164 in SharePoint Server). Breakdown: 416 in Windows, 82 in Office, 46 in Edge; Trend Micros Dustin Childs called it «the mother of all releases». Analysts credit AI-powered bug …
❤3👍2
🤝 Cyber Security News is looking for ADVERTISERS Our community is continuously growing and we are searching for exciting companies & products to share with our audience. Requirements to Qualify • Relevant to channels niche / industry • Long-term approach and collaboration mindset • $2,000+ monthly ad spend budget to invest in campaigns What We Offer • Exposure to 80,000+ community members • Personal success mana…
❤12
AgentBaiting: 800 Fake AI skills and MCP Servers Seed SmartLoader Malware Island researchers uncovered ~7,600 malicious repos from ~6,600 fake profiles, 800+ posing as AI skills or MCP servers. ZIP archives disguised as installers deliver SmartLoader, which injects StealC — pulling browser sessions, tokens, API creds, and screenshots. Around 200 campaign repos accounted for over 14 million downloads before takedow…
🔥4👍2
ClickLock macOS Malware Hostage-takes Users Until They Type Their Password Group-IB documented ClickLock, a macOS stealer delivered via a ClickFix «Cloudflare human verification» lure that runs a malicious Terminal command. It shows a fake password dialog with the victims real username; if refused, it kills Finder and Terminal every 210 ms for up to 83 hours until the password is entered. After that it grabs crede…
1Password Partners with Anthropic to Give Claude Access to Your Credentials 1Password and Anthropic unveiled a «zero-exposure» framework that lets Claude AI agents retrieve credentials from a 1Password vault without the assistant ever seeing the raw values. Authentication happens through a scoped broker; the model receives an authenticated session, not the secret itself. Expect similar patterns from other agent-fi…
👎12❤2
Showing the 12 most recent of 24 posts we hold for @Cyber_Security_Channel. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank — 173,154 of 1,169,250entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 3 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 2 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 12 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Cyber Security News” (@Cyber_Security_Channel), 56,321 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Cyber_Security_Channel.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.