Channel
@Group_IB
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cross-platform identity · Cite this entry
2,614subscribers
+239 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1001423283191 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @Group_IB |
| Created | Between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2021 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 24 October 2026 |
| Measurements held | 22 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 24 October 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/Group_IB |
Hacking & security — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 15 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 58% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 24 Oct 2026, 17:58 | 2,614 | +8 |
| 22 Oct 2026, 01:36 | 2,606 | +10 |
| 18 Oct 2026, 21:36 | 2,596 | +8 |
| 16 Oct 2026, 01:57 | 2,588 | +10 |
| 12 Oct 2026, 22:18 | 2,578 | +25 |
| 6 Oct 2026, 08:01 | 2,553 | +12 |
| 29 Sept 2026, 07:37 | 2,541 | +64 |
| 16 Sept 2026, 04:58 | 2,477 | +11 |
| 12 Sept 2026, 18:58 | 2,466 | +15 |
| 8 Sept 2026, 23:19 | 2,451 | +16 |
| 3 Sept 2026, 21:38 | 2,435 | +13 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 23:18 | 2,422 | +6 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 02:35 | 2,416 | +4 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 21:22 | 2,412 | +5 |
| 23 Aug 2026, 04:07 | 2,407 | +11 |
| 20 Aug 2026, 00:11 | 2,396 | +10 |
| 17 Aug 2026, 10:36 | 2,386 | +10 |
| 14 Aug 2026, 06:07 | 2,376 | +3 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 14:51 | 2,373 | -6 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 05:23 | 2,379 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 6 May 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 2 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 5 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Measured directly from 2 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
247 reactions across 20 posts, in 10 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 53.8% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔥 | 133 | 53.8% | |
| 👍 | 46 | 18.6% | |
| ❤ | 41 | 16.6% | |
| 👏 | 11 | 4.45% | |
| 🖕 | 11 | 4.45% | |
| 🏆 | 1 | 0.405% | |
| 👌 | 1 | 0.405% | |
| 👎 | 1 | 0.405% | |
| 🤩 | 1 | 0.405% | |
| 🤯 | 1 | 0.405% |
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 20 of the 20 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 247 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 6 May 2026 to 5 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.
🚨The most expensive fraud sits at the one stage nobody in the bank owns. Cyber sees the fake domain. Fraud sees the money leaving. The moment a customer is compromised falls into the gap between teams, where no telemetry tells the full story. Group-IB CEO Dmitry Volkov calls this positional, not technological: no transaction-layer tool removes it, only an observer placed earlier on the chain. Article one in his ne…
👍6🔥3❤2👏2
🎉 Group-IB's Threat Intelligence solution is now available in AWS Marketplace. Designed to provide adversary-centric intelligence, Group-IB's Threat Intelligence helps organizations identify and assess cyber threats at their earliest stages: from compromised credentials and dark web activity to emerging cybercrime groups, APT campaigns, fraud schemes, and large-scale attack indicators. Powered by Group-IB's global …
🔥9👍2
🚨Cryptomining campaigns continue to evolve beyond simple resource theft. In our latest research, Group-IB analysts uncovered a covert Linux-based XMRig operation that leveraged trusted third-party access to infiltrate victim environments before deploying a heavily modified cryptomining implant engineered for stealth, persistence, and defence evasion. Key Highlights: 🔹 Abuse of Linux PAM (pam_rootok) to impersonate …
🔥6❤2👍1
🚨 Fraud teams at banks and payment providers are under more pressure than ever. ATO, APP fraud, scams, and mule activity are accelerating, and regulators are watching. KuppingerCole has published its Buyer’s Compass for Fraud Reduction Intelligence Platforms (FRIP) – Finance 2026, an independent framework for evaluating FRIP solutions, mapping capabilities to use cases, and providing structured RFP guidance. Group-…
🔥6👍5❤1
🚨A single OPSEC mistake exposed an entire China-nexus operation. An exposed Alibaba Cloud staging server provided a rare view into an active threat operation. The infrastructure revealed attacker tooling, bash history, victim paths, and post-exploitation activity, leading to the discovery of a previously undocumented threat cluster we track as JadeProx. Key Highlights: 🔹Discovery of TriBack Loader, a previously und…
🔥8👍2
🚨 Group-IB Threat Intelligence researchers have uncovered HOLLOWGRAPH, a Windows malware linked with high confidence to the Cavern framework that abuses Microsoft Graph API and compromised Microsoft 365 accounts to establish a covert command-and-control channel. Key findings from our research: 🔹 Microsoft 365 calendars repurposed as two-way dead drops for command execution and data exfiltration 🔹 Commands and stolen…
🔥8❤2
🚨Group-IB researchers have uncovered ClickLock Stealer, a previously undocumented macOS malware that combines ClickFix social engineering, credential theft, crypto wallet harvesting, Keychain extraction, and persistent remote access into a single attack chain. Key findings: 🔹At least 100 victims identified across 33 countries, with more than 50% located in Europe 🔹Targets 8 browsers, 31 crypto wallet extensions, 7 p…
🔥9❤5👍4🏆1
Android malware continues to evolve, and RedHook is a prime example of how legitimate developer features can be repurposed for malicious gain. Our latest research analyzes the newest version of the RedHook Android RAT, which introduces a sophisticated privilege abuse chain by leveraging ADB Wireless Debugging to obtain shell-level access.. Key Highlights: 🔹 Autonomous abuse of ADB Wireless Debugging to gain shell-l…
🔥9
Scattered Spider has been linked to major cyberattacks in recent years, but our latest research suggests the threat is often misunderstood. Group-IB's investigation shows Scattered Spider is not a single threat group but a decentralized cybercrime collective of independent subclusters connected by shared TTPs. Key findings: 🔹 Scattered Spider is better understood as a network of autonomous subclusters rather than a…
🔥7❤3
🚨Smishing campaigns continue to evolve beyond convincing lures. Modern phishing operations are increasingly engineered to evade detection. In our latest technical analysis, Group-IB researchers dissect a campaign targeting drivers in Serbia through fake traffic fine SMS notifications. The investigation links the operation to two Phishing-as-a-Service ecosystems, Darcula and Phoenix, and reveals a phishing framework …
👏8👍1🔥1
Group-IB supported INTERPOL and the Algerian National Police in dismantling SniperDz, a phishing-as-a-service (PhaaS) platform that operated for nearly a decade and enabled cybercriminals to launch phishing campaigns at scale. Key findings: 🔹 20,000+ domains linked to the ecosystem 🔹 30+ global brands impersonated 🔹 80 phishing templates across five languages 🔹 45,000+ victim records reported by the platform in 2016…
❤7🔥7👍2🖕2
Our latest research examines SilabRAT, a Malware-as-a-Service platform sold on underground forums that combines credential theft, browser profile cloning, HVNC, Chrome App-Bound Encryption bypass techniques, and cryptocurrency-focused capabilities into a single offering. Key findings: 🔹 SilabRAT has been marketed on underground forums since late 2025 for $5,000/month 🔹 Leverages HVNC for invisible interaction with v…
🔥6👍5🖕2
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @Group_IB. 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.
Named by 1 registered channel — 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.
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 1 seed channel's Telegram-generated recommendation list in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
A Wikidata item names this Telegram handle as belonging to the entity it describes. This is Wikidata’s claim, not a verification made by this register — nobody here confirmed that the account is genuinely operated by the entity named. Wikidata content is CC0; every fact below is dated to when it was read from Wikidata, not to when the association was first made there.
| Label | Group-IB |
|---|---|
| Description | Global cybersecurity technology company |
| Official site | https://www.group-ib.com/ |
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 24 October 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Group-IB” (@Group_IB), 2,614 subscribers as measured 24 October 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Group_IB.
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.