Channel
@WGPE0o0
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
755subscribers
+4 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1003700094100 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @WGPE0o0 |
| Created | Between 1 January 2026 and 30 June 2026— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 8 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 15 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 4 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 15 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/WGPE0o0 |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Aug 2026, 12:37 | 755 | +3 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 06:25 | 752 | +1 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 02:01 | 751 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 13:32 | 751 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 7 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 1 pageof 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 7 July 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
7 reactions across 3 posts, in 3 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 71.4% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔥 | 5 | 71.4% | |
| ❤ | 1 | 14.3% | |
| 👍 | 1 | 14.3% |
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 3 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 7reactions 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 7 July 2026 to 7 July 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.
🚀 Client-Side Path Traversal (CSPT) — How Deleting a Spam Post Deleted the Org Owner's Own Content 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: Client-Side Path Traversal (CSPT) 📝 Summary: An attacker exploited a pure Client-Side Path Traversal (CSPT) vulnerability on a collaboration platform to trick organization owners into deleting their own posts. By injecting a path traversal payload into the _id of a newly cre…
🔥3❤1👍1
🚀 I Wasted 3 Days Intercepting a Flutter App. Here’s What Actually Works. 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: Mobile Interception / SSL Pinning Bypass 📝 Summary: A deep dive into intercepting Flutter application traffic using Burp Suite. Standard SSL pinning bypass methods often fail on Flutter because it uses a statically compiled BoringSSL library instead of Android's system certificate store, and because…
🔥1
🚀 Disclosing YouTube Creator Emails for a $20k Bounty 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: Information Disclosure, API Parameter Leakage, IDOR/Broken Access Control 📝 Summary: A chained vulnerability allowing attackers to disclose the private email addresses of any monetized YouTube creator. By abusing an undocumented API parameter leakage vector using ProtoJson, the attacker discovered a hidden parameter th…
🔥1
🚀 Who's SHA is it Anyway: Bypassing Google Cloud Build Comment Control 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: TOCTOU, Poisoned Pipeline Execution, Race Condition 📝 Summary: A TOCTOU race condition in Google Cloud Build's GitHub integration allowed untrusted contributors to bypass the /gcbrun maintainer approval mechanism. By pushing a malicious commit immediately after a maintainer commented on a benign Pull R…
🚀 Old New Email Attacks 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: Email Spoofing, CRLF Injection, SMTP Injection 📝 Summary: An exploration of email protocol parsing vulnerabilities caused by discrepancies between RFC standards and real-world implementations in major programming libraries (Python, JS, C#) and email providers (Gmail, Outlook). These flaws enable severe attacks including SMTP Injection and convincin…
🚀 Prompt Injection Isn't a Vulnerability 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: Architectural Flaw, Data Exfiltration 📝 Summary: An analysis arguing that Prompt Injection should be viewed as a delivery mechanism rather than a root vulnerability. The true vulnerabilities lie in the architectural decisions that grant AI models the authority to perform unsafe actions, such as rendering untrusted markdown, sending…
🚀 Exploring IPv6 Zone Identifier 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: Input Validation Bypass, SSRF, Command Injection, CRLF 📝 Summary: An analysis of the security risks introduced by IPv6 Zone Identifiers (%zone_id). Inconsistent implementations across URL parsers in Python, Go, and C# allow attackers to inject arbitrary strings, leading to hostname validation bypasses, SSRF, and in some contexts, Command I…
🚀 Breaking Down Multipart Parsers: File Upload Validation Bypass 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: WAF Bypass, File Upload Bypass, Multipart Parser Exploitation 📝 Summary: An extensive analysis of how multipart/form-data parsers across various languages (PHP, Node.js, Flask) and Web Application Firewalls (HAProxy, FortiWeb, Barracuda, ModSecurity) deviate from RFC standards. These discrepancies allow atta…
🚀 Bypassing WAFs for Fun and JS Injection with Parameter Pollution 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: WAF Bypass, XSS (Cross-Site Scripting), HTTP Parameter Pollution 📝 Summary: A deep dive into bypassing strict Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) to exploit reflected XSS in an ASP.NET application. By combining HTTP Parameter Pollution with the Javascript comma operator, attackers were able to split payloads …
🚀 Cross-Site ETag Length Leak 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: XS-Leak (Cross-Site Leak), Information Disclosure 📝 Summary: A novel XS-Leak technique utilizing the length of the HTTP ETag header to detect cross-site search hits or misses. By manipulating the total response size via CSRF padding, an attacker can reliably control the ETag generation logic so its length differs based on the presence of a ta…
🔥 Impact: Enables the exploitation of otherwise unexploitable vulnerabilities, such as leaking OAuth codes for account takeover or bypassing client-side redirect protections to trigger XSS. #Bypasses #Redirect #OAuth #Exploitation
🚀 Stopping Redirects 🔗 Link: Read Full Writeup 🛡 Vulnerability: OAuth Exploitation, Redirect Bypasses 📝 Summary: A collection of advanced browser techniques to stop or pause client-side and server-side redirects. These techniques are crucial for exploiting niche scenarios like leaking OAuth codes during the 'dirty dance' attack or pausing fast-redirecting pages to exploit interaction-based XSS. 🕵️♂️ Recon Steps …
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @WGPE0o0. 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 — 644,700 of 1,478,351entries 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.
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.
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 15 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Writeup Golden Point Extractor” (@WGPE0o0), 755 subscribers as measured 15 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/WGPE0o0.
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.