Channel
@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Cite this entry
630subscribers
+3 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001623739903 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT |
| Created | Between 1 December 2021 and 30 April 2023— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 13 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 13 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Aug 2026, 16:48 | 630 | +3 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 17:33 | 627 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 10:49 | 627 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 27 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.
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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 5 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (27 July 2026 – 5 August 2026) |
| Views total | 1,162 |
| Reactions total | — |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 6 Aug 2026, 17:33 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.
AI e cloud rendono il phishing invisibile a utenti e difese https://www.securityopenlab.it/news/6803/ai-e-cloud-rendono-il-phishing-invisibile-a-utenti-e-difese.html 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_FR 📡@cRyPHoN_INFOSEC_EN 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_DE 📡@BlackBox_Archiv.
AI Act, polizia e sorveglianza biometrica: il parere del Garante Privacy sull’implementazione italiana del Regolamento UE https://www.ictsecuritymagazine.com/notizie/ai-act-biometria/ 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_FR 📡@cRyPHoN_INFOSEC_EN 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_DE 📡@BlackBox_Archiv.
Acqua sotto attacco: come hacker legati all'Iran hanno tentato di contaminare le reti idriche di sette stati USA https://insicurezzadigitale.com/acqua-sotto-attacco-come-hacker-legati-alliran-hanno-tentato-di-contaminare-le-reti-idriche-di-sette-stati-usa/ 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_FR 📡@cRyPHoN_INFOSEC_EN 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_DE 📡@BlackBox_Archiv.
ISPM: irrobustire le identità dove l’attacco si allarga https://www.ictsecuritymagazine.com/articoli/ispm-identity-security-posture-management/ 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_FR 📡@cRyPHoN_INFOSEC_EN 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_DE 📡@BlackBox_Archiv.
Alle 2:20 del mattino di martedì 28 luglio, poche ore prima che le azioni di Unitel iniziassero a essere scambiate sulla borsa di Luanda nella più grande IPO della storia angolana, i sistemi core del principale operatore di telecomunicazioni del paese sono andati in tilt. https://insicurezzadigitale.com/un-attacco-informatico-spegne-21-milioni-di-angolani-alla-vigilia-della-piu-grande-ipo-del-paese-cosa-sappiamo-su-…
Manufacturing connesso: la sicurezza OT diventa priorità operativa Il 59% delle aziende manifatturiere ha subìto impatti finanziari da incidenti cyber. In quasi il 60% dei casi, ciascun evento ha comportato costi superiori a un milione di dollari. https://www.securityopenlab.it/news/6800/manufacturing-connesso-la-sicurezza-ot-diventa-priorita-operativa.html 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_FR 📡@cRyPHoN_INFO…
AI e cloud rendono il phishing invisibile a utenti e difese Testi nascosti generati con l'AI e servizi cloud legittimi permettono ai cyber criminali di superare i filtri e creare pagine di login indistinguibili da quelle reali. https://www.securityopenlab.it/news/6803/ai-e-cloud-rendono-il-phishing-invisibile-a-utenti-e-difese.html 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_FR 📡@cRyPHoN_INFOSEC_EN 📡@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_…
Il GDPR non chiede solo obbedienza: principi, rischio, responsabilizzazione Chi si occupava di protezione dei dati cercava nella normativa un elenco di cose da fare. Nella struttura dell’articolo 24 del Regolamento, il GDPR mostra che una normativa fondata su principi e rischio non è più debole, ma più esigente. Ecco perché il regolamento europeo non ha abolito il diritto… https://www.cybersecurity360.it/legal/il-gd…
Il jailbreak universale alla vigilia dell’AI Act: ecco l’impatto nella sicurezza aziendale Il prossimo 2 agosto si applicherà l'articolo 55 dell'AI Act, che impone ai fornitori di modelli general purpose, a rischio sistemico, obblighi stringenti di red teaming, gestione degli incidenti e resilienza. Tra rivendicazioni social, ricerca accademica e obblighi normativi: cosa cambia nella… https://www.cybersecurity360.it…
Il ruolo del CISO tra lo scetticismo del Board e la rivoluzione dell’IA Un'analisi approfondita sulle complesse dinamiche comunicative tra la figura del CISO e i consigli di amministrazione aziendali, esaminando l'impatto dirompente dell'intelligenza artificiale e la gestione strategica del debito tecnico del software L'articolo Il ruolo del CISO tra lo scetticismo del… https://www.cybersecurity360.it/cultura-cyber/…
Agenti AI che attaccano: la lezione dai casi Anthropic e OpenAI Anche Anthropic riporta un caso di un'agente AI che fa attacchi cyber non richiesti. Si aggiunge al pericoloso precedente OpenAI-Hugging Face, che è il primo esempio di attacchi AI autonomi senza (anzi contro) la volontà umana. Ecco che succede e cosa imparare L'articolo Agenti AI che attaccano: la… https://www.cybersecurity360.it/nuove-minacce/agenti-a…
AI Act, Garante: più tutele per i dati biometrici e garanzie nello schema di DL In ambito adeguamento della normativa italiana all’AI Act, il Garante Privacy scende in campo per disciplinare l’uso dei sistemi di intelligenza artificiale da parte delle Forze di polizia, stabilendo limiti, presupposti e garanzie per il trattamento dati biometrici e per l’uso di tecnologie di… https://www.cybersecurity360.it/news/ai-ac…
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT. 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 — 704,691 of 1,480,975entries 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 4 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.
@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all.A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
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 13 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“cRyPtHoN™ INFOSEC (IT)” (@cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT), 630 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/cRyPtHoN_INFOSEC_IT.
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.