Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for OSINT ANATOMY

Channel

OSINT ANATOMY

@osint_anatomy

On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry

10,658subscribers

+311 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001445048471
TypeChannel
Username@osint_anatomy
CreatedBetween 1 April 2019 and 31 October 2021 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded7 August 2026
Last confirmed live9 September 2026
Measurements held28
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 9 September 2026
On Telegramt.me/osint_anatomy

Topic

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 11 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 98% 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.

Growth

10,34710,65810,502.57 August 2026 — 10,347 subscribers7 August 2026 — 10,349 subscribers8 August 2026 — 10,364 subscribers9 August 2026 — 10,378 subscribers10 August 2026 — 10,385 subscribers11 August 2026 — 10,384 subscribers12 August 2026 — 10,397 subscribers13 August 2026 — 10,408 subscribers15 August 2026 — 10,416 subscribers16 August 2026 — 10,440 subscribers17 August 2026 — 10,455 subscribers18 August 2026 — 10,472 subscribers20 August 2026 — 10,482 subscribers21 August 2026 — 10,493 subscribers22 August 2026 — 10,512 subscribers24 August 2026 — 10,520 subscribers25 August 2026 — 10,525 subscribers26 August 2026 — 10,532 subscribers27 August 2026 — 10,540 subscribers28 August 2026 — 10,545 subscribers29 August 2026 — 10,557 subscribers30 August 2026 — 10,571 subscribers31 August 2026 — 10,577 subscribers1 September 2026 — 10,587 subscribers2 September 2026 — 10,602 subscribers3 September 2026 — 10,627 subscribers5 September 2026 — 10,644 subscribers9 September 2026 — 10,658 subscribers7 August 20269 September 2026
28 measurements spanning 33 days, net +311. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 10,300–10,705 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 28
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
9 Sept 2026, 04:5610,658+14
5 Sept 2026, 17:4010,644+17
3 Sept 2026, 15:0110,627+25
2 Sept 2026, 07:1610,602+15
1 Sept 2026, 07:1310,587+10
31 Aug 2026, 06:0410,577+6
30 Aug 2026, 08:1610,571+14
29 Aug 2026, 05:3710,557+12
28 Aug 2026, 06:1310,545+5
27 Aug 2026, 06:4510,540+8
26 Aug 2026, 06:5510,532+7
25 Aug 2026, 05:1610,525+5
24 Aug 2026, 01:5410,520+8
22 Aug 2026, 11:2310,512+19
21 Aug 2026, 00:1710,493+11
20 Aug 2026, 00:4710,482+10
18 Aug 2026, 22:1710,472+17
17 Aug 2026, 19:2610,455+15
16 Aug 2026, 16:4510,440+24
15 Aug 2026, 03:2510,416first reading

Engagement

21 posts held, back to 22 June 2025the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 39 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 21 posts for this entry, the most recent from 11 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.

Reaction mix

227 reactions across 20 posts, in 10 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 49.8% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
11349.8%
🔥5423.8%
👍208.81%
177.49%
🤣135.73%
❤‍🔥62.64%
10.441%
🙏10.441%
🤔10.441%
🥰10.441%

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 21 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 227 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 21 most recent posts we hold, published 22 June 2025 to 11 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.

Recent posts

11 Aug 2026, 10:52 UTC≈3,310 views9 reactionsread 1 September 2026

Found an interesting service called TellData. It can help check whether the details someone gives you—name, phone number, address, etc.—actually match. Could be useful for a small shop or service business before giving an unfamiliar person keys, goods, or access to a property. The reports aren’t exactly cheap, but one bad surprise can be much more expensive 😅 Here’s how it works. Has anyone tried it or knows a better

53🤔1

5 Aug 2026, 13:06 UTC≈4,370 views16 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

Threads can unlock a "private" Instagram account Threads accounts are directly tied to Instagram. You can't create one without an Instagram account, and both share the same username. That connection is often the first breadcrumb, confirming that a Threads and Instagram profile belong to the same person, even if one of them has since changed usernames. The bigger gap is privacy settings. When Threads launched, many us

15🔥1

3 Jul 2026, 09:23 UTC≈8,510 views7 reactionsread 1 September 2026
File

Has anyone here tried ClearCheck? I've been using it recently for background checks and was curious what other people's experience has been. I don't see it mentioned very often. If you've used it, what did you think? Better or worse than Checkr or GoodHire? https://clearcheck.io/

6🥰1

6 Jun 2026, 20:23 UTC≈11,600 views17 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

🕵️ New tool for your OSINT workflow: Credential Breach Checker — cross-reference emails, phones, full names, and social IDs against breach/leak intelligence sources. Async polling, structured output, batch up to 25 values per run. Built by us, running on Apify. Try it free. → https://apify.com/clearcheck.io/credential-breach-checker

93👍3🔥2

17 May 2026, 17:24 UTC≈12,000 views10 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

There is a tool most Americans do not know exists. You enter a person's name, phone number, and SSN. You get back their real identity, criminal history, address records, and watchlist status. In about two minutes. They do not know you checked. No notification on their end. It is called ClearCheck. US-only. Built for people who hire, rent to, or go into business with someone and want to know the truth before they comm

🔥9👍1

15 Mar 2026, 13:58 UTC≈16,600 views12 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

Same name. Same city. Looks harmless. Until your system starts scoring the wrong person. Short breakdown here.

👍75

27 Feb 2026, 13:21 UTC≈17,600 views9 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

Don’t overwrite data in your KYC system. Store every value with proof (source + time + confidence). Why this matters 👇

5🔥31

20 Feb 2026, 10:52 UTC≈15,900 views10 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

Most teams don’t lack APIs. They lack an Enrichment Brain. This week: how to design one /enrich endpoint that returns profile + score + next action. Full discussion on Reddit

10

13 Feb 2026, 15:23 UTC≈15,200 views6 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

Phone numbers get recycled. In screening systems, that creates silent risk. If you escalate based only on phone enrichment, you may review the wrong person. Better design: • treat phone as volatile • require cross-identifier consistency • weight by freshness • use async lookup properly

🔥51

10 Feb 2026, 11:26 UTC≈11,500 views5 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

For background check / screening SaaS builders: Clear cases shouldn’t wait. A simple way to use enrichment without slowing conversion: • Intake: quick triage only (don’t go heavy) • Before the full check: choose depth (fast track vs escalate) • Adjudication: help analysts explain why a case is unclear Use tiers: Green / Yellow / Red instead of pass/fail — and log reasons for audit. 1. Quickstart 2. Tutorial Question:

4👍1

24 Jan 2026, 16:27 UTC≈12,300 views16 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

Most “OSINT automation” fails at the same step: turning one identifier into reliable context without flooding the report with noise. A simple architecture that scales: Input → Enrichment Job → Multiple lookups → Poll → Normalize → Cache → Report Key rule: treat enrichment as signals, not truth. Normalize outputs into a stable schema + keep an audit trail (request ids, timestamps, lookup type). Quickstart Tutorial

12🔥4

23 Dec 2025, 17:59 UTC≈14,300 views10 reactionsread 1 September 2026
Photo

🚨 New OSINT-ish tool drop: ClearCheck Automatic Background Checks (US) Type phone/name/email/SSN → get a PDF report in ~10 min with risk level (Low/Med/High) + recommendation. Pricing: $17–$19/report, plus a $60 tester pack (3 reports). Full breakdown + screenshots 👉

7🔥3

Showing the 12 most recent of 21 posts we hold for @osint_anatomy. 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.

Forward network

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.

Mentions

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.

Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels

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.

Cyber Detective
@cybdetective · 27,046
Telegram ranks this channel #5 of 49 here — alongside 48 others — read 11 September 2026
Cyber Threat Intelligence
@ctinow · 38,104
Telegram ranks this channel #29 of 42 here — alongside 41 others — read 31 August 2026
The Hacker News
@thehackernews · 162,343
Telegram ranks this channel #30 of 58 here — alongside 57 others — read 13 August 2026
Codelivly - Your Journey To Cybersecurity
@codelivly · 35,318
Telegram ranks this channel #32 of 41 here — alongside 40 others — read 8 September 2026

This channel appears in 4 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.

Cite this entry

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 9 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“OSINT ANATOMY” (@osint_anatomy), 10,658 subscribers as measured 9 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/osint_anatomy.

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.