Channel
@defendor_eng
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
2,503subscribers
+107 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1002579478263 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @defendor_eng |
| Created | Between 1 March 2025 and 31 July 2025 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 8 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 12 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 8 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/defendor_eng |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 8 Sept 2026, 07:55 | 2,503 | +28 |
| 3 Sept 2026, 08:58 | 2,475 | +7 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 09:03 | 2,468 | +17 |
| 27 Aug 2026, 22:45 | 2,451 | +10 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 19:54 | 2,441 | +2 |
| 21 Aug 2026, 12:17 | 2,439 | +21 |
| 18 Aug 2026, 14:52 | 2,418 | +2 |
| 15 Aug 2026, 19:22 | 2,416 | +10 |
| 12 Aug 2026, 18:15 | 2,406 | +8 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 03:20 | 2,398 | +1 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 00:33 | 2,397 | +1 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 17:18 | 2,396 | first reading |
24 posts held, back to 1 August 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 24 posts for this entry, the most recent from 7 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
50 reactions across 18 posts, in 13 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 36.0% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 18 | 36.0% | |
| 🔥 | 12 | 24.0% | |
| 🤣 | 3 | 6.00% | |
| 🤯 | 3 | 6.00% | |
| 👍 | 2 | 4.00% | |
| 😁 | 2 | 4.00% | |
| 🤡 | 2 | 4.00% | |
| 🤩 | 2 | 4.00% | |
| 🥱 | 2 | 4.00% | |
| ⚡ | 1 | 2.00% | |
| 🐳 | 1 | 2.00% | |
| 👻 | 1 | 2.00% | |
| 🥴 | 1 | 2.00% |
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 18 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 50 reactions 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 1 August 2026 to 7 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.
🏦 OpenZeppelin Launches Security Practice for Tokenized Funds OpenZeppelin is offering end-to-end security for asset managers tokenizing funds onchain. Its contracts already underpin all 10 of the top 10 tokenized money market funds. 🔗 Details
❤1
🔬 Certora Opening AutoProver Access to Security Researchers Certora is offering limited seats for security researchers to try AutoProver, its AI-powered formal verification system that generates specifications and helps prove code correctness, with a built-in AI Auditor for bug hunting. Researchers interested in early access can apply via the linked form. 🔗 Details
⚠️ Unistreet Loses $17.7K via Arbitrary Call Injection LaunchpadFactoryAuto forwarded attacker-supplied calldata into Uniswap V4 with no validation, letting the attacker grant itself approval over all LP position NFTs held by the factory. The attacker then burned 9 launch positions, sweeping ~$17.74K USDC and underlying tokens from the pool. 🔗 Details
📉 2026 Is Tracking 2022's Bear Market Security Collapse Through July, 2026 has seen 377 incidents vs 148 in 2022, a 2.5x jump in frequency, though dollar losses remain lower due to fewer catastrophic single events, a pattern researcher Peter Kacherginsky warned about in February. The concern: bear market pressure causes security budgets to shrink, audits to get cut, and experienced researchers to leave, while attac…
🤖 CertiK Launches $1B AI Auditor Challenge CertiK is challenging researchers to point its AI Auditor at pre-exploit contract code from real historical hacks, with a community target of $1B in historical losses claimed across verified catches. The challenge runs August 5-19, with $5,000 in prizes across top researchers and best public write-ups. 🔗 Details
❤1🔥1
🔗 Five Years Since the $611M Poly Network Hack In 2021, Poly Network lost $611M across Ethereum, BSC, and Polygon after an attacker exploited cross-chain relay contracts to forge privileged calls and replace the keeper public keys, no private key compromise required. In the strangest twist in DeFi history, the attacker returned everything. Five years later, bridges are still the biggest attack surface, with VerusCo…
🤯3
🗓️ Weekly Web3 Security Roundup: $88M Lost Two notable incidents combined for roughly $88M in losses across the Web3 ecosystem this week, July 27 - August 2. A full vulnerability breakdown and in-depth analysis of each case is available in the linked report. 🔗 Details
❤1
🤖 CertiK Finds Critical Vulnerabilities in Google's EdgeTPU AI Chip CertiK discovered two vulnerabilities in Google's EdgeTPU, CVE-2026-0150 (High) and CVE-2026-0153 (Critical), which could let attackers bypass security isolation and access data on the chip responsible for on-device AI inference. The findings underscore a broader shift: as AI agents connect to databases, payments, and identity systems, securing the…
❤4⚡1🔥1
🎮 Free Web3 Security CTF Platform Now Live Smart Contract Hacking has launched a gamified CTF platform where players read contracts, write exploits, earn EXP, and climb a leaderboard, with the first player to clear all launch challenges winning a free SCH seat. 🔗 Details
❤5🔥2😁1
🌪 Coldcard Attacker Begins Laundering Funds via Tornado Cash Two 200 ETH transactions linked to the ongoing Coldcard exploit have been detected moving to Tornado Cash, with funds first bridged from BTC to Ethereum via THORChain. 🔗 Details
🥱2❤1👍1
🔑 Nereus Finance NFT Marketplace Drained for $23.7K via Malicious Proxy Upgrade A compromised proxy admin key was used to swap the TransparentUpgradeableProxy implementation to a freshly deployed drainer contract, which swept the entire ETH balance to the attacker's hardcoded address. 12.74 ETH was drained in a single transaction on Ethereum. 🔗 Details
🤡2👍1🤣1
☠️ Shai-Hulud Supply Chain Worm Spreads to 434+ npm Packages via keyv Compromise An attacker compromised the GitHub account behind keyv (604M monthly downloads) and injected a credential-stealing worm that harvests npm tokens, GitHub tokens, AWS keys, Kubernetes secrets, and more before exfiltrating them to public GitHub repos encrypted with an attacker-held RSA key. The worm self-replicates by republishing infecte…
❤1🥴1
Showing the 12 most recent of 24 posts we hold for @defendor_eng. 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.
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 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 8 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Defendor — DeFi Security” (@defendor_eng), 2,503 subscribers as measured 8 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/defendor_eng.
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.