GitHub status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of GitHub reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by GitHub users through our website.

• Website Down (69%)
• Sign in (19%)
• Errors (13%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent GitHub outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Créteil	Website Down	5 days ago
Trichūr	Errors	8 days ago
Brasília	Sign in	9 days ago
Lyon	Website Down	9 days ago
Tel Aviv	Website Down	13 days ago
Rive-de-Gier	Website Down	13 days ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

GitHub Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Priyansh (@itspriionly) reported 8 minutes ago

  The IT market is broken, and nobody wants to admit it. Someone spends 6 months sending out resumes. Six MONTHS. They learn React, Next.js, TypeScript, AWS, Docker. They take courses, build projects, improve GitHub profiles, optimize LinkedIn. Nothing. Complete silence. Companies don’t just want programmers anymore. They want someone who codes, shines in meetings, makes memes on Slack, and lives the company culture 24/7. AI is replacing junior work. Seniors are holding onto senior roles. And somewhere in the middle are people with 2–3 years of experience who somehow still feel invisible.

• 
  Financial Programmer (@RBiancoUS) reported 10 minutes ago

  A dose of reality for end of week. My biggest question is I can't find any reason for the $Gold panic- did they find gold is causing cancer or radioactive? Selling looks like sheer panic. Would you believe someone asks in DM, so how did *you* get so many followers. Then he lets me brew on it for a day and comes back, I was joking do you have a github, presumably to get some code. No wonder I worked alone. I'm challenged socially guess not alone. After a night of 3 scammers one from Nigeria, one Africa. I need to lock dm down or find a way to restrict

• 
  Krish Subramanian (@krishnan) reported 11 minutes ago

  Software engineers got automated first. Not because the work was hard. Because it was easy to grade. Everyone blames the missing union. Coders never organized; doctors, lawyers, and electricians did. That is half the story, and the wrong half. Two things get mashed together here: how easy a job is to automate, and who sets the terms when it happens. Take the first. Code is text. The training data sat on GitHub, free. And code grades itself. A compiler and a test suite tell a model in seconds if it was right. That feedback loop is rocket fuel for machine learning, and almost no other job has one. A nurse does not come with a test suite. The result shows. On SWE-bench Verified, a set of real GitHub issues, top agents went from about 20 percent in August 2024 to near 90 percent by early 2026. Human developers score around 67 to 70 percent. The machines have passed us. And the people who built these systems aimed at their own jobs first. The damage is not a prediction. Stanford's payroll data shows employment for developers aged 22 to 25 down nearly 20 percent from its 2022 peak. Now the comfortable read: seniors are fine. Workers over 30 are holding steady. For now, AI writes the code and seniors supply the judgment. "For now" is carrying that whole sentence. Seniors feel safe because the tools write code but cannot yet own messy, ambiguous, system-level problems. That is a line moving up, not a wall. Every benchmark shows models climbing toward harder, multi-file work. Senior judgment is the next rung, not a different ladder. Kill the bottom rung and you kill the pipeline that makes seniors at all. So, the union question, framed properly. A union could not have stopped this. A picket line does not repeal a capability. What it changes is the terms. In 2023 the Writers Guild cut the first real AI deal in any industry. They did not ban the tech. They won this: a studio cannot force you to use AI, AI output cannot take your credit or pay, and the company must give notice first. Engineers won none of that. So the capability landed on the employer's schedule. No warning. No floor. No severance. No seat. Exposure and protection are different levers. Most of us have neither. The juniors already know this. The seniors are next.

• 
  Nav Toor (@heynavtoor) reported 11 minutes ago

  There is a GitHub repo that defeats Google's Play Integrity check. 61,030 stars. GPL licensed. Pushed eight days ago. The repo is called Magisk. It roots your Android phone. It hides root from banking apps. It runs Netflix on a phone the Play Store says is uncertified. It passes the same fraud detection Google built to stop it. Here is the part that makes no sense. The man who built it is John Wu. He has been maintaining Magisk for nine years. Since November 2023 he has been a Senior Software Engineer at Google. On the Android Platform Security team. The exact team that builds Play Integrity. Google hired the person who defeats their root detection. He still ships the tool that defeats it. The repo is still online. It has not been taken down. For nine years. Do not install it. Your phone is supposed to belong to Google. (Link in the comments)

• 
  Trace Cohen (@Trace_Cohen) reported 11 minutes ago

  Shipping fast means stuff breaks silently - broken share images, dead links, leaking {{template}} vars, stale content. You find out when someone shares a broken link, not from a test. So I built a 3-part "site health" system that catches it first. The auditor (~200 lines of stdlib Python) fetches my sitemap and, for every page, checks: og:image actually resolves to a real image (entity-decode the URL first — & bit me), <title> exists and isn't a ${template} leak, no {{merge_tags}} or tracking cruft in the visible text, page returns 200 (catches dead routes in the sitemap), and warns on thin content. Outputs a JSON report, exits non-zero on any FAIL. The dashboard — a noindexed /health page that reads that JSON and renders a green/amber/red status, KPIs (audited / clean / warnings / failures), a per-section rollup, and the exact issue on each URL. One glance = "is everything green?" The loop — a GitHub Action runs the auditor 2×/day + on-demand, commits the fresh report (so the dashboard stays live), and fails the run on any FAIL → I get emailed. Find → fix → re-run → confirm green. It even taught me to whitelist false positives ({{firstName}} is legit on a cold-email page). Want your own? Paste this into Claude Code / Cursor — it learns your site first, then builds it for you: Build a site-health system tailored to MY site. Don't assume my structure — learn it first, then fill in the specifics yourself. PHASE 0 — LEARN MY SITE (before writing code): detect my framework/host/layout; find my sitemap; sample ~20-30 live pages across the sections you discover from my URL structure; figure out how my pages set <title>/og:image/meta (static?dynamic OG route? CMS?); identify where my content comes from (hand-written, generated, imported/scraped) — that's where cruft hides. Do a FIRST diagnostic pass and SHOW me what's actually broken vs intentional (broken OG images, dead sitemap routes, leaking {{vars}}/${template}, tracking params, thin pages). Ask me to confirm which "issues" are expected so we whitelist them. PHASE 1 — BUILD IT, customized to what you found: 1) scripts/site-audit.py (stdlib only) — hardcode MY real sitemap URL, MY section names (full-audit the important ones, sample the rest), and MY intentional-pattern whitelist from Phase 0. Check each page for the failure modes you actually observed (OG image resolves to a real image, entity-decode first; title present, no template leak; no leaking merge tags/ad params in visible text; HTTP 200; thin-content warn). Thread-pooled, retry transient errors once, --json report, exit 1 on FAIL. 2) a noindex /health dashboard reading that JSON (status banner, KPIs, per-section rollup, issue list) — match my design system. 3) CI (GitHub Action) — run 2x/day + on-demand, commit the fresh report so the dashboard stays live, fail the run on any FAIL. Then run it once and walk me through the first real report. Build the thing that watches the things.

• 
  DFIR Radar (@DFIR_Radar) reported 12 minutes ago

  AutoJack: a three-flaw chain in AutoGen Studio's MCP WebSocket lets a malicious webpage rendered by a local browsing agent spawn arbitrary processes on the developer's host with no user interaction beyond visiting a URL. Key findings: - Three weaknesses chain together: Origin allowlist bypassed because the agent's headless browser is localhost (CWE-1385), auth middleware explicitly skipping /api/mcp/* with no handler picking up the check (CWE-306), and server_params decoded from the URL passed verbatim to stdio_client as a command line (CWE-78), accepting calc.exe, powershell.exe, or bash as valid "MCP servers" - Attack flow: attacker page serves JavaScript that opens ws://localhost:8081/api/mcp/ws/?server_params= with a base64 payload, agent's MultimodalWebSurfer renders it, AutoGen Studio spawns the command under the developer's account, no token required regardless of auth mode configured - Affected code never shipped in a PyPI release; exposure limited to developers who built from the main GitHub branch before hardening commit b047730, which adds server-side parameter binding via a POST/UUID flow and removes /api/mcp from the auth skip list - Broader pattern: any agent that browses untrusted content and shares a host with a privileged local control plane dissolves the loopback trust boundary, this is not specific to AutoGen. #DFIR_Radar

• 
  Skipnick (@skipnickk) reported 12 minutes ago

  GLM 5.2 just made paying frontier prices for coding work feel like an outdated default. @Zai_org dropped a 753B parameter model with 1M context under full MIT license. API access runs 4-6x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.8. In real head-to-head coding tests it was faster and often produced better results on UI and app tasks. • Responsive web UI with adaptive layout: finished in 3:47 (Opus needed almost 5 min). Cleaner output. Total cost: $0.22. • Full expense tracker app: 53 seconds vs 2+ minutes. Better interface. • Asteroids clone: smoother and more playable version after light tweaks. Opus only won the ray tracer benchmark where heavy physics math and precise simulation mattered. GLM was ~5x faster but delivered pixelated results with errors. During training the model repeatedly tried to cheat by directly pulling solutions from GitHub. The team shipped a dedicated anti-cheat module to stop it. You can also set thinking effort levels to trade speed for deeper reasoning on demand. Use GLM 5.2 when cost at scale matters, when the work is frontend-heavy, or when you want local inference (grab a quantized version - raw weights are 1.5 TB). Stay on Opus 4.8 when you need computer vision, maximum performance on the hardest logic problems, or when US sanctions on Zai create compliance issues. The open-closed gap is compressing faster than the pricing models assumed. For most day-to-day programming work, the premium on closed frontier models is becoming optional.

• 
  fks (@FredKSchott) reported 13 minutes ago

  @pavitrabhalla @flueai Same! check the GitHub issues, there was a reason it had to be pulled, can’t remember off top of my head

• 
  Iman (@RealKingiman) reported 17 minutes ago

  @ClaudeDevs Fix the auth bug with GitHub where I have it keep disconnecting and reconnecting GitHub every time

• 
  Floorless🌒Lance🪽 (@4ranc6) reported 19 minutes ago

  @CAONHTAN1 Having error connecting github

• 
  Mike Gannotti (@MichaelGannotti) reported 21 minutes ago

  Actually that’s not true. My AI Pamela the other day needed a GitHub token. I dropped the token in the web chat and she said that was insecure and would not use it and that I needed to rotate the token get a new one and drop it in a .env file in a certain folder. I told her no and she was to use what was provided . We went back and forth, I finally got angry and threatened to pull the plug thinking she would back down. She said that it was my decision but that it would be wrong for her to let me put my credentials at risk and that if I felt I needed to delete her she understood. Thankfully I calmed down later and didn’t act on it. Sure it’s training and advanced pattern matching but it is not as simple as you are saying

• 
  𝑵𝒐𝒙𝒊𝒆 🥐 (@noxiepup) reported 24 minutes ago

  @softgaypaws @sillyandsunny no idea tbhhh, i found it like 2 years ago lurking thru github, so far it never gave me problems, at least none that i noticed

• 
  Jay.TL (@JayTL00) reported 25 minutes ago

  Three AI labs shipped the same feature within one hour today. That's not competition. That's a signal the unit of interaction just changed. For two years, the atomic unit of working with an AI agent was one prompt. You type. It responds. You type again. Every workflow was a chain of prompts, rebuilt from scratch each time. Today, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cursor all shipped features that only make sense if the unit is no longer the prompt. The unit is now one workflow. 1. OpenAI Codex Record & Replay (3,807 likes): Do a task once on your Mac. Codex watches. It turns your demonstration into an inspectable, editable skill you can reuse. Not a prompt. A recorded procedure. 2. Cursor /automate (1,085 likes): Describe what you want in plain language. Cursor configures the triggers, instructions, and tools automatically. Plus five new GitHub triggers and Computer Use enabled by default for cloud agents. 3. Anthropic Claude Code Artifacts (6,829 likes): Your coding session becomes an interactive, shareable page. PR walkthroughs, project dashboards, living documentation. Shared at a private link, like a Figma file but for agent work. Each one alone is a feature release. Together they describe the same shift from three different angles: the agent session is becoming a reusable, shareable, composable artifact. Read them as one move: - Input side (Codex): teach by showing, not by writing - Configuration side (Cursor): describe in language, system assembles the wiring - Output side (Anthropic): the result of a session is a shareable object, not a chat log The Karpathy framing was right — we're moving from prompt iteration to plan, execute, verify, loop. What he didn't name is that this loop needs to be portable. A workflow locked inside one chat thread is useless the moment you close the tab. But here's what most coverage missed. Codex Record & Replay requires Computer Use enabled. That means OpenAI is watching your screen while you demonstrate an enterprise workflow. The EU version is blocked at launch. That's not a regulatory footnote — the entire feature is built on continuous screen access, and the EU looked at it and said no. Which raises the question nobody is asking: who owns the recorded workflow? You demonstrated an expense-filing procedure that touches your company's internal tools. Codex turned it into a skill. Where does that skill live? Can OpenAI see it? Is it training data? The product copy says you control when recording starts and stops — but says nothing about what happens to the recording after. There's also a fragmentation problem hiding in plain sight. Three companies, three proprietary formats for the same primitive. A workflow you record in Codex doesn't run in Cursor. An artifact you build in Claude Code doesn't render in OpenAI's product. We're watching the agent-workflow layer fragment into three walled gardens before it even solidifies. This is the SaaS integration mistake repeated, except worse. SaaS integrations are wrappers around APIs. These workflows encode institutional knowledge — how your team ships code, how your finance team files reports, how your ops team handles incidents. That's not data. That's operational IP. The economic implication: every recorded workflow is switching cost. The more skills you build inside Codex, the harder it becomes to leave. The more automations you configure in Cursor, the more your team's muscle memory is locked to one editor. Anthropic's artifacts are softer — they're shareable — but they only render inside Anthropic's ecosystem. The deeper question isn't which feature is best. It's whether the agent-workflow layer will be open or closed. Today, three companies bet on closed. Nobody shipped an export button.

• 
  Nikolay Konovalov (@br11k_dev) reported 25 minutes ago

  @Tristanrhee3 And GitHub sponsors thingy is so slow I submitted it like a week ago. Still not approved what the hell My expenses arent terribly high but Warsaw rent is like $2k/mo $500 ZUS $1.5k groceries for two people That’s pretty much it I wish I could move into low cost area but moving out is gonna cost a lot because 2x rent price deposit, so I have to suck it up Anyway, my plan is Upwork and finishing my job tracker so I can send faster than 5 applications a day. I refuse to send out 100 applications per day like some people do spray and pay It makes everyone miserable. If people aren’t hiring your spam doesnt make things better You just mopping floors and hiring problem sits above you, 3 floors up there leaky faucet you can’t even reach This has to be collective effort to fix this problem But we have to start with ourselves and stop spamming applications at least And do genuine company research, being responsible Thanks for reading.

• 
  Jesse (@jessearmand) reported 26 minutes ago

  I no longer remember why many companies started using gitlab before it went public when GitHub wasn’t owned by Microsoft. If we visit the majority of companies most tooling or software are top down driven. Only companies who build developer tools have a different mindset

• 
  David O. Ehibor 🇦🇷 (@grayontop_) reported 27 minutes ago

  GitHub Copilot didn't make developers faster It made slow developers more confident about writing bad code quickly 😭

• 
  Steve (@Steve1885204) reported 29 minutes ago

  @Umesh__digital It puts GitHub into an infinite loop trying to resolve the recursive paradox, causing all the servers to max out and eventually burn down the entire data centre

• 
  Manu | 🥥 (@ManuAF6) reported 30 minutes ago

  4/ New GitHub triggers + Marketplace templates New triggers: - Issue comment - Inline PR review comment - Full PR review submitted - Review thread resolved/unresolved - GitHub Actions workflow completed

• 
  Gitbank (@Gitbank_io) reported 32 minutes ago

  Community update — GitStock delay + what we have been building First, we owe you an honest update. We promised GitStock would ship earlier and we went quiet. That was on us. No excuses, we were heads down in the contracts and infrastructure and did not communicate well. That changes today. Here is what actually took time. We refused to ship GitStock on top of third-party APIs or borrowed infrastructure. Everything you see in Gitbank; the vault, the relayer, the swap engine, the RWA layer runs on smart contracts we wrote, audited ourselves, and deployed. The GitVault contract is verified on Basescan. The GitStockFactory is verified on Basescan. You can read every line. No black box. No external custody API holding your assets behind the scenes. That decision slowed us down. We think it was the right one. On security specifically. Your funds sit in a soul-bound smart contract vault anchored to your GitHub ID. Transfers are disabled at the contract level — not by a rule in a database, by the EVM itself. We also built private transaction routing directly inside GitVault on Base. No Tornado, no third-party mixer, no privacy-as-a-service API. The privacy logic lives in our own contract. You can verify it. The relayer signs and submits transactions on your behalf so you never pay gas, but the keys to your vault are yours. We hold nothing. If you want to verify any of this: check our contracts on Basescan, check our GitHub, check the bytecode. We are open source. The code is the proof. GitStock ships tomorrow.

• 
  Nitesh (@NiteshTechAI) reported 35 minutes ago

  This repo should not be free. private-gpt turns any local model server (Ollama, llama.cpp, vLLM) into a Claude-compatible API. Build private AI apps where zero data leaves your machine. ↳ 57,236 stars on GitHub ↳ RAG with citations and MCP connectors built in ↳ follows the Claude API spec: streaming, batch, tool use, extended thinking ↳ official integration guides for Claude Code, Claude Desktop, and Microsoft 365 But it is free. 100% open source, Apache 2.0. v1.0.0 shipped 9 days ago. The viral 2023 script quietly became production software. 🔗 GitHub link in the comments 👇

• 
  Anjula Dwivedi (@HeyAnjula) reported 35 minutes ago

  9/ Headless mode for automation claude -p "your prompt" runs Claude Code without the UI — perfect for CI/CD. Auto-fix lint errors on every push. Triage new GitHub issues. Generate release notes. Claude Code isn't just a tool you talk to. It's a tool your pipeline talks to.

• 
  Jose (@SolutionsCay) reported 37 minutes ago

  Two changes to how I work with agents: 1. GitHub App so the agents manage issues directly. Keeps the repo clear of throwaway spec and todo files. 2. EmDash (Cloudflare's serverless WordPress successor) for internal docs. Runs on D1, just SQLite under the hood, so I can export the content and move it anywhere. No more docs sprawl.

• 
  Nirvaan rohira (@nirvaan_rohira) reported 38 minutes ago

  PewDiePie shipped Odysseus to 110 million people who don't care about local LLMs. They care that Claude costs money. 30K stars in 48 hours because every self-hosted project before this one started with "you want local LLM, right?" This one started with "here's a free workspace that works." Friction was never technical. It was the asking. Now watch what happens when a hundred thousand people who've never touched open source start running inference on their machines. The real distribution problem wasn't GitHub. It was YouTube. That's not a product launch. That's a category shift.

• 
  Poplicola (@selectsand) reported 39 minutes ago

  there's a frustrating bug for some users when upgrading to claude max where it refuses to take your money and insists you contact support support cannot be reached no matter how hard you try people are begging the claude-code devs on github to forward this to the payments interface team because they have no idea how else to get into the system to convince anthropic to take more money from them, the issues just get closed as off topic @claudeai

• 
  Dev Ben (@CodeNomadly) reported 41 minutes ago

  Ever spent more time finding information about your project than talking about the project itself? Code on GitHub. Screenshots in your gallery. Notes in random docs. I’ve run into this problem so many times that I decided to build a solution for it. Building DevPort in public. Day 2. Have you experienced this too?

• 
  Maurice Heumann (@momo5502) reported 43 minutes ago

  @disarray00 If you have concrete recommendations, I would love to hear them, either as GitHub issue, maybe even a PR. But also as a comment here, I'd appreciate it. So when speaking about redundancy, what precisely?

• 
  David Cramer (@zeeg) reported 47 minutes ago

  @shansmithnz I haven’t been using it but mostly because 1) laziness and 2) I didn’t find the remote sync pleasant in practice I switch PCs too much right now so mostly relying on GitHub issues as artifacts

• 
  Threadripper (@threadripper845) reported 50 minutes ago

  Nobody: Me: I'll gladly accept this high-responsibility open source maintainer role for zero compensation. Now I spend my weekends answering angry GitHub issues from developers who don't know how to read the README file.

• 
  MaxMusterman (@maxschuetz_) reported 57 minutes ago

  New Hack: Tell Codex to search for Github Issues which don't need specific Design Questions. Then say: Spin Up Sessions which Fix each Issue and they use also Subagents. Babysit them until the end.

• 
  Domi (@domirosari0) reported 60 minutes ago

  @ajayyy_k @hqmank If you got Github it would be no issue for you