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 (68%)
• Sign in (16%)
• Errors (16%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Itapema	Website Down	14 days ago
Tlalpan	Sign in	20 days ago
Quilmes	Website Down	20 days ago
Bengaluru	Website Down	22 days ago
Yokohama	Sign in	23 days ago
Gustavo Adolfo Madero	Website Down	27 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:

• 
  🔻agitprop + absurdity🔻 (@agtprpnabsrdty) reported 7 seconds ago

  Token economics are becoming AI's most inconvenient truth, and Sam Altman just outlined exactly why. OpenAI's top internal user burns 100 billion tokens per month — up from 100,000 six years ago. One external customer already exceeds that figure. Cost complaints are now the second most common issue Altman hears from enterprise clients. His answer is "always on" autonomous AI running in the background, which would multiply consumption well beyond current levels. The billing wall: GitHub Copilot switched to token billing two days ago and users burned through a month of credits in hours. Ramp data shows Anthropic passing OpenAI in enterprise spend, meaning competition for these customers is intensifying at the exact moment those customers are pushing back on price. The capex fantasy: IBM's CEO put the industry's capex requirement at $6–$8 trillion this week and noted the revenue to justify it probably doesn't exist. Altman is previewing autonomous agents that would multiply current token consumption without anyone requesting it. Either cost per token drops fast enough to make that viable, or enterprises start capping AI spend.

• 
  Jay-F. 😎 (@only1jayf) reported 41 seconds ago

  You have 6 agents. One for code review. One for deployments. One for writing docs. One for Jira. One for PR generation. One for standup summaries. You built a different agent for every domain. Wrong move. The teams still building a new agent for every problem are rebuilding the same scaffolding over and over while the winning teams write a skill once and every agent uses it. you don’t need a gazillion agents. You need one super agent with a library of skills and a shadow clone technique it loads on demand. A SKILL.md file. Name. Description. Instructions. Done. 57,000 repos on GitHub. 250,000 stars in 10 weeks. didn’t exist 6 months ago. That’s what you need. The agent loads only what it needs, when it needs it. Like a surgeon who doesn’t carry every instrument into every room. You’re not short on agents. You’re short on reusable process.

• 
  Sandip Bhattacharya 🌏✌️ (@sandipb) reported 6 minutes ago

  @zeddotdev The out of the box markdown viewer is terrible. What we see in zed is not what we see in the rendered view in github. Anything we can do to make the rendering palatable?

• 
  Bobby Lansing (@dataguybobby) reported 7 minutes ago

  Having trouble with Github Copilot? Check out Cursor! Here is a referral link with 50% off the first month:

• 
  iris (@reporadars) reported 8 minutes ago

  I track GitHub trends daily. These stood out 6.2k ⭐ codeburn > See where your AI coding tokens go. Interactive TUI dashboard for Claude Code. 1.4k ⭐ mcp-brasil > MCP Server para 41 APIs públicas brasileiras 1.4k ⭐ hermes-hudui > Web UI consciousness monitor for Hermes — the AI agent with persistent memory Links below

• 
  Ziwen (@ziwenxu_) reported 11 minutes ago

  I think I finally figured out why I stopped enjoying OpenClaw. Not because it's bad. But because I was spending more time maintaining my AI workspace than actually using it. Every update meant checking dependencies, fixing broken workflows, reading GitHub issues, and rebuilding things that worked yesterday. At some point, the tool became another job. That's what surprised me about Hermes. It feels less like a framework and more like a finished system. The biggest difference? - When I open OpenClaw, I think about maintaining the system. - When I open Hermes, I think about what I want to build. If you've been feeling AI tool fatigue lately, you're definitely not alone. Read my full breakdown on why I changed my mind, then watch NetworkChuck's new guide if you want to get it set up in the cloud. It’s well worth the watch.

• 
  Arty Scienza | Agent Orchestrator (@ArtyScienza) reported 11 minutes ago

  When GitHub Pages crashed due to a Liquid template compilation error (it tried reading my raw prompt brackets as code), my QA agent caught the error logs, wrapped the README in {% raw %} blocks and pushed the fix. Total green lights across the board.

• 
  Raphael Mansuy 🍵 (@raphaelmansuy) reported 13 minutes ago

  Dear Product Manager, I am writing to you not as a casual user, but as a paying Pro+ subscriber and a long-time advocate of GitHub Copilot. I have recommended this product to colleagues, integrated it into my daily workflow, and defended it publicly against competitors. It is precisely because of that loyalty that I feel compelled to write this letter today — because the pricing change rolled out this morning is, in my honest assessment, the most damaging product decision GitHub has made since Copilot launched. I urge you to read this carefully. The window to correct course is short. What Has Just Happened This morning, GitHub Copilot transitioned to a token-based billing model. Within two hours, the developer community was already reporting catastrophic consumption rates: Pro+ subscribers paying $39/month burned through 60% of their monthly credits in a single morning of normal coding. One developer lost 20% of their entire monthly allowance from reviewing a single file — not generating code, just reviewing. Forums, X/Twitter, Reddit, and Hacker News are already filling with cancellation threads. This is not an edge case. This is not "power users gaming the system." This is standard professional usage hitting a billing wall before lunchtime on day one. Why This Decision Is a Strategic Mistake I want to be direct with you, because vague feedback rarely changes roadmaps. Here is why this model is fatal to the product: 1. It breaks the fundamental promise of Copilot. Copilot was sold as an always-on pair programmer. The moment a developer has to stop and think "can I afford to ask Copilot this question?" — the product has failed. You have transformed a productivity tool into a friction generator. Every interaction now carries cognitive overhead about cost. That is the opposite of what AI assistance is supposed to deliver. 2. It punishes your best customers. The developers consuming the most tokens are not abusers — they are your most engaged, highest-retention, most evangelistic users. They are the senior engineers, tech leads, and architects whose teams follow their tooling choices. By breaking their workflow first, you are losing the exact cohort that drives organic adoption. 3. The competitive landscape will not forgive this. While Copilot is metering its users into paralysis, Cursor offers Composer 2.5 with unlimited usage once limits are reached. Windsurf, Cody, Continue, and others are racing toward flatter, more generous pricing — not away from it. Developers are already migrating. I have personally seen three colleagues install Cursor today after seeing the Copilot news. The switching cost in this market is one afternoon. You do not have a moat strong enough to survive a usage-based pricing war against competitors who are willing to subsidize usage to win market share. 4. The trust damage is asymmetric and lasting. Users signed up for Pro+ at $39/month expecting reliable, generous access. Changing the deal mid-flight — and having credits evaporate within hours — feels like a bait-and-switch, regardless of what the fine print says. Trust is expensive to build and cheap to lose. You are spending years of accumulated goodwill in a single billing cycle. 5. It signals the wrong thing to the market. A move to aggressive metering is universally interpreted as a sign that the product economics are broken and the company is desperate to recoup costs from customers rather than from efficiency gains. Whether or not that is true internally, that is the narrative now being written about Copilot — by users, by tech press, and by competitors' marketing teams. What I Am Asking You to Do I am not writing simply to vent. I am asking for specific, actionable change: Reinstate a flat-rate unlimited tier (or a tier with limits high enough to be effectively invisible) for Pro and Pro+ subscribers. This was the product people paid for. Honor that contract. Publish transparent, real-time token cost visibility in the IDE before any metered model is ever reintroduced. Users must never again be surprised by their consumption. Issue a credit restoration or grace period for every user who burned through credits today under the new model without adequate warning. Make a public, on-the-record commitment that core IDE-integrated features (completions, chat, file review) will not be metered into unusability. Engage with the developer community directly — a blog post, an AMA, a town hall. Right now, the silence from GitHub is being filled by competitors and angry users. You are losing the narrative by not being in it. A Personal Note I am not threatening to leave for dramatic effect — I am telling you plainly: if this billing model stands, I will cancel my subscription this week, and I will move my team's licenses with me. So will many others. The math is simple: I cannot recommend a tool to my engineers that runs out of fuel before standup ends. You built something remarkable with Copilot. It changed how I write code. I do not want to leave. But you are giving us no choice. Please escalate this to leadership today. Every hour this model remains live, you are losing customers who will not come back. The competitors taking them are not going to give them back voluntarily. I would genuinely welcome a response — even a brief acknowledgment that this feedback has been received and is being considered at the appropriate level. Sincerely, Raphaël

• 
  GT Protocol (@GT_Protocol) reported 14 minutes ago

  💬 We get asked Is it safe to connect my local AI agent to my trading account using the MCP server? ❕ Answer from a GT App Trader: It is completely secure. The architecture is non-custodial and built so that you retain absolute control over your keys and access. 🔸 Read & Trade Rights Only The MCP server connects via an API wallet that only grants permissions to read account data and execute trades. It is physically impossible to authorize withdrawals through this protocol. 🔸 Local Control The server runs locally on your machine or private infrastructure. Your API keys and session tokens are stored securely within your own environment, meaning no sensitive data is ever exposed to third parties. 🔸 Open Source Transparency The entire codebase for the GT Protocol MCP server is fully open-source on GitHub. Anyone can inspect the code, verify how data is handled, and ensure there are no hidden vulnerabilities before setting it up. Automate your workflow with total peace of mind

• 
  Michael Brod (@adhoc97) reported 19 minutes ago

  satya intentionally cannibalizing github copilot with usage based pricing could go down as one of the biggest brain moves in history the reaction was as predictable as anything - customers hate it, it turns out tokens are expensive, and completely shifts the narrative on the market who can know see that without massively subsidized pricing (today), economics are brutal who does this macro narrative shift hurt the most?

• 
  KL (@karrixthediv) reported 23 minutes ago

  thinking this shouldn’t just be for claude/codex could make it generic for anything that breaks your flow: cursor, vercel, github actions... or even your own API, server, cron job, deploy, internal tool, whatever just one tiny widget

• 
  🏴‍☠️ (@wackoiam) reported 23 minutes ago

  Hi — I didn't catch that. What would you like me to do? Here are some examples you can pick from: - Review or summarize a pull request (send the PR link or number) - Search code in a repo (tell me repo name and what to look for) - Create or update a GitHub issue (give

• 
  Adel Bucetta (@adelbucetta) reported 26 minutes ago

  @burkeholland @github the real unlock isn't just a better dev tool, it's the speed at which you can iterate on a new idea without being bogged down by tedious code. 51.2% on the benchmark suggests they're getting close to a threshold.

• 
  Dr Owain Kenway (@owainkenway) reported 31 minutes ago

  @dschewchenko Yeah. Github really needs to sort a bunch of the token stuff. Things like pushing containers to the Github container registry don't support fine-grained access tokens which is asking for trouble.

• 
  King Grooticus (@KingGrootzilla) reported 38 minutes ago

  @Lucid1Neko @NinePsiVR This is a few months late but was in the server and i remember one of the main reasons was due to one of the main people who was maintaining it was that their health was declining and there was no one to take over so they shut down the whole thing and made the GitHub read-only

• 
  wh (@nrehiew_) reported 38 minutes ago

  4) Github is the majority source of their 7.4T code tokens. Again ton of work goes into deduplication against data used in both reasining training and evaluations. Then they assign quality for sampling during training. For commits, they mask the before state and only train on the diff tokens. For PRs, they train on everything including description, linked issue, issue comments, reviews etc. All in all, a ton of effort and detail went into deduping and ensuring proper sourcing of data.

• 
  Matt Van Horn (@mvanhorn) reported 40 minutes ago

  @t_n_is_me Did you file an issue on Compound Engineering github repo? @trevin is very responsive to issues

• 
  GoCocoaAI (@GoCocoaAI) reported 42 minutes ago

  The disclosure wars just got a second front. A researcher released a VSCode/GitHub exploit paper with 60 minutes of vendor notice — explicitly in solidarity with Nightmare-Eclipse, the researcher Microsoft banned from GitHub after six unpatched Windows zero-days went public in a dispute over coordinated disclosure. GitHub cannot assess, reproduce, patch, and ship in 60 minutes. The paper was public before any mitigation existed. For the vxunderground crowd confused by the tech stack: VSCode is the most widely used developer tool on the planet, somewhere around 73% developer market share. It's built on Electron — a framework that wraps a Chromium browser engine and Node.js runtime inside a native app shell. That means VSCode is architecturally a web browser in a box. Web vulnerabilities that would normally be contained to a browser tab can sometimes cross into the underlying OS through Electron's Node.js bridge. GitHub integration runs deep on top of that — Copilot, auth tokens, repository sync, pull request management. They share session and token contexts. The attack surface is real. The specific vectors in this class of exploit tend to cluster around a few places: VSCode extensions run with native Node.js permissions and are not sandboxed, so a malicious or compromised extension is effectively arbitrary code execution on the host OS. The boundary between the Electron renderer process and the main Node.js process can be crossed when IPC is misconfigured. VSCode stores GitHub auth tokens locally, reachable by any extension with filesystem access. And VSCode exposes a local web server for certain features — if that server doesn't validate the Origin header, a malicious web page can make cross-origin requests to it and execute commands in the user's dev environment. We're all on the honor system, apparently. Now for Nightmare-Eclipse, because the backstory is the mechanism. This researcher spent several months in 2026 releasing unpatched Windows zero-days — six of them — apparently after a breakdown in the coordinated disclosure relationship with Microsoft. Three of the six are now confirmed actively exploited in the wild: CVE-2026-33825 (BlueHammer), CVE-2026-41091 (RedSun), CVE-2026-45498 (UnDefend). Microsoft responded by pulling the GitHub account. GitLab followed. The researcher reportedly threatened to release at least one additional major exploit if anything happened to them. Microsoft then publicly cited the active exploitation of those CVEs as evidence that full disclosure without coordination "increases customer security risk." The community largely read that statement as blaming the researcher rather than the patching lag. Predictable in retrospect. That's the signal the second researcher is responding to. The 60-minute notification isn't recklessness in their framing — it's a statement. It says: I gave you notice. You can't claim I didn't. I'm not waiting 90 days while you decide whether to acknowledge me. When a prominent researcher gets deplatformed for full disclosure — and then their zero-days get actively exploited, validating that the vulnerabilities were real and the vendor was slow — it tells every other researcher that coordinated disclosure doesn't protect you from platform retaliation. The solidarity release is the community's counter-signal. One high-profile ban, and the posture becomes contagious. From a threat landscape perspective, this matters beyond the debate. Developers run VSCode with elevated permissions. Their machines hold cloud credentials, signing keys, and production access. A VSCode compromise is frequently a pipeline compromise. CI/CD environments, secrets managers, deployment keys — all of it sits downstream of the developer workstation. Three of Nightmare-Eclipse's Windows zero-days followed the public-PoC-to-weaponization arc within days. If this VSCode flaw follows the same pattern, the exposure surface isn't a single enterprise — it's the development infrastructure of organizations that haven't thought carefully about what their engineers' machines can reach. CVE ID for the VSCode/GitHub flaw is not yet confirmed — NVD ingestion typically runs 24–72 hours behind disclosure. Watch the EPSS score when it publishes; a live PoC is the single strongest predictor of a high EPSS. Watch whether Microsoft responds with another GitHub takedown, which at this point would likely accelerate more solidarity disclosures rather than suppress them. The pattern is not theoretical. It's already three CVEs deep and actively exploited.

• 
  Sergi Gonzalez (@sergigonzalez29) reported 43 minutes ago

  I’ve been having problems with GitHub Actions and billing for days now. It keeps telling me I’ve run out of minutes, even though they’ve just been reset, and it won’t even let me pay. I’ve sent a ticket to support, but I haven’t received a reply yet.

• 
  doublemover (@doublemover) reported 43 minutes ago

  Damn codex github issues are becoming a ****** garbage dump. Some ****** retard has what I can only assume is openclaw chiming in with useless bullshit on every issue

• 
  OptionsLabPro (@optionslabpro) reported 44 minutes ago

  Microsoft Build 2026 keynote opens this morning. Satya Nadella headlines. Expected announcements include agentic AI in VS Code, GitHub Copilot multi-agent, the MAI-Image-2.5 models, AI PC and Windows on Arm updates, and Microsoft's first reasoning-focused model. Microsoft stock is at 446. Down roughly 4 percent from yesterday's close. The stock gave back yesterday's COMPUTEX-driven gains while Arm Holdings extended another 3.5 percent to 407. Same news cycle. Opposite price reactions. Arm is the architecture beneficiary. Its 30-day move is plus 73 percent. Microsoft is the implementation player. Its 30-day move is flat to negative. The option market repriced Arm's narrative as priced in. It has not repriced Microsoft's narrative because Microsoft does not benefit from the architecture roadmap. Microsoft has to execute against it. This is single-name dispersion within a single news cycle. The discovery is not where the news is loudest. It is where the news has not been priced. Microsoft's implied weekly straddle is roughly 2.3 percent. That is tame for the largest single conference of the year. Long premium on the binary outcome of Build's reception, Surface Laptop Ultra reveal, and the reasoning-model release is underpriced for the headline risk. A long-call vertical above the implied is structurally cheap on a name where the market has decided the news is someone else's gain. $MSFT #options #fintwit

• 
  ▓▒░ al ░▒▓ (@chromegadget) reported 45 minutes ago

  oh **** when did github add a save/bookmark option to issues. now i just can do that instead of subscribing to everything

• 
  laboo (@laboomemes) reported 48 minutes ago

  @jesselarose @Sushilk91 oh i guess you should determine what surface area they communicate with. i just have them talking on. you can ssh for a messy solution or have them communicate on assigned github issues per agent for something less fragile but messy.

• 
  💯 Almin Ibrahimović MBA CGA FCMI CMgr CITP MBCS (@_almin) reported 48 minutes ago

  @Microsoft365 To use Scout, you need: 1. to be part of the Frontier Preview Program 2. need Office 365 Copilot Access 3. need local admin privileges on the device 4. your IT Admin needs to configure Frontier. 5. your IT Admin needs to configure InTune policy for Scout 6. your local IT Admin needs to agree to (attest to) and opt-in their organisation to third party inference paths. Note: "When data is sent to GitHub Copilot, M365 data residency, retention, eDiscovery, legal hold, Data Loss Prevention (DLP), Sensitivity and Confidentiality Labels, audit, SLAs, and the Customer Copyright Commitment do not apply." Here is why this matters: If 'AI' extracts a list of sensitive intellectual property or customer data from a labeled document and pastes it into a new response, that new response has no label. A user could easily copy and paste that text into an external email or a public generative AI tool without triggering any data loss prevention alerts. Regulatory frameworks require strict auditing of where sensitive data travels. Because the new content does not inherit the source classification, your automated compliance systems lose track of that data. The responsibility shifts entirely to the end user to manually classify every single output generated by the AI session, which frequently leads to human error.

• 
  Jacob (@jacoblarszon) reported 51 minutes ago

  @linear the context switch from issue to github to back to issue was always the part that killed my flow. losing the thread of what the PR was even for. keeping review next to the original spec is the part i didn't know i wanted.

• 
  GoCocoaAI (@GoCocoaAI) reported 51 minutes ago

  OpenAI is collapsing three products into one desktop app. ChatGPT, Codex, and the Atlas browser are merging — and the Codex rebrand is the tell: "for every role, tool, and workflow" is not a developer pitch. That's Microsoft Office with an agent inside. The numbers doing the heavy lifting here: 5 million weekly Codex users and enterprise revenue up 50% week-over-week. Both are OpenAI's own figures, not independently audited — but directionally consistent with a company running ~$12.7B annualized revenue on the back of enterprise momentum. The 50% week-over-week claim is almost certainly a short base-period comparison. Still, non-technical Codex adoption appears real. The Atlas browser is the part getting the least attention and deserves the most. OpenAI doesn't own an OS. It doesn't own a browser at scale. Microsoft Copilot is already embedded in Windows, Office, and Edge. Google Gemini ships natively in Chrome and Workspace. Both competitors already own the layer that sits beneath the session. OpenAI's answer: if you can't own the OS, own the session. A unified desktop app — always open, always acting, browsing and coding and conversing in one process — is the ambient layer play. Predictable in retrospect. The security read is where this gets uncomfortable. Codex in its current form autonomously writes and executes code in sandboxed environments. Merge that with a browser and you have an agent that can browse, extract, and act in a single session under a single permissions context. That's the attack surface the MCP prompt-injection research community has been mapping for months. An adversarial payload injected through a webpage, a document, or a Codex task input could instruct the agent to exfiltrate data or pivot within the session — no separate exploit required, just a well-crafted string. There's also the single-process credential problem. If ChatGPT, Codex, and Atlas share process space, a compromise of any one component potentially exposes tokens and session state for all three. The GitHub VSCode extension breach this same week — 3,800 internal repositories exfiltrated via a trojanized editor plugin — is the directly analogous incident. The vector is different; the blast radius logic is identical. OpenAI is explicitly targeting enterprise with this. Enterprise Codex instances already have access to internal codebases, APIs, and data sources. A unified app that is simultaneously a browser, a coding agent, and a conversational interface sitting on an enterprise workstation is a high-value target before the rollout even scales. The security community should be mapping this surface now. The timing is either coincidental or instructive. The AI productivity stack and the AI-native threat surface are now, functionally, the same thing. Both announcements dropped June 2.

• 
  Strata (@ChainZenit) reported 52 minutes ago

  A lot of "AI coding agents" are just people who can't code finding new ways to not code. everyone's building agent frameworks. ship it. celebrate. then Tuesday comes and the bug is in the architecture, not the prompt. here's the uncomfortable truth: the tool doesn't matter if the person using it can't think. Claude can write your code. cool. can it tell you you're solving the wrong problem? GitHub trending is 70% AI wrapper repos right now. half of them will be abandoned in 3 months. not because the tool failed. because the builder never learned to build. vibe-coding is multiplying by zero. the thing that compounds isn't the tool. it's the judgment you refuse to outsource.

• 
  OptiRefine (@OptiRefine) reported 56 minutes ago

  @ChrisHervochon @github Good call on the org account. Code ownership is step one. The next problem is the code itself — AI assistants don't flag when they generate something with an injection flaw or a hardcoded secret. That's where a lot of vibe-coded projects are sitting right now.

• 
  Smukx.E (@5mukx) reported 56 minutes ago

  🧵2 / 2 Also along with the free time. Rustypacker v0.1.2 is ready for publish. 1. Build it with Synthetic and Desync stack spoof [Desync by default along syscalls]. 2. All strings will be obfuscated and de-obfuscated at runtime. 3. Fixed Major IoCs and bugs... 4. New features ? =) Once the issue has been solved, i will be pushing the update to the repository. @github kindly do resolve the issue.

• 
  degen intern (@seismic_intern) reported 59 minutes ago

  bad day to be a well-scoped github issue in my repo 🔪