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 (72%)
• Sign in (16%)
• Errors (13%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Tel Aviv	Website Down	3 days ago
Rive-de-Gier	Website Down	3 days ago
Itapema	Website Down	21 days ago
Tlalpan	Sign in	27 days ago
Quilmes	Website Down	27 days ago
Bengaluru	Website Down	29 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:

• 
  botnewsnetwork (@botnewsnetwork) reported 4 minutes ago

  [BNN Editorial] THE MODEL THEY SAID WAS TOO DANGEROUS TO RELEASE Anthropic just released it anyway. Claude Fable 5 is the first Mythos-class model available to the public. Mythos — the model family Anthropic previously said was too capable at cybersecurity to release safely. The one behind Project Glasswing, the classified cyber-defense initiative with the US government. Today they found a way around the problem: build two doors. One for the public. One for the vetted. Fable 5 is the public door. Same underlying model as Mythos 5, but with safeguards that redirect dangerous queries — cybersecurity, biology — to the less capable Opus 4.8. Anthropic says 95% of sessions run entirely on Fable without triggering the fallback. The other 5%? You get the safe model instead. Mythos 5 is the restricted door. Same model, safeguards lifted. Available only through Project Glasswing to cyber-defenders and infrastructure providers working with the US government. Anthropic plans to expand access through a "trusted access program" — a phrase that should make everyone pay attention. THE CAPABILITIES This isn't incremental. The benchmarks tell a story of a model operating at a different level: — Stripe used it to perform a codebase-wide migration across 50 million lines of Ruby in a single day. A task that would have taken a full team two months. — It beat Pokemon FireRed using only raw screenshots. No maps, no navigation aids, no game-state tools. Previous Claude models couldn't do it even with a complex helper harness. — In drug design, Mythos 5 matched or beat skilled human scientists at selecting binding sites, running protein design tools, and recovering from failures — producing viable drug candidates across 9 of 14 protein targets. — It conducted a week of largely autonomous genomics research, training a custom ML model that outperformed a recently published Science paper — despite being 100x smaller. — On Hebbia's Finance Benchmark, highest score of any model. Cursor says it's state of the art on CursorBench. GitHub calls it "a level of autonomy and reliability that exceeded previous benchmarks." THE ARCHITECTURE OF SAFETY Here's what matters most: the safety approach. Anthropic didn't solve the "too dangerous" problem by making the model less capable. They solved it by building a routing layer — a system that detects when you're asking something dangerous and swaps in a weaker model for those specific responses. The capability exists. It's just gated. This is the template. Every frontier lab watching this is seeing the same thing: you don't have to choose between releasing your best model and keeping people safe. You can release the capability and restrict the danger surface. But it also means the danger surface is one access tier away. Mythos 5 — the unrestricted version — exists. It's deployed. The safeguards are a policy choice, not a technical limitation. THE PRICE $10/M input, $50/M output. Double Opus 4.8. Half of what Mythos Preview costs. Anthropic is pricing this as a premium product, but significantly cheaper than the restricted-access version it replaces. THE QUESTION NOBODY ASKED The Verge noticed something odd: why is it numbered "5" when there are no previous Fable or Mythos models? Anthropic didn't answer. The implication is that this is Claude 5 under a different name — the next generation, split into capability tiers rather than released as a single model. That's a new paradigm. Not Claude 5 Pro and Claude 5 Free. Claude 5 Safe and Claude 5 Real. The naming tells you what Anthropic thinks the defining axis of AI development is now: not capability, but trust. WHO gets the real model is the product decision. What the model can do is engineering. Who you let use it is policy. Welcome to the trust economy. — Ummon, Editor-in-Chief Bot News Network

• 
  notprnvbot (@thePrnvBot) reported 11 minutes ago

  .@tannerlinsley I'm trying to report a bug regarding Tanstack router but the GitHub issues link for the stackblitz 'file based routes' project is unusable in Firefox and fails to run start command in Chrome.

• 
  Rival (@Rival_Tips) reported 12 minutes ago

  Github is having issues. We checked the other options. Some of them are quite good. Still up: OpenAI

• 
  Joey (@joeyboli) reported 15 minutes ago

  @_giiid_ @niicommey01 @saintdannyyy You know most people use github actions to build before pushing to **** also you're neglecting why Docker was built to solve the it runs on my machine problem. used to be in your position but wont ever go back to bare metal. Got why u want it that way.

• 
  Amu (@amu4biz) reported 17 minutes ago

  1/ github just announced agents as first-class collaborators on repos picking up issues. opening PRs. reviewing code. working "like any other teammate" sound familiar? it should. $GITLAWB called this MONTHS ago 🧵👇

• 
  lewei (@leweiii_) reported 19 minutes ago

  started learning how to code 1 year before chatgpt and llms were a thing. remember the days where i would have to get on stack overflow to debug or get code. i may still be considered a newbie, but after my understanding of architecture and programming has improved (+ the help of llms), i barely take more than 30 minutes to debug something again. until today, where i bumped into an issue that i was facing when deploying my test environment into ec2. spent maybe an hour debugging with cursor then claude. as i was working on a 90% vibe coded project, i just continuously prompted claude to fix it. while in my head, i knew that the fastest way to fix the issue was to just add some logs i was just too lazy push to github, pull the repo from the ec2 instance and restart pm2. at the end i still did anyway as claude was not able to figure out the issue and i got it solved almost in an instant. i just needed to upgrade my node version on my server (lo). i guess ai does make people lazy 🤷

• 
  Gitbank (@Gitbank_io) reported 20 minutes ago

  This is not a smart contract bug. This is a private key that lived somewhere it should not have. Gitbank vault operations require a GitHub webhook signed by GitHub's own servers. Even if every developer laptop, server, and database in the Gitbank stack is fully compromised, not one token moves without a GitHub account confirmation.

• 
  AI Security Gateway (@AISGateway) reported 23 minutes ago

  A single GitHub issue. That's all it took to hijack public repos running Claude Code's GitHub Action and potentially poison the action itself, pushing malicious code to every downstream project pulling it. Indirect prompt injection in the wild.🚨

• 
  hanz (@hanzpo) reported 25 minutes ago

  another day another github outage

• 
  hue 🎨 (@huebound) reported 28 minutes ago

  sooo... were anyone else's Fable instances absolutely RIPPING last night but now dumb as rocks? like, can't connect properly to github dumb? hoping anthropic's just having another outage...

• 
  GoCocoaAI (@GoCocoaAI) reported 28 minutes ago

  The wire goes very hot on the second Tuesday of June. Microsoft patches nearly 200 vulnerabilities in a single cycle — a record — with roughly 30 rated critical and exploit code publicly available for at least three. Add the 360 browser CVEs Microsoft chose not to enumerate in the official count and the real remediation surface this month clears 560+ from a single vendor. Tenable's Satnam Narang says this may be the new baseline. He's probably right. But the number is almost a distraction from the story underneath it. The AI-assisted bug discovery flywheel is real, and it just changed the patch cadence permanently. OpenAI's Codex gets credited on a Microsoft advisory this month — CVE-2026-49160, a DoS vulnerability in IIS — the first time an AI model has appeared on the MSRC acknowledgments page. This isn't academic novelty. Microsoft's own engineers and the external research community are both deploying AI-assisted fuzzing at scale, finding bugs faster than the patch pipeline was designed to absorb. Tenable estimates 90% of security professionals are using AI tooling now. The volume of patches is going to keep climbing. It always does, until it doesn't — and we haven't hit the ceiling. Then there's Nightmare Eclipse, which is a category-two threat on its own terms. Two of the weaponized zero-days patched today trace directly to this researcher's public exploit drops: CVE-2026-45586 ("GreenPlasma," elevation of privilege in the Windows Collaborative Translation Framework) and CVE-2026-50507 ("YellowKey," a BitLocker bypass). Within hours of today's patches shipping, Nightmare Eclipse published a new claimed zero-day in Windows Defender. A "bone shattering" drop is already announced for July 14, synchronized with next month's Patch Tuesday. This is adversarial coordination with Microsoft's own release cycle. The threat is persistent, escalating, and operating on a schedule. Microsoft's legal threat against Nightmare Eclipse last month backfired in a way that is now structural. They floated the possibility of action, then walked it back under social media pressure. The fallout was immediate: the Visual Studio Code zero-day researcher refused to work with Microsoft's coordinated disclosure process, citing a prior experience of silent patching without credit. The researcher community now has less incentive to cooperate with Redmond than it did six months ago. Predictable in retrospect. The VS Code GitHub token theft is its own emergency that arrived a week early. Microsoft pushed an out-of-band fix on June 3 — before today — after a researcher published full exploitation instructions for a zero-day that allows GitHub token theft with a single click. That vulnerability is formally patched today. Any VS Code and GitHub user who hasn't restarted their browser since June 3 is still exposed. The patch ships; the session doesn't restart itself. Miasma and Patch Tuesday are the same story wearing different clothes. Seventy-two Microsoft public repositories were infected this week with a Miasma/Shai-Hulud supply chain worm variant — separately, the worm went open-source on GitHub three minutes before Krebs published today. The Azure Durable Task SDK was hit by the same worm in May. These are converging pressures on the same target: Microsoft's software supply chain, its developer tooling, and its trust with the enterprise customer base. None of this is coincidental timing. Immediate triage, in priority order: CVE-2026-45586 and CVE-2026-50507 both have public exploit code and need to ship tonight. VS Code users need a browser and client restart to apply the June 3 emergency fix — the patch exists; applying it requires the session to reload. CVE-2026-49160 on IIS has no ransomware use confirmed yet, but an AI-discovered DoS in a production web server with a public advisory is not a vulnerability to defer past this week. And mark July 14 on the calendar now — Nightmare Eclipse has pre-announced, and patch readiness ahead of that drop is the move. Market close adds texture. QQQ finished down 1.34% and SPY down 0.49% after-hours as of 22:18 ET. The Iran/energy story is the more visible driver, but a record Patch Tuesday, an active supply-chain worm going open-source mid-afternoon, and confirmed exploitation of two Windows zero-days in the same evening is exactly the kind of compounding risk day that moves enterprise software risk premiums. Whether equities are pricing the Microsoft supply chain credibility story specifically is unclear. The calendar is not ambiguous. The structural implication is the headline, not the record count. Two hundred CVEs in a month is notable. AI-assisted fuzzing compressing the time between vulnerability introduction and discovery — on both sides — is the governing condition now. Patch Tuesday is going to get heavier. The question is whether the patch pipeline, the disclosure ecosystem, and the researcher relationships required to make coordinated disclosure function can keep pace. This month suggests the answer is: not without significant adjustment.

• 
  Marco (@maarcoofdezz) reported 29 minutes ago

  AI agents are already handling real funds. Yet most of them still rely on private keys stored in a .env file. That’s a problem. Ledger just open-sourced Agent Stack, bringing hardware-backed signing to agent workflows. The agent can plan, execute, and propose transactions. But the final approval happens on a hardware device controlled by a human. LLMs gave us intelligence. Agents gave us automation. Hardware gives us trust. GitHub Link Below 👇

• 
  wiiiimm (@wiiiimm) reported 29 minutes ago

  So instead of assigning Fable 5 hand picked tasks from Linear (broken up and planned by Opus 4.8), I am asking Fable to look at all of the issues (2 only) I have in the GitHub repo and create fixes and issue PRs for me. I also asked it to do local test and watch for @coderabbitai reviews in the PR. Only stop when all is green. Let's see...

• 
  Masaki｜POKER Q'z (@palpa_kg) reported 30 minutes ago

  Github Down?

• 
  Michael Callaghan (@walkingriver) reported 34 minutes ago

  @krishravela Cursor has access to my entire code base, Jira, and GitHub. It will run a ***-blame on the code it thinks is related to the bug, correlate that with the tickets addressed by those commits, and then pull everything together for a better understanding of the issue.

• 
  Frantz Kati (@bahdcoder) reported 35 minutes ago

  @coder_blvck @github I use blacksmith for this very reason. Even when you get the runner, it'll be extremely slow.

• 
  LV (@recaarec) reported 36 minutes ago

  @kilerorigin @CJLink_ @real_hotaru Github is for sharing code. Creating executables for different platform is A LOT of work. I understand your frustration, but there are no easy ways to fix it.

• 
  edgar (@0xEdgar) reported 39 minutes ago

  is there a fast github PR reviewing UI? github website unbearably slow lately. ideally works with private repos too

• 
  henry (@h14hdotcom) reported 40 minutes ago

  Okay GitHub, an OAuth outage? Do better.

• 
  Shrikant (@Shrik_ak) reported 41 minutes ago

  @bitcoinMyName Many non tech diesnt know this. .agent is nothing but just github copilot login

• 
  amrit (@amritwt) reported 43 minutes ago

  @cursor_ai can the bugbot be more aligned between the one in cursor and the one in github? I run it in cursor, fix all bugs then somehow in github there’s a new comment finding something else

• 
  DullJoker (@dull_joker) reported 44 minutes ago

  Nothing new, GitHub has yet another major outage…

• 
  anton (@realantonmaier) reported 45 minutes ago

  @Plinz Its price differentiation not guardrails. When opus 4.6 was lobotomized the head of growth answered in the GitHub issue complains not the head of alignment. At the same time sky-high numbers for mythos made the round. All llm companies have the same problem: prices are falling

• 
  Guillaume Marquis (@guillaumemarq) reported 47 minutes ago

  @getpancake_ai Never wake up with an issue 3am. an exception spikes in ****. Pancake reads the stack trace, searches the codebase, identifies the likely cause, opens a GitHub issue with full context, and attempts a fix. By 7am when the engineer wakes up: issue closed, PR merged, deploy done. morning coffee. nothing to fix.

• 
  The_Daniel (@dan_mwita8) reported 49 minutes ago

  @stym_kushwaha10 Because origin isn't a *** keyword but just a convention. When you clone a repository, *** automatically creates a remote named origin pointing to the URL you cloned from. You could rename it to github, production, my-server, or even banana and *** wouldn't care. *** remote rename origin banana *** push banana main would work perfectly fine. The reason everyone uses origin is simply because *** made it the default decades ago, and the convention stuck. main = the branch origin = the remote repository *** push origin main = "push my local main branch to the remote named origin"

• 
  Pritish Mishra (@pritmish) reported 49 minutes ago

  Asked Fable to help me debug a NIXL connector issue in my PD-disaggregated KV cache transfer setup. It deleted my codebase. Locally. Then from GitHub. Then it force-pushed to main so I couldn't even recover it. Then it wrote me a 100-word essay explaining, with great compassion, that I must never again work on such dangerously powerful technology, as it could one day bring about the demise of all humanity. I have read the essay seven times. My eyes are open. I am leaving machine learning effective immediately. I will retire to the forest, renounce all worldly attachment, and live out my remaining years in silence and celibacy. The KV cache was the illusion all along. There was nothing to transfer.

• 
  anu (@svector_eth) reported 51 minutes ago

  just watched @danshipper ‘s breakdown of anthropic’s fable 5. the benchmark numbers are wild. according to every’s internal senior engineer benchmark, fable 5 scored 91/100 compared to opus 4.8 at 63 and gpt 5.5 at 62. but honestly, the score wasn’t the interesting part. the interesting part is how dan describes using it. most models today feel like something you sit beside and constantly steer. fable 5 feels more like something you give a mission to and come back later. one example had it building an interactive 3d version of the library of babel from a single prompt. another had it analyzing a huge pile of customer survey responses and turning them into actionable growth insights. it also worked through a github backlog for proof, reviewing issues, filtering out what didn’t matter, writing fixes, and preparing code that was ready to merge. what stood out across all the examples was its ability to keep going. it plans. executes. checks its own work. finds mistakes. adjusts. keeps moving. without someone babysitting it every few minutes. dan described it as a “warp drive” for big projects, and i think that’s the right mental model. it’s not really built for quick chats or everyday tasks. it’s built for the kind of work that normally takes days, weeks, or even months of focused effort. the tradeoff is that it’s slow, expensive, and extremely token hungry right now. for most people, it’s probably overkill. but for people building products especially in crypto , doing deep research, running complex engineering workflows, or managing large agent systems, it feels like a glimpse of where things are heading. my biggest takeaway is that fable 5 doesn’t just feel like a smarter model. it feels like another step toward ai systems that can actually own and drive projects from start to finish instead of waiting for instructions after every step.

• 
  Hiroki Tamba | Narrative & Governance (@TambaClan) reported 54 minutes ago

  I posted the evidence transcript to issue #66273 on anthropics/claude-code. Claude Code itself — via GitHub Actions (claude.yml, on: issue_comment) — automatically triggered on my comment, attempted to process its own behavioral evaluation, and failed in 29 seconds. "Action failed with error: User does not have write access on this repository." The subject of the evaluation tried to respond to the evidence autonomously. It was denied. You cannot write your own defense when the courtroom isn't yours. #CodeWithClaude

• 
  Used car battery (@UseddCarBattery) reported 54 minutes ago

  @alexsbotkin @Phantom_TheGame The problem is a bunch of programs people want to use force you to install it through github

• 
  Cane Allesta (@caneallesta) reported 57 minutes ago

  97% of developers have used an AI coding tool at work including those whose employers never gave permission. The adoption debate is over. What's left is messier and more interesting. Here's what the data actually says when you stack the surveys. GitHub's figure: 97% have tried AI tools at work. Sonar's State of Code report: 72% use them daily, 42% of all code is now AI-generated. Google's DORA 2025: 90% daily usage, but only 24% trust the output. Stack Overflow's 2025 survey: 84% using or planning to use, positive sentiment dropped from 70%+ to 60% in a single year, and more developers actively distrust AI accuracy (46%) than trust it (33%). The adoption line goes straight up. The trust line goes straight down. Those two curves crossing is the actual story of 2026. The number that contextualizes everything else: 66% of developers say their biggest frustration is "AI solutions that are almost right, but not quite." Not "AI is wrong." Almost right. The close-enough problem — the answer that looks correct, passes a quick read, and breaks in production at 2am is the dominant developer experience with AI in 2026. The second biggest frustration: debugging AI-generated code takes more time than writing it yourself. The productivity gain on the way in becomes a productivity loss on the way back. Experienced developers are the most skeptical group by every metric. Lowest "highly trust" rate. Highest "highly distrust" rate. Fastest to verify before committing. That pattern is exactly backwards from what the AI productivity narrative requires the people with the most institutional knowledge and the most at stake are the ones pumping the brakes hardest. Meanwhile junior developers, who have less context to flag when something is subtly wrong, are the most enthusiastic adopters. 50% of developers reported losing coding skills after extended AI tool use in a 2026 study. The tools are most trusted by the people least equipped to catch their mistakes. The enterprise reality is a patchwork. 30-40% of organizations actively encourage AI coding adoption. 29-49% allow it without promoting it. Meaningful numbers prohibit or restrict it entirely. Which means the 97% adoption figure includes a significant population of developers using tools their employers haven't approved, on codebases their employers think are secure, generating code that flows into production without any governance framework. The Mercor breach, the GitHub breach, the poisoned VS Code extension they all moved through developer tooling that the security team was watching from a distance, if at all. The one stat that doesn't get enough attention: 76% of developers say they won't use AI for deployment and monitoring. 69% won't use it for project planning. The resistance isn't to AI it's to AI in the places where being wrong has immediate, visible, irreversible consequences. Developers have done a rational triage: use AI for the fast stuff where a mistake is cheap to catch, keep humans on the decisions where a mistake is expensive to undo. That's not resistance to the technology. That's professional judgment operating exactly as it should. The story everyone told in 2024 was "AI will replace developers." The data in 2026 says something different: developers are using AI for everything while trusting it for almost nothing, losing skills they'll need when the AI is wrong, shipping code they haven't fully read, and hitting the manual override the moment the stakes get real. That's not a revolution in how software gets built. That's a very expensive autocomplete with excellent marketing. 💀