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 (57%)
• Errors (30%)
• Sign in (14%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Inverness	Website Down	11 days ago
Quito	Sign in	12 days ago
Junín	Errors	12 days ago
Guadalajara	Errors	12 days ago
Paris	Website Down	12 days ago
Quito	Errors	12 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:

• 
  Pav (@ChristianThePav) reported 4 minutes ago

  I wish github wouldn't push to **** on Monday when I have to look at issues and instead I look at a unicorn.

• 
  Duy /zuey/ (@goon_nguyen) reported 4 minutes ago

  i moved my development environment to the cloud, and i do not think i am going back linux is much closer to production than my laptop, so fewer bugs hide behind local differences and debugging gets less annoying but the bigger change is that development no longer depends on my laptop being open i can send instructions from my phone while i am outside. the agents keep working on cloud machines, run tests, open worktrees, and report back without turning my laptop into a portable space heater GitHub is now part of the runtime when an issue gets the ai-handle label, a webhook wakes the cloud agents. they inspect the issue, create an isolated workspace, implement the fix, run the checks, and report the result i do not need to open Terminal or launch Codex just to start the work my Discord support flow goes even further: - a customer reports a bug - an AI support agent gathers the details and creates an issue - the label triggers a coding agent on the cloud - the agent fixes it, validates it, and sends the result back into the support flow that is the first time "autonomous agent" has felt operational to me instead of being a demo with a chat box cloud machines also remove several stupid local bottlenecks the internet connection is fast. parallel agents and test processes stop fighting with the apps on my laptop. multiple worktrees stop eating my mac M1 512GB SSD that was never designed to host an AI engineering team there are tradeoffs, of course. cloud agents need strict permissions, isolated environments, budget limits, logs, and a clean path for human review. running 24/7 without guardrails is just a faster way to create incidents but the direction feels obvious AI coding agents should live where software runs, events happen, and automation can continue without waiting for a developer to open a laptop for me, the laptop is becoming a control surface the development environment is becoming infrastructure

• 
  Xah Lee (@xah_lee) reported 4 minutes ago

  August 17, 2026 github down for 8 hours. whats the cause @grok

• 
  Yash Agrawal (@YashAg946) reported 6 minutes ago

  @meshapi_ai @github @Azure There are not 1000+ models. I have checked after login also

• 
  Rashi Umapathi (@rashiumapathi) reported 7 minutes ago

  a founder was frustrated. spending 20 hours/week on marketing. almost no results. posting on Twitter, LinkedIn, running a newsletter. all that effort. ~5 customers per month. we looked at where his actual best customers came from. GitHub + Stack Overflow + Product Hunt. he wasn't even there. THE PIVOT: 30-day sprint to build ONE acquisition channel: > active participation on GitHub + stack overflow > solve real problems in relevant spaces > one Product Hunt launch > SEO content targeting high-intent queries THE RESULT: - Week 1-2: Nothing (building credibility) - Week 3-4: 18 qualified conversations - End of month: 10 new customers - Most importantly: he found the right channel THE INSIGHT: he was working really hard on the WRONG channels. the right channel with 10 hours/week >> wrong channel with 20 hours/week. most founders optimize the wrong thing. what channels are your best customers coming from right now? Are you there?

• 
  Rav (@_MrDecentralize) reported 9 minutes ago

  The Mandate from the Machine's Maker For three years, the pitch was simple. AI tools make you faster. They handle the boilerplate. They free you to do the work that matters. Every internal rollout memo, every all-hands demo, every LinkedIn post from a VP of Engineering carried the same subtext: this is here to help, and you will choose when and how to use it. Microsoft sold that story harder than anyone. Copilot was the friendly assistant. GitHub Copilot was the pair programmer who never got tired. The company's entire go-to-market for enterprise AI rested on a single premise: adoption is voluntary, and voluntary adoption proves the product works. Then Microsoft made it mandatory. Internal communications obtained by multiple outlets revealed that Microsoft now evaluates employees on their use of AI tools as a formal performance metric. Not a suggestion. Not a nudge. A line item in the review that determines your rating, your compensation, and your continued employment. CEO Satya Nadella told the public that 30% of Microsoft's code is now written by AI. CTO Kevin Scott projected that number would reach 95% by 2030. Those numbers were presented as proof of progress. Read them again from the chair of a Microsoft engineer whose performance review now includes a checkbox for how much they use the tool producing 30% of the codebase. The math is not subtle. If AI writes 30% of the code today and 95% by 2030, the trajectory has a name. It is not augmentation. It is replacement on a four-year schedule. And the company just told every engineer to accelerate the curve or face consequences. This is not a startup founder musing about headcount on a podcast. This is a company with 228,000 employees embedding AI usage into the performance management system that governs raises, promotions, and terminations. The policy does not say "learn AI." It says "use AI." The distinction matters. Learning is development. Usage is compliance. Meta did something similar. But Meta did not build the tools. Microsoft did. Microsoft built Copilot, priced it at $30 per user per month, sold it to every enterprise on Earth as an optional productivity layer, and then turned around and told its own workforce: this is not optional for you. The company that made the tool made the mandate. The mandate accelerates the output metric. The output metric will eventually prove that fewer humans are needed. And the humans were told to make that case themselves, on their own performance reviews, or get marked down for non-compliance. Voluntary adoption was the pitch. Mandatory adoption is the policy. The distance between those two words is the entire future of employment at the company that writes the tools.

• 
  Bluewall (@Bluewall) reported 9 minutes ago

  Found a malicious GitHub repo posing as a curated list of cybersecurity Telegram channels, every link led to the same malware ZIP. Reported it. Today GitHub Trust & Safety confirmed they took it down. Do report the shady stuff, it pays off.

• 
  Christopher C. Smith (@christophcsmith) reported 12 minutes ago

  Two examples: 1. If I put Grok in a container with no access to GitHub issues and ask it to work on a numbered issue, it guesses at the issue content instead of asking for help. 2. If I make changes while Grok is working in the same folder, it will often just *** reset them.

• 
  Michael Camara Pendon (@mike_pendon) reported 13 minutes ago

  Just follow the link to the Github issue to get more updates.

• 
  Masood (@_TechMasood) reported 14 minutes ago

  @Marwan_SoftDev github issues with a forced repro template beat forms for me because forms just pile up reports you cant actually act on : )

• 
  KrunalSinh Sisodia (@krunalbuilds) reported 16 minutes ago

  Senior Backend Interview Question: Two engineers manage environment configuration. Engineer A 👇 // In the codebase: const config = { db: 'postgresql://****-db:5432/users', apiKey: 'sk_live_abc123xyz', redis: 'redis://****-cache:6379' } Engineer B 👇 // In the codebase: const config = { db: process.env.DATABASE_URL, apiKey: process.env.API_KEY, redis: process.env.REDIS_URL } // Actual values only exist on the server Engineer A pushes to GitHub. 3 hours later he gets an email from GitHub: "We detected a secret in your repository." The attacker had already used the API key. Engineer B's repository has no secrets. Different environments get different values. No exposure. No breach. This happens to 50,000 developers every year. Which one would you approve — and why?

• 
  Can Bölük (@_can1357) reported 16 minutes ago

  @HotAisle the people i mentioned would still come to me with 9214141 github issues

• 
  Andrew Sinagra (@sinagra) reported 19 minutes ago

  @amorriscode This was my workflow for a while but the issue is that the spawned chips sometimes need to be sequenced and run under a different model. First if the app crashes or restarts the chips are lost. Second the only way to switch models is to either change the model/effort in the current session so the new session launches with those settings or you launch it and immediately stop it, change the session settings and then rewind to the initiating prompt. I've actually moved away from chips and have the session write GitHub issues with a skill that knows how to read the issue and report back to the creating session as the orchestrator over cross-session messaging. Much more robust overall as the Issue comments can act as backup when cross session messaging fails which it can do regularly. Sessions loose their id across app restarts which causes issues with messaging. The orchestrator identifies itself in the issue/chip however if the app restarts for any reason the orchestrator id is reassigned and the messaging channel is broken. A few QoL fixes and chips would be my preferred method over stamping issues.

• 
  Joseph K (@TechHorizonJoe) reported 22 minutes ago

  @moonshots_pod Right instinct, stop problems before they materialize. But uranium buyers need centrifuges. AI researchers need a laptop and GitHub. Whole different surface area.

• 
  Varun Godbole (@VarunGodbole) reported 25 minutes ago

  @alxai_ How do you host it? Do the actual pages live on GitHub as markdown, and it "compiles" down to static HTML?

• 
  Dela (@delaanthonio) reported 27 minutes ago

  @GergelyOrosz It’s even more ironic since Xcode is trash compared to Visual Studio and VSCode. Xcode makes developing for the Apple ecosystem painful. No one loves it. But we use it anyway so we can distribute apps to Apple’s customer base. Taking a step back, we like macOS since it’s a good Unix-like environment for developing software. I used WSL years ago and there are always issues with the translation layer between Windows and Linux. It may have gotten better, but the experience is always worse than using a native Unix-like OS. The main mindshare Microsoft has for devs is GitHub. Everyone sees the frequent outages. Many stay since it’s hard to replace GitHub, but some are leaving.

• 
  Seyr (@0xSeyr) reported 28 minutes ago

  most teams spend 40% of their operational hours clicking between Stripe, AWS, GitHub, and PostHog. every SaaS dashboard you pay for is just an API endpoint wrapped in 50 megabytes of JavaScript - an interface tax built because software was too dumb to take an order. in this 37-second clip, Claude shows off the new Claude Code desktop app running parallel terminal agents across repos to replace the entire browser stack. i broke the entire setup down into a 3-layer architecture guide you can implement today. beats wasting 4 hours a day acting as a human router between web tabs. watch the breakdown first, then get the full architecture guide below. the article below covers the full picture

• 
  Bill Cockerill (@CockerillBill) reported 30 minutes ago

  Cursor users may need a new AI coding path before year-end. OpenAI says Cursor will lose access to its models after SpaceX's acquisition triggers a contract wind-down. 📰 OpenAI says it notified SpaceX that it intends to end Cursor's model access on November 12, 2026, the latest date allowed under its contract after a change of control, and that Cursor will not get future models including Astra. It says it is giving developers the "maximum notice" and plans transition support. 🫵 If you rely on Cursor's OpenAI-powered coding help, this change could force your team to test another model provider or coding assistant before the cutoff, so you are not scrambling when current workflows or future-model access disappear. 📈 Competitive pressure: the mechanism to watch is whether displaced Cursor users move into Microsoft-owned surfaces like GitHub Copilot or Azure OpenAI. MSFT closed at 513.53 USD on August 28, 2026; the next proof point is visible migration or support offers, not the headline alone.

• 
  Muhammad Ahmed (@ahmed_ah206) reported 32 minutes ago

  @BRuteLogic created an issue on github with title : "False positive: curl -X OPTIONS treated as bypass on 403 URLs " with details and screenshot

• 
  Gökdeniz(❖,❖) (@0xgokdeniz) reported 35 minutes ago

  Retroactive Rialo Points have been distributed. Past activities of users who contributed to the ecosystem prior to the launch have now been added to their point totals. Users can access the playground, sign in via Google, link their Discord and GitHub accounts and claim their points using the "connect and claim" step. However, there is an important detail: once linked, these accounts are permanently locked to the wallet and cannot be changed. Additionally, retroactive rewards for social media content creators have not yet been distributed but will be added soon. I collected a total of 155 Rialo Points by linking my email, GitHub, and Discord accounts. Don't forget to complete these steps,how many points did you collect? @RialoHQ @RialoTR @slymnogunc

• 
  MadeItHappen (@MadeItHappenX) reported 36 minutes ago

  @sama Enterprises Force push fix GitHub and implement mandatory vuln checks and remediation in CICD workflows; this also includes robust test cases that must pass before merge; cryptographically sign your commits and build artifacts! Do not use open source packages unless explicitly approved, it is trivial to create an inner source ecosystem if reusability is a concern. Remove as much of your internet footprint as possible. Convert monthly patching to continuous patching. Implement Deny by default network architecture. Install EDRs (Crowdstrike) and have an ability to hit the network kill switch for any node if a specific alert is triggered. Collect computer and network heuristics or hire a service to do it for you; this will help with detections and for forensics when investigating an event. Avoid the fluff; don’t rubber stamp that you know how to categorize and prioritize risk (CTEM) - mandate that it’s impossible to deviate from policies and standards. Pick your ecosystem wisely knowing how rapid things change. Leverage the frontier companies for long term bets and frontier models for immediate triage. Do not get caught up in a SaaS unless absolutely necessary; be very selective or enable an exit path. It’s about concentrating resources in the right areas and not letting insider threats push back on your goals. If you are not moving towards a secure by default ecosystem for your company, I do consider you an insider threat. Since IT security originated, we’ve always cared about the friction it causes on productivity and uptime, but now the risk is far greater to let CVEs sit in technical debt while thinking about features rather than adversaries. Enterprises; this is not hard but it is expensive and scales relative to the size of the technology footprint you support. It’s all trivial with the latest models; and MONEY.

• 
  Gabriel Rubens (@gabrielrubenss) reported 40 minutes ago

  VPS deploy via GitHub (7/8): I copied that check to my other apps, and Farlist, my slow journal for long term goals, answered on the first run: every deploy had failed since May 25. Ten weeks of merged work never reached the server, and the site returned 200 the whole time.

• 
  miles (@miles_wright) reported 48 minutes ago

  @bwhiteley @github 8 stack and it rebased and recalibrated and reviewed after each merge, didn’t seem like it was my problem but was rather with GitHub’s workflow

• 
  PangeaVPN (@PangeaVPN) reported 49 minutes ago

  @ProtonVPN 64 apps hiding real ownership behind Singapore or Hong Kong shells is a trust problem a privacy policy can't fix. Pangea's client is GPLv3 on GitHub, so you can read what it actually sends before deciding whether to trust it, instead of trusting a store listing.

• 
  Martin Szerment | Practical AI (@MartinSzerment) reported 55 minutes ago

  Claude Code just erased the line between terminal and desktop app. Every AI coding tool assumed CLI and GUI were separate worlds, each with its own session history and its own memory of what you'd done. Two GitHub issues sat open for months, #50067 and #50891, both asking for exactly this: resume a CLI session inside the desktop app with full context intact. This isn't a cosmetic sync feature. The full conversation and state carry over, not a summary. The real shift is that your development environment stops caring which interface you started in. Give it a year and "which app did I use" will feel as irrelevant as asking someone their preferred terminal emulator. The CLI stops being the "real" tool and the desktop app the "friendly" wrapper. They become one session, viewed from two windows. Terminal purists who dismissed the desktop app as training wheels just lost an argument. Pick up exactly where you left off, in whichever window is open. That's the whole point of a tool built to work with you, not around you.

• 
  Taylor (@WarheadTaylor) reported 55 minutes ago

  @theo and github wasn't down to stop it :(

• 
  satvik (@satvikxs) reported 55 minutes ago

  @UtkarshUsername Make an extension that alerts if GitHub is not down

• 
  aryan (@aryanranderiya) reported 57 minutes ago

  why is it so much faster? two things. on a github runner every job starts from nothing: clone the repo, install node deps, install python deps, pull the ML models, warm the caches. that's 1–2 minutes per job before a single test runs, and we run ~35 jobs per push. on the home server all of that stays on disk. a job starts in 10 seconds. the other thing is just cores. github gives you 2. tests that we had to split across 6 separate machines now run on one 16-thread box as 4 lanes with 16 parallel workers.

• 
  Alex (@Alexq7hc) reported 58 minutes ago

  @solananew Solana’s latest governance vote exposed an absurdly basic problem: Its official documents contain two different voting rules. Under one set of rules, at least one-third of governance stake must participate, but abstentions are included in the denominator. In other words, abstaining is not technically a “No” vote, but it still makes a proposal harder to pass — effectively turning abstention into a form of “soft opposition.” The rules published on GitHub are completely different: abstentions are excluded, and the approval ratio is calculated only between “For” and “Against” votes. More surprisingly, there is no minimum participation requirement at all. That means, in theory, a very small fraction of SOL holders could participate and still determine major rules affecting the entire Solana network. The more holders who do not vote, the greater the influence of the small minority who do. This is not a minor technical detail. It is a question of governance legitimacy and decision-making validity. A reasonable governance system should have two separate thresholds: First, require a minimum participation rate. Second, once that threshold is met, require For ÷ (For + Against) to exceed 2/3. This prevents a tiny minority from deciding network-wide policy while also avoiding the mistake of treating abstention as opposition. Solana is a blockchain worth tens of billions of dollars and secures a large amount of capital and applications. Yet in its first formal governance vote, even the most basic voting rules were not consistent between official documentation and the GitHub repository. This goes beyond “governance is still evolving.” The basic rules themselves are not even internally consistent. For a blockchain worth tens of billions of dollars, having two conflicting versions of how votes are counted makes the whole governance process look surprisingly amateurish.

• 
  ShireXela (@ShireXela) reported 58 minutes ago

  Is there a way to completely delete an absolutely shameful GitHub issue from existence?