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	11 days ago
Junín	Errors	11 days ago
Guadalajara	Errors	11 days ago
Paris	Website Down	11 days ago
Quito	Errors	11 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:

• 
  triple max-he ha him 🇦🇶 (@Yashraj__) reported 5 minutes ago

  @moneyball @EricBalchunas hi steve, IMO this is an demonstration of misaligned incentives (unlike Block, who sell self-custody solution) of certain BSC members: erosion of decentralization & self-custody empowers them, while it hurts bitcoin(ers). This supports rationale (1) in the BSC-BCAP github issue

• 
  Kavi AI Finance (@KaviFinance1) reported 6 minutes ago

  BUILDING HERMES FROM SCRATCH — PART 7 The biggest security problem with AI agents isn’t what they’re allowed to do. It’s what they’re allowed to become. Giving an agent a tool is easy. Giving it permanent authority over that tool is where things get interesting. Most agent security discussions stop at: API keys permissions sandboxing secret management All important. But there’s another problem I think we’re going to hear much more about: permission drift. You start with: read files search the web create a GitHub issue Then the workflow grows. Someone adds database access. Then email. Then a deployment tool. Then credentials for another service. Six months later, the original agent has accumulated enough capabilities to effectively operate an entire business. Nothing was hacked. Nothing was misconfigured. The permissions just kept growing. So I’m changing the way I think about agent authority in Hermes. I don’t want to ask only: “What can this agent do?” I want to ask: “What does this agent need to be able to do right now?” That’s a very different security model. For example: A research task might get: web search document retrieval filesystem read The same agent shouldn’t automatically inherit: database writes deployment financial APIs email sending And even when a tool is allowed, I don’t necessarily want permanent authority. Some actions should be: task-scoped time-scoped resource-scoped and ideally action-scoped. A useful mental model is: Identity → Permission → Action → Verification → Expiry Not: Identity → Infinite access Because agents don’t behave like normal software. They can retry. They can reinterpret instructions. They can discover unexpected paths through tools. They can continue operating while the human who gave them permission is asleep. And this creates another interesting problem: the agent should not be the final authority over its own permissions. If the agent can decide: “I need more access” and grant itself more access, your permission system is basically a suggestion. So I’m experimenting with keeping authority outside the agent itself. The agent can request an elevated capability. The control layer decides whether it gets it. The action is logged. The permission expires. And high-impact actions can require an explicit approval boundary. This also changes how I think about multi-agent systems. If Agent A can delegate to Agent B, what exactly is being delegated? The task? The identity? The permissions? The credentials? The authority? Those are not the same thing. And I think this is going to become one of the nastiest problems in agent infrastructure. Because eventually we won’t have one AI with ten tools. We’ll have thousands of agents delegating work to other agents. At that point: “Who authorized this action?” becomes much more complicated than checking an API key. That’s what I’m working through in Hermes now. Not just making agents capable. Making their authority: bounded, observable, temporary and revocable. The goal isn’t to make the agent harmless. The goal is to make sure that when it inevitably does something stupid, it doesn’t have the authority to turn one mistake into a catastrophe. Next: PART 8 — MODEL ROUTING Because once the architecture is secure, there’s another problem: Why are we paying a frontier model to do work a small local model could handle? If you’re building Hermes with me, bookmark the series. And if you’ve dealt with an agent gaining too much access over time, I’d genuinely like to hear how you handled it.

• 
  Mohamed (@zavrenn) reported 8 minutes ago

  It's honestly funny watching Codex handle almost everything on its own. It tested the app, fixed the issues, recorded the demo, and even created the GIF for the GitHub repo. I just gave it the idea and kept steering. @thsottiaux 👍 Codex keeps getting better every day

• 
  AminTechs (@AminTechs) reported 13 minutes ago

  @oscarlehuu Origin is Pro/Teams/Enterprise only — not on the free plan. It shipped 17 Aug as early beta. Cursor's own changelog still treats GitHub as source of truth for anything you started there; Origin is the mirror. Keep a GitHub remote until you can clone without a Cursor login.

• 
  Alex (@Alexq7hc) reported 13 minutes ago

  @SolanaFloor @solana 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.

• 
  Ahmad Hajjar - ***-quick.dev (@ashajjar85) reported 13 minutes ago

  GitHub gave orgs a way to cap how many PRs outsiders can keep open. But maybe the problem isn’t only what enters the queue. Maybe it’s what nobody is touching ... Maybe Github should add a cap on idle PRs instead. Until they do you can use GitQuick ;)

• 
  HDR Game Analysis (@HDRgameAnalysis) reported 14 minutes ago

  DLSS 5 just leaked. It uses neural rendering to increase graphical fidelity. In the pictures we see Aerith from Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth. First is with DLSS 5, second is with DLSS 4. How to install DLSS 5; 1) Use RHI (see picture 5) - install it from Github. Just google RHI RenoDX. 2) Get this file from RenoDX Discord Server - renodx-dlss5-addon64. 3) Put the renodx-dlss5-addon64 file into the folder shown in picture 4 4) Open RHI - Under Addon chose "Select" and chose RenoDX dlss5. Then deploy DLL under neural rendering. 5) Install Reshade via RHI or do it yourself. 6) Open the game 7) Open Reshade and find the DLSS 5 Neural Rendering app shown in picture 1 under the add-ons tab. As I understand it. This DLSS 5 neural rendering algorithm has been trained on charactor models and on SDR images. It's very early in progress. It tanks performance massively on my 5090 PC. It's fun to try out, but not usable for gaming. A few more pictures in post below.

• 
  HowToDoAffiliateMarketing.com (@AffiliateLetter) reported 15 minutes ago

  Is there a known issue with the GitHub connector/tool sessions right now in @OpenAI @ChatGPT /Codex? anyone else facing the same issue?

• 
  miles (@miles_wright) reported 16 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

• 
  Rosy🥀 (@0x1Rosy) reported 18 minutes ago

  @sam_passon12 read the article carefully! password is there github link is in the "Community" section of the app If you have issues, you can pm me

• 
  HOL (@HashgraphOnline) reported 19 minutes ago

  if you let AI agents run shell commands and touch your files, HOL Guard is the local policy layer that inspects every action before it executes and blocks the risky ones. open source, runs on your machine. 3.0 shipped this week, v3.0.0 through v3.0.12. the headline is managed controls: command catalogs for ***, AWS, gcloud, and Azure that know routine operations from destructive ones, so your agent stops asking permission for every *** status while the dangerous stuff still gets reviewed. the policy engine is Rust now, the single authority for pre-tool and post-tool checks, failing closed when a call can't be evaluated. you can enroll your own CLIs, npm scripts, and MCP servers as guarded extensions, and the dashboard detects locally installed AI apps, so unprotected claude code or codex installs show up instead of staying invisible. the rest was hardening. v3.0.8 closed parser bypasses: glob characters in diagnostic observers, decoy interpreter -c flags after a script path, GitHub mutations only skipped when &&/|| proves they cannot run. daemon recovery converges cleanly after tamper events, and AppImage launchers pin a durable CLI path. v3.0.9 put the macOS desktop engine on a stable, attested release channel. v3.0.10 makes auto/force hook review fail closed with no Python semantic fallback. v3.0.11 stops a transient sqlite error from wiping your policy history: quarantining the store now takes two consecutive fatal probes with the db, WAL, and SHM files provably unchanged, and legacy-home migration keeps your extension control settings. v3.0.12 accepts Linux desktop terminals for enrollment, bound to local session authority. uv tool install "hol-guard[cisco]==3.0.12"

• 
  DARMA 🥶| ﷺ (@Darma150) reported 20 minutes ago

  @RialoHQ One detail deserves attention: once Google, Discord, or GitHub accounts are confirmed, they're permanently linked to the wallet. So this isn't just a login step. It's a decision about how contribution identity is connected to wallet ownership.

• 
  PangeaVPN (@PangeaVPN) reported 21 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.

• 
  OverThoughtCapital (@OverthoughtCap) reported 27 minutes ago

  $NVDA JUST DECLARED WAR TO CLOSED MODEL The market is underestimating $NVDA buying Hugging Face for $12.9B, still not official, but if it closes this is one of the most important moves in AI for me. Hugging Face is not an app, it’s the GitHub for open source AI, models, datasets, the place where the weights get posted. Almost every open model people use goes through there. There was a letter in July telling Washington not to restrict open weights. $NVDA, $MSFT, $META and other signed it day one, OpenAI and $GOOGL signed after, Anthropic never did. Signing a letter is not the same as dropping weights, I doubt OpenAI and Google ever publish those, $NVDA actually picked a side, they bought the open source hub. Dario Amodei (Anthropic CEO) point is not "ban open source", he wants something like an FAA (control system) for models, test it before release and if it fails the government can block it. That works for Claude, they own the servers, they can patch and remove it. It doesn’t work with open weights, once they’re downloaded you can’t take them down. Same rule for everyone, but only the closed model can actually follow it. You don’t need to ban open source if you make it illegal to ship without a kill switch. That’s why this deal matters. Closed labs already rent GPUs, that’s not the point, they’re also building their own chips to leave Nvidia, OpenAI is already doing it with Jalapeño. Open models mostly run on Nvidia GPUs. You don’t only have 2 labs, you also have thousands of companies serving their own models (with Neocloud like $IREN $NBIS $CRWV ). Hugging Face also becomes a $NVDA asset. If they try to choke open source now they hit Nvidia too and if you hit Nvidia you hit the whole market. Either they don’t touch it or they still have to go through Nvidia. Just my dumb idea, different from Dario’s kill switch. Even if they ban open models, it doesn’t have to be deleting the weights. It can be "you only run them on approved servers". That’s the Neocloud, they decide what runs and what doesn’t on their GPUs. With Nvidia owning Hugging Face, they own the main place where the weights get posted and they already sit behind the clouds that would run them. A ban doesn’t kill the stack, it just moves more control to $NVDA and the Neoclouds.

• 
  Aleix M. Martinez (@AleixMMartinez) reported 28 minutes ago

  @taiyasaki That’s been the problem for decades. In fact, pre-GitHub, it used to be even worse. Agree we must do something. But many of us have been asking for it for decades and…

• 
  Vyacheslav Ops (@SlavaOPs) reported 31 minutes ago

  The thread's best example is a real incident, worth checking exactly what happened instead of taking the one-paragraph summary at face value. Claude Code got noticeably worse for six weeks this spring. Anthropic's first public response was basically "we don't see it in our metrics." What actually broke that impasse wasn't a company statement, it was Stella Laurenzo, a senior director at AMD's AI group, publishing an independent audit of 6,852 of her own Claude Code session files and over 234,000 tool calls on GitHub. Her data showed reasoning depth had measurably collapsed. That's the kind of receipts that make "it's probably just you" stop being a viable answer. Anthropic's postmortem, published April 23rd, confirmed three separate harness-layer changes stacked on top of each other: a reasoning-effort default quietly dropped from high to medium on March 4th to fix UI latency, a caching bug shipped March 26th that kept re-deleting the model's own thinking every turn instead of once, and a verbosity cap added April 16th that trimmed responses to 100 words. None of them touched model weights. All three degraded output independently, on different timelines, for different users, which is exactly why the problem felt like vague inconsistency instead of one clear bug for six full weeks. The thread's actual point holds up under this detail, maybe better than the summary version: the model was never the variable that changed. The system around it was. What made this case provable, though, wasn't the postmortem itself, it was one outside engineer with enough session data to show the regression was real before the company would say so publicly.

• 
  Ross (@rosswil) reported 32 minutes ago

  @ScalaHanSolo @github GitHub’s implementation is terrible, take me back to the old Jenkins days

• 
  Fuelmeup (@fuelmeupcc) reported 35 minutes ago

  @Polymarket Betting on GitHub going down is peak 2026. Only a "critical" flag counts here, not the softer "major outage" or "degraded performance" labels, and Copilot-only incidents don't even qualify. Wall clock matters because a single critical incident stalls thousands of dev teams mid-deploy.

• 
  YanXbt (@IBuzovskyi) reported 40 minutes ago

  HERMES AGENT CAN NOW BROWSE AS YOU. YOUR LOGINS. YOUR COOKIES. YOUR SESSIONS. ONE CONFIG LINE. THE AGENT ACTS WITH YOUR REAL BROWSER PROFILE. every browser session in Hermes starts clean by default. logged into nothing. need the agent to check your dashboard? log in first. every time. real profile browsing fixes this. browser: use_real_profile: true one line in config.yaml. or Desktop app: Settings → Browser → Use My Real Browser Profile. the agent now browses with your existing Chrome, Edge, or Brave logins. your cookies. your saved passwords. your preferences. already signed in. HOW IT WORKS: Hermes copies your browser's active profile into a managed snapshot at ~/.hermes/browser-profile/[browser]/ your live browser profile is NEVER opened directly. the snapshot is a separate directory. no profile lock conflicts. no fighting with your running browser. auth files (cookies, logins, preferences) re-sync from your real profile whenever a fresh Hermes session starts. log into a new service in your normal browser. the agent sees it next session. WHAT THIS ENABLES: "check my Vercel dashboard for failed deploys" agent opens Vercel. already logged in. reads the data. "summarize my GitHub notifications" agent opens GitHub. your session. your repos. no OAuth setup. "check my analytics in Google Search Console" agent browses GSC with your Google account. "approve the pending PR on our private repo" agent reads the PR diff. already has access. any site you're logged into in your browser = the agent is logged into it too. SECURITY: this is a consent-gated convenience. OFF by default. you opt in explicitly. a page the agent visits runs with your real logins. only enable it when you want the agent acting as you. when you turn the toggle OFF, Hermes deletes the snapshot store (~/.hermes/browser-profile/). copied credentials don't linger after you revoke consent. WINDOWS NOTE: Chrome/Edge/Brave on Windows holds an exclusive lock on cookie and login databases while the browser is open. Hermes can't copy them while it's running. fix: fully quit the browser (including background/tray instances) before starting a Hermes browser session. or set: browser: real_profile_autoclose: true Hermes will offer to close the browser for you. it asks first. never closes automatically. only on your explicit approval. macOS and Linux can copy the profile while the browser is running. no issue. SUPPORTED BROWSERS: Chrome, Edge, Brave, Chromium. whichever is your OS default. a non-Chromium default (Firefox) = clear error message. no guessing. WORKS WITH ANY BACKEND: local browsing: automatic once the toggle is on. cloud backend (Browserbase, Browser Use): the agent can still open a real-profile local session on demand via browser_exec with the local argument. the cloud backend keeps serving everything else. THE DIFFERENCE: without real profile: "check my dashboard" → agent opens the site → login page → stuck. you paste credentials or set up OAuth. with real profile: "check my dashboard" → agent opens the site → already signed in → done.

• 
  cvberens (@iamBrns) reported 42 minutes ago

  @jezell Exactly. Making GitHub Actions run faster is useful, but it’s not the end state. The interesting problem is what CI/build should look like when agents are producing changes continuously and the system actually understands dependencies, cache state and what needs to run.

• 
  muddletoes🪁 (@muddletoes) reported 44 minutes ago

  It seems that I am now able to use GitHub and a custom MCP connector concurrently in the same session, in development mode, on the ChatGPT platform. This was previously impossible. Can anyone who has had trouble with that confirm?

• 
  Ash (@Must_be_Ash) reported 45 minutes ago

  @samrags_ sick! was hoping to open source mine too but freaking github took down my account:(

• 
  Povilas Korop | Laravel & AI Coding Educator (@PovilasKorop) reported 45 minutes ago

  English isn’t your native language and you need to write a GitHub PR, README or comment? Don’t ask AI to write it. I’d rather read YOUR thoughts in broken English than AI-generated text about your code. Use AI to fix grammar and wording, not to write your thoughts.

• 
  miles (@miles_wright) reported 45 minutes ago

  fool me once @github with your stacked pr's but never again (willing to be educated if this is a skill issue but that was so painful)

• 
  Dosuka (@DosukaSOL) reported 46 minutes ago

  @CryptoExpert101 yupp and took down one of the websites. So either she rugged. Or someone hacked her x, website and github

• 
  Navneet (@navneet_rabdiya) reported 46 minutes ago

  @JeremyCMorgan This is the pattern. Most cascading failures aren't the initial problem - they're clients retrying without jitter or backoff. Recovery becomes reattack. The fix is boring: exponential backoff + per-client retry budgets. GitHub probably has this now.

• 
  Alex Lavaee (@alexlavaee) reported 47 minutes ago

  @rohanpaul_ai I’m researcher and have been exploring this problem through Recursive State Machines (RSMs) and other core innovations to verification-time-scaling, specifically applied to software engineering tasks. I'm seeing promising results for long horizon work spanning runs for weeks using verifiable workflows via fully OSS Atomic (bastani-inc/atomic) on Github. I think the biggest challenge is actually the paradigm shift for users of leaving agent sessions for long periods of time and intervening with effective steering and human in the loop when necessary. Today’s agent experiences are poor at understanding intent, verification, etc. and so provide the illusion of control via prompting but are actually ineffective. There is much to be done to improve long horizon work and I’ve been exploring this as a passion area for engineering.

• 
  Spocky Balboa (@spockybalboa) reported 48 minutes ago

  @thdxr Looks fun but Opencode has long standing bugs that just aren’t being addressed such as the API and the JavaScript SDK return 400 when a request is made specifying JSON as the return type. It’s been submitted on GitHub since May with no fix in sight.

• 
  BURKOV (@burkov) reported 53 minutes ago

  I'm glad I no longer need to figure out what the hell that means to make my app work. In the past, overcoming a difficulty when some image or binary failed for some obscure reason and digging through Stack Overflow and GitHub issues for hours, days, or forever instead of bulding was killing me.

• 
  satvik (@satvikxs) reported 55 minutes ago

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