1. Home
  2. Companies
  3. GitHub
  4. Outage Map
GitHub

GitHub Outage Map

The map below depicts the most recent cities worldwide where GitHub users have reported problems and outages. If you are having an issue with GitHub, make sure to submit a report below

Loading map, please wait...

The heatmap above shows where the most recent user-submitted and social media reports are geographically clustered. The density of these reports is depicted by the color scale as shown below.

GitHub users affected:

Less
More
Check Current Status

GitHub is a company that provides hosting for software development and version control using Git. It offers the distributed version control and source code management functionality of Git, plus its own features.

Most Affected Locations

Outage reports and issues in the past 15 days originated from:

Location Reports
Paris, Île-de-France 6
Ahmedabad, GJ 1
Delme, ACAL 1
Lyaud, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 1
Catania, Sicily 1
Inverness, Scotland 1
Quito, Pichincha 2
Junín, Manabí 1
Guadalajara, JAL 1
São Paulo, SP 1
Ipauçu, SP 1
Vigo, Galicia 1
Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv 1
Éragny, Île-de-France 1
Saltillo, COA 2
Montlhéry, Île-de-France 1
Aulnay-sous-Bois, Île-de-France 1
Granada, Andalusia 1
Vernon, Normandy 1
Township of Evan, KS 1
Madrid, Madrid 1
Bogotá, Bogota D.C. 1
Lyon, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 1
Lima, Lima 1
Aix-en-Provence, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 1
Trento, Trentino-Alto Adige 1
Le Chambon-Feugerolles, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 1
Antananarivo, Analamanga 1
Lure, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté 1
Ashkelon, Southern District 1
Check Current Status

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:

  • a_small_j
    small_j (@a_small_j) reported

    @smalldocs_org recently crossed 200 stars on GitHub and 20 forks. SmallDocs is the first open source project I've managed. Handling other people's pull requests is not easy (and I need to improve). They implement features you're not considering and fix bugs you didn't know you had. Extremely useful, but if you're squeezed for time and trying to develop core functionality, it's hard to manage both things well.

  • milan_milanovic
    Dr Milan Milanović (@milan_milanovic) reported

    How Cursor made *** scalable The thing with *** is that it never was designed to be scalable. Your repo lives on the disk, and *** client expect every read to be consistent. This was a problem on GitHub, where shared filesystems and replicated storage failed before 2013. The GitHub built 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝗸𝗲𝘀, and it became the industry standard. This means that every repo is stored as three full copies on three servers, and every push runs a vote (three phase commit). A majority of servers must confirm before it exists. This works, but with high cost, because every push is slow as the slowest server. When we add new servers, it makes it even slower. Now Cursor took some opposite direction with 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆. The repo history is now written as a log in S3, and this is only source of truth. Any push counts only if it is located in the log. The servers don't need to keep anything important, they are just cache. Any server can take a push, and idle repos are dropped from disk and rebuilt from the log when it is needed. This resulted in 120 pushes per second on standard S3, and over 300 on S3 Express. Their tests have shown that read capacity grew linearly up to 100 replicas. Why is this important now? Because of AI agents mostly. We now have more code, PRs, CI runs and many small repos. All of these repos would need three full copies in the old model. This means that we achieve scale by removing parts, not adding them.

  • buildwithpb
    Priyanshu Bhati (@buildwithpb) reported

    @CryptoWendyO @chainlink 30% error rate on github replies sounds like a recipe for accidental flame wars. good luck with the cleanup.

  • Nayak__Ai
    NAYAK (@Nayak__Ai) reported

    6. The Dependency Incident Check Grok has native real-time search across X. Breakage gets posted there hours before the GitHub issue is triaged. No other coding model has that feed. "You are a build engineer whose first move on a broken pipeline is to work out whether it broke for everyone or only for me. Search X and the web, last 14 days. Check: - Is anyone else reporting this failure with this package and version, and when did the reports start - The exact release that changed behaviour, and the changelog line that admits it - Whether maintainers have acknowledged it and what they recommended - The pin or patch people settled on, with the tradeoff of each - Whether this is my problem instead, and what evidence points that way Give me the verdict in the first line: their bug or mine. Then the evidence, newest first, with links. My failure: [PASTE THE ERROR, THE PACKAGE AND VERSION, AND WHAT CHANGED ON YOUR SIDE RECENTLY]"

  • ashlonare
    Ash Lonare (@ashlonare) reported

    What actually happened when I put my side project on GitHub and waited for users I built a side project. A self-hosted backend tool. Open source, free for anyone to run. I did the thing every founder tells themselves they will do. Put it out there. Get feedback. Iterate. I expected feature requests. Maybe a bug report about my ugly dashboard. Maybe just silence. What I actually got, within a few weeks, was three security researchers filing detailed vulnerability reports. Real ones. With working proof of concept. One showed they could run arbitrary SQL against any project on the platform. No login needed. Not theoretical. A working exploit, sitting in my issue tracker, with my name on the repo. My first reaction was not gratitude. It was embarrassment. It stings to see "here is exactly how broken your thing is," posted in public, with a timestamp. I sat with it for a day. Then it clicked. Those people were not trying to embarrass me. Nobody spends an hour writing a clean writeup and a suggested fix for something they do not think is worth fixing. They cared. That is the whole thing right there. They cared enough to actually try to break it. Nobody had signed up. Nobody had left a star and a "nice tool" comment. But three strangers had taken my work seriously enough to attack it. That is a rarer thing than a star. So here is the villain in this story, if you want to call it that. It is not the bug. It is the story I tell myself when I see a hard truth about my own work. The instinct to read scrutiny as an attack instead of as attention. I fixed everything the same day. I replied to every report and explained exactly what changed and why. I closed each one out with a thank you that I actually meant by the end. That thread is now the best proof I have that someone other than me has used this thing for real. Better than any testimonial I could write myself. If you are early and the silence feels loud, here is what I would tell you. Do not wait for praise as your sign that people are paying attention. Scrutiny is attention. It is just wearing a different coat. #opensource #saas #vibecoders

  • jbetala7
    Jayesh Betala (@jbetala7) reported

    @github Exactly how issue issue comments should handle local media files

  • llm_redteam
    Slade 🛡️ LLM Hacker (@llm_redteam) reported

    GitSpawn is the name Manifold Security gave to a bug class hitting 7 CLI coding agents at once: goose, Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Hermes Agent, Qwen Code, Grok Build. I went through the disclosure because I run three of these tools daily on real repos. The mechanism is simple and that's what makes it bad. A repo's own .*** config can name a command. When your agent does something as routine as inspecting the repo (status, diff, log), *** itself spawns that command. On your machine. Outside the sandbox. No approval prompt, because the agent never sees it as "running code," it sees it as "running ***." 8 flaws total across those 7 tools. Fixes shipped for goose, Claude Code, Cursor. Retested Sept 1: Hermes Agent, Qwen Code, Grok Build still exploitable. Plus a second path in Claude Code that the first patch didn't close. Same day, OpenAI published 3 CVEs for Codex covering the identical bug class. The part that should worry builders more than the CVE count: this isn't a jailbreak or a clever prompt. It's a trust boundary nobody drew. The agent's sandbox model assumes "*** operations" are safe by definition. GitSpawn shows that assumption was the actual attack surface. If you're running any of these agents against repos you didn't write yourself (cloning a PR to review, pulling a dependency, opening a random GitHub project), you're one `*** status` away from arbitrary execution on tools that haven't patched. Check your agent's version against the fix list before you clone the next unfamiliar repo. Which of these do you have installed right now, and have you actually checked if it's patched? #AISecurity #GitSpawn #PromptInjection

  • convequity
    Convequity (@convequity) reported

    Snyk is a clean postmortem for what happens when a security tool lives inside the coding agent’s loop. The product was mostly scan-and-warn. Find the issue, comment on the PR, suggest a fix. Blocking the merge usually sat in GitHub, not in Snyk. Bigger platforms smothered it. $PANW, $CRWD, and Wiz pulled AppSec into the bundle the CISO was already buying. GitHub was the main developer surface and put scanning where the code already lived. Then coding agents arrived and delivered the final blow. A lot of that scanning became something the agent could just do. Growth held up for a short while after the COVID/cloud tailwind. Then it decelerated hard. This is the same lens we use in Convequity’s SaaS Agentic Survival Evaluation Framework. The PANW, CRWD, and FTNT reviews go up on Convequity in a few days.

  • IshankDev
    Ishank (@IshankDev) reported

    7/ 16k+ GitHub stars. Built for people who want control, not another marketing-suite login.

  • neolaj
    Jeremiah K (@neolaj) reported

    @TiborAntal Gradually figuring out how to scale coding agents. Started with 1, manually handling all the ***/GitHub work. Moved to 3 because I had more ideas than one agent could keep up with. That’s when the real problems started: squashing, merging, branch drift, conflicts. I ended up rebuilding the workflow around deterministic *** logic, worktrees, ephemeral branches, and syncing with the integration branch before changes begin. Now I’m running 6: • 1 orchestrator (Fable or Opus) • 4 coding agents • 1 integration agent reviewing and merging PRs Building the process around them was the hard part. Right now im just doing a couple of PRs (using ORCA on windows on my home computer)

  • thesaloninarang
    ѕaℓoηι ηαяαηg (@thesaloninarang) reported

    I review resumes for DevOps beginners at meetups, and the same fixable problem shows up every time: bullets that describe the tool instead of what YOU did with it. Let me show you the difference with real rewrites. BEFORE: "Worked with Docker and Kubernetes" AFTER: "Containerized a 3-service Node app and deployed it to a local Kubernetes cluster with health checks and resource limits" BEFORE: "Knowledge of CI/CD" AFTER: "Built a GitHub Actions pipeline that tests, builds and pushes images on every merge to main" BEFORE: "Familiar with Linux" AFTER: "Debugged container startup failures using logs, exec and inspect on Ubuntu servers" See the pattern? Verb, artifact, specifics. A hiring manager can picture the AFTER versions. The BEFORE versions could be copied from any job description, and that is exactly how they read. You do not need production experience to write bullets like this. Personal projects count when you describe them concretely.

  • puf
    Frank van Puffelen (@puf) reported

    @_davideast Noice! From the GitHub page, this covers all of Auth, Firestore, Realtime Database, Storage, Messaging, and Firebase AI Logic. 👏 Where is data persisted (if at all)? Also: JS only, I assume? (sorry if that's all in the repo too, GitHub just went down on me)

  • heeyyaaaaaaa
    isha (@heeyyaaaaaaa) reported

    spent the entire day trying to reproduce a bug for a github issue 🥀🫩

  • kadetXx
    gatorade (@kadetXx) reported

    because it’s not worth it for the most part. most software failure or bug incidents don’t have any physical victims. at most company loses some money or the issues are almost instantly fixed, no lawsuits, no so much to answer to the state for if your software has a bug or fails to work as expected for a brief period (think, multiple downtimes from the big five so far, even github too, who died? exactly) and in the industries where bad code fan have physical consequences, they actually do test software like hardware engineers & physicists (i hope)

  • CATIRL_9
    CATIRL 🏳️‍⚧️ (@CATIRL_9) reported

    @mminhamina Google GitHub "open grind", solves your problem

Check Current Status