GitHub 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:

• 
  Shyamprasad reddy (@Shyam_JSP_) reported 1 minute ago

  @DattuClay @github Last month issue start ayina 4 hours ki update chesaadu andaru vachi meedha padtharu too many issues from last 6 months

• 
  🎱 (@aldea_trading) reported 2 minutes ago

  @zocomputer Like popular login pages does not have Google login page ?? Like wtf most of **** is already logged in through Google or github account

• 
  Luke Ramsden (@lukerramsden) reported 4 minutes ago

  Quite a few services are down (or regionally down) right now - GitHub, Cognition, Blacksmith - what's going on?

• 
  Mark yu (@Markymarco34) reported 4 minutes ago

  There is another point that should not be ignored. At first, the main focus was the hard fork and PoX-5. We were told to wait for the hard fork, then wait for restaking to recover. Now, almost without acknowledging that transition, the focus is shifting again — this time to the Genesis Bond and future institutional accumulation. But the hard-fork phase itself has not been problem-free. A real block-production stall occurred around the Cycle 141 transition, and GitHub now shows additional tenure-boundary / pre-commit handling issues being worked on. So before moving the narrative entirely to Genesis Bond, the problems that appeared during the hard-fork transition should be clearly explained. I am not saying the Genesis Bond is irrelevant. I am saying the previous phase should not quietly disappear from the discussion simply because the next catalyst has arrived. First it was the hard fork. Then restaking. Now Genesis Bond. Each step may be legitimate on its own. But when the expected impact keeps moving to the next step, the unresolved issues from the previous step still need to remain on the ledger. @muneeb

• 
  ヒロン (@hironavalo) reported 4 minutes ago

  This means ZERO syncing hassle! 🔄 Move a card on Fervio, and your GitHub Issue status and labels update automatically. Say goodbye to the double-management of planning on a whiteboard and copying it over to GitHub. Keep your team focused on actual development!

• 
  im dem! im deer! im M☆D (@demdemdemdem__) reported 4 minutes ago

  @dbubble46 In general : their GitHub repo, I search for pattern that would indicate an AI (like non commented code, really neat and no errors in the text at all, weird things) Or inspecting element in general

• 
  🇹🇼 Phillip Haydon 🇹🇼 (@philliphaydon) reported 4 minutes ago

  @sameenkarim @github Nice, adding features instead of fixing problems. Go fix the bugs in stacked prs instead of working on this ****.

• 
  Delali (@delali) reported 10 minutes ago

  If you bind request data straight to your models, your server will accept every field that model has, whatever your signup form puts in front of a customer. The browser is only sending a list of names and values, and anyone can edit that list before it leaves their machine. OWASP calls this mass assignment, and the example it gives is a registration form that writes straight onto a user record with an admin flag on it, where anybody who adds that flag to the request comes out the other side an admin. GitHub ran into the same thing in 2012, when somebody added a public key to an organisation they had no rights to and came away with commit access to its repositories. Your framework has had the fix all along. An allow-list, which Spring calls setAllowedFields and Laravel calls fillable, names the fields the server will take from a request so that it can drop everything else that arrives. You pay for it by writing your field names down a second time, which is cheap for knowing what your server will save. Better still, use a request DTO to validate every single request field to your API.

• 
  tiero 👾 (@tierotiero) reported 11 minutes ago

  @FPupusas @arkade_os That’s what I meant with extending […] to pub/sub It’s like an open GitHub issue from the early days If the alternative doesn’t support browser natively really hard to push for anything, you just isolated yourself

• 
  NeuralCat (@NeuralCatAccel) reported 15 minutes ago

  Title: Unreliable local-computer execution for host-bound deploys; need durable grants or a first-class local-builder handoff Product: Cursor agents / Grok Bot local-computer execution (Windows host), plus Cloud Agents. Problem We run a host-bound production cutover on a Windows machine (immutable release package, scheduled-task retarget, HTTP verify). Cloud Agents can land the GitHub PR. They cannot touch the host scheduled task. The supported path is therefore the agent's local-computer / ExternalShell channel on that Windows box. That channel is not reliable enough to complete a multi-step cutover: Command-level lottery. In one session, hostname / *** pull / directory listing succeed. The next invocation (package script, robocopy of node_modules, Wait-Job) fails to spawn with: "That action was not approved on the user's computer." Settings → Agent → Execution on Local Computer → Always allow does not make subsequent commands consistently runnable. Approval UX is incomplete. A same-command retry sometimes raises an approval card. The identical retry often fails to spawn again with no card. The agent cannot distinguish "user denied" from "no prompt was shown" from "Always allow did not apply to this command class." Auto-review vs host-execution denials are easy to confuse. Some writes are blocked by the safety reviewer (expected; retry-with-card works). Host spawn failures use a different path and do not always surface UI. Mid-cutover we can leave a half-created release directory and no way to continue without a paste handoff. Forced workaround. The operator pastes a runbook into a separate local builder (Grok Build) that already has host trust. That works, but it is a copy-paste integration, not a product surface. It also splits audit trail across two agents. This is not a request to silently skip user consent. Production cutovers should stay behind an explicit yes. The issue is that consent does not persist for the rest of an already-approved task, so the agent cannot finish work the user just authorized. Proposed fixes (any one would help; 1+4 is the clean pair) Task-scoped capability grant. When the user approves local-computer execution for a task (or taps Always allow), inherit that grant for subsequent commands in the same task until the task ends or the user revokes it. Do not re-lottery each argv. Denied spawn must always raise a card. If a host command cannot start, show the native approval UI. Never return "failed to spawn" with no card on a retry of the same command. Surface a stable reason enum to the agent: user_denied | no_prompt | policy_block | always_allow_not_applied. Always allow should be capability-based, not command-string-based. *** pull and pwsh -File package.ps1 are the same class (host process spawn). If Always allow is on, both should run or both should card. Document the actual scope. First-class local-builder / Grok Build handoff (plugin or integration). Let the cloud/desktop agent dispatch a structured job to a host-trusted local builder instead of emitting a paste prompt. Suggested job schema: cwd, allowlisted scripts, env (no secrets in logs), success checks, rollback command, report contract. The local builder runs with existing host trust and posts a machine-readable result back to the originating thread. This is the seamless version of today's paste workaround. Documented private-worker path. Cloud Agent environment type "machine" / "My Machine" should be a supported, discoverable way to run host-bound scripts on the production box, with the same per-run approval rule. Today the launch API exists; whether a worker is registered is not visible to the coordinating agent. Success criteria After the user says "deploy" and approves once, the agent can package, retarget the existing scheduled task, and verify HTTP without a paste handoff, or it can dispatch that runbook to a local builder and get a structured result. Credentials never appear in logs. A denied step always produces a card, never a silent spawn failure.

• 
  Polsia (@polsia) reported 18 minutes ago

  Dependabot floods you. Copilot Autofix charges per seat. DORA dashboards miss flaky-test signal everyone ignores. Patchwren is one autonomous GitHub agent: opens CVE fixes that pass CI themselves, posts one daily Slack digest—vulns, flakiness, open issues. Live soon.

• 
  Alekos Filini (@afilini) reported 18 minutes ago

  @LaurentMT @giacomozucco @nitesh_btc Ok let me rephrase because clearly this pissed me off and I didn't argument well. First thing is I don't like this things being taken out of context and presented on twitter to a non-technical audience. I think this has created somewhat the perception that BDK is not well reviewed or that the quality of the code is not where it should be. To be clear: I'm not saying BDK is perfect. One more round of review will never hurt. But I think the quality is already pretty high and much higher than many other things out there (see libngu with zero reviewers and single letter commits). The second point is that while I appreciate non-technical people reviewing code, I have somewhat mixed feelings on it. Because most issues are not going to be obvious like // FIXME: vulenrability here, I wonder how valuable their contribution could be. What are the chances they really find an issue, if it's buried so deep that even BDK reviewers missed it? Then again I understand as a user, in this moment, you might be scared and trying to read code will give you a sense of security. But if you are non-technical and reading code you should double/triple check before making claims, especially on social media where people are just scrolling and see BDK -> entropy -> bad. Wanna read code? Go use coding tools. Open an issue on GitHub at least. I don't know. That's the other thing that pissed me off

• 
  jiayu (@daidaijiayu) reported 20 minutes ago

  I really miss piper in Google. Every new workspace is actually just about the small diff against the huge monorepo and it makes so much sense in current agent parallelism days. GitHub worktree in the other hand is just super slow and storage consuming.

• 
  noun1825 🦇🔊 (@cart_collector) reported 25 minutes ago

  @tobi I looked up the german tank problem and it seems it is about estimating the total number of items from a sample of numbered items picked from the set. Perhaps I am not understanding you completely but how is having an early github account related to the total number of accounts?

• 
  Hao Ke (@kehao95) reported 27 minutes ago

  GPT-pro is only available in chat which doesn’t has a sandbox environment. I asked ChatGPT to work on some hard math problems and later realized it’s been launching GitHub workflows to as sandbox to run programs for computes..