Does anyone else find the Github status "messages" page [0] a bit jarring in how it's organised? The way that, when read from top to bottom, time goes forwards within a day but backwards across days?<p>I guess I normally wouldn't notice, but there are currently some messages on there from today and yesterday and I found it hard to read as a story (either forwards or backwards) - I had to jump around a bit to figure it out.<p>[0] <a href="https://status.github.com/messages" rel="nofollow">https://status.github.com/messages</a>
It seems a certainty to me that github will be breached one of these days, and all internal data (i.e., private repos) made public. On that day, so many companies will inadvertently become open source!<p>Do we have any info on what steps github takes to prevent this? I ask as a paying customer (with both personal and corporate accounts).
I wonder if this is related to <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101469" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10101469</a>
I do wonder why GitHub gets hit, and people say it's a high profile target, yes almost definitely.<p>Another thought occurs to me though, I guess one of the problems when writing a DDoS is measuring how well it performs. The GitHub status screen provides a lot of useful metrics for tuning such an attack.
Possibly just Round 2 of the massive DDOS from March:<p><a href="https://github.com/blog/1981-large-scale-ddos-attack-on-github-com" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/blog/1981-large-scale-ddos-attack-on-gith...</a><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/04/ddos-attacks-that-crippled-github-linked-to-great-firewall-of-china/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/04/ddos-attacks-that-cr...</a>
I'm getting 500 timeouts on Bitbucket. Didn't Google Code go read-only today? Don't you guys think Bitbucket and Github might be having issues due to people migrating off of Google Code at the last minute?
And a famous break-through-GFW software called goagent is deleted from github. *sigh<p><a href="https://github.com/goagent/goagent" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/goagent/goagent</a>
If GitHub folks are technical in nature, couldn't they simply have a secondary mirror of their own that they host on their own servers / clouds and then reference both primary and secondary? Perhaps redirect the secondary to the primary if it is reachable to avoid bandwidth issues?
About 3 hours in github twitter profile:
<a href="https://twitter.com/githubstatus/status/636159212876361728" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/githubstatus/status/636159212876361728</a>
Bitbucket is currently experiencing some issues too [0]. Is it related?<p>[0] <a href="https://bitbucket.statuspage.io/" rel="nofollow">https://bitbucket.statuspage.io/</a>
I've always wondered why github hasn't considered switching to a distributed sub domain layout to help ameliorate this problem. Surely if they spread their infra out that would make ddos that much harder. A subdomain per user or repo should work wonderfully
i'm sorry but... GitHub <i>IS</i> not GitHub <i>are</i><p>Examples: GitHub IS a web site. GitHub is a SAAS app.<p>The only plural aspect to GitHub is its employees and <i>they</i> are not being DDoSed. The web site (singular) is.<p>I'm not going to bother explaining the problems with "under DDoS" or the other issues with this sentence.