The company is reducing its workforce as it exits 22 countries, reduces management layers, and invests in its infrastructure to scale its platform.

In April, GitHub announced that it was moving subscribers from request-based billing to a usage-based model for its AI-powered Copilot service. As that new pricing model goes into effect today, many GitHub Copilot users are reporting some extreme sticker shock as they realize just how quickly their previous "normal" usage is burning through their newly limited monthly allotment of AI credits.

Across social media and forums, many Copilot users are sharing personal statistics showing how just a few hours of AI usage can now account for a large chunk of their new monthly subscription caps. For some users, it reportedly took less than a day to use up a month's usage quota.

That's a big change from previous months, when GitHub Copilot subscribers were allocated a certain number of "requests" and "premium requests" based on their payment tier. GitHub said that the old system meant that "a quick chat question and a multi-hour autonomous coding session [could] cost the user the same amount," forcing Copilot itself to "absorb much of the escalating inference cost behind that usage." Indeed, some Copilot users have been sharing estimates from GitHub's own tool showing that their previous monthly usage would rack up bills in the thousands of dollars under the new pricing plan.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images

In April, GitHub announced that it was moving subscribers from request-based billing to a usage-based model for its AI-powered Copilot service. As that new pricing model goes into effect today, many GitHub Copilot users are reporting some extreme sticker shock as they realize just how quickly their previous "normal" usage is burning through their newly limited monthly allotment of AI credits.

Across social media and forums, many Copilot users are sharing personal statistics showing how just a few hours of AI usage can now account for a large chunk of their new monthly subscription caps. For some users, it reportedly took less than a day to use up a month's usage quota.

That's a big change from previous months, when GitHub Copilot subscribers were allocated a certain number of "requests" and "premium requests" based on their payment tier. GitHub said that the old system meant that "a quick chat question and a multi-hour autonomous coding session [could] cost the user the same amount," forcing Copilot itself to "absorb much of the escalating inference cost behind that usage." Indeed, some Copilot users have been sharing estimates from GitHub's own tool showing that their previous monthly usage would rack up bills in the thousands of dollars under the new pricing plan.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images

A so-called software supply chain attack, in which hackers corrupt a legitimate piece of software to hide their own malicious code, was once a relatively rare event but one that haunted the cybersecurity world with its insidious threat of turning any innocent application into a dangerous foothold in a victim’s network. Now one group of cybercriminals has turned that occasional nightmare into a near-weekly episode, corrupting hundreds of open source tools, extorting victims for profit, and sowing a new level of distrust in an entire ecosystem used to create the world’s software.

On Tuesday night, open source code platform GitHub announced that it had been breached by hackers in one such software supply chain attack: A GitHub developer had installed a “poisoned” extension for VSCode, a plug-in for a commonly used code editor that, like GitHub itself, is owned by Microsoft. As a result, the hackers behind the breach, an increasingly notorious group called TeamPCP, claim to have accessed around 4,000 of GitHub’s code repositories. GitHub’s statement confirmed that it had found at least 3,800 compromised repositories while noting that, based on its findings so far, they all contained GitHub’s own code, not that of customers.

“We are here today to advertise GitHub’s source code and internal orgs for sale,” TeamPCP wrote on BreachForums, a forum and marketplace for cybercriminals. “Everything for the main platform is there and I very am happy to send samples to interested buyers to verify absolute authenticity.”

Read full article

Comments

© NiseriN via Getty Images

Security researcher Brian Krebs brings us the news that America's Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Agency (CISA) has had a large store of plaintext passwords, SSH private keys, tokens, and "other sensitive CISA assets" exposed in a public GitHub repo since at least November 2025.

The now-offline public repo—named, somewhat aspirationally, "Private-CISA"—was brought to Krebs' attention by GitGuardian's Guillaume Valadon, who was alerted to the repo's presence by GitGuardian's public code scans. Krebs says that Valadon approached him after receiving no responses from the Private-CISA repo's owner.

In an email to Krebs, Valadon claimed that the repo's commit logs show that GitHub's default protections against committing secrets—protections designed to protect unwitting or unskilled developers against exactly this kind of stupidness—had been disabled by the repo's administrator.

Read full article

Comments

© Dzmitry Skazau / Getty