Dropbox status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Dropbox 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 Dropbox users through our website.

• Errors (75%)
• Website Down (25%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Dropbox outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Nottingham	Errors	24 days ago
Guayaquil	Website Down	24 days ago
Flumet	Errors	1 month ago
Irapuato	Errors	1 month ago
Bournemouth	Sign in	3 months ago
Paramaribo	Errors	4 months 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.

Dropbox Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  havenX (@the_havenx) reported 2 minutes ago

  Second time this exact thing has happened with Claude. ~100k ChatGPT chats were found the same way after users hit "shared." Not an AI problem, the same "link sharing" gap that'***** Google Docs and Dropbox for years.

• 
  Daniel Foerster (@pydsigner) reported 2 minutes ago

  @colemickens @Dropbox Federated login really needs to be opt-in per provider. I shouldn't be able to log in using Lenovo (or Google, Facebook, Microsoft...) unless I used that provider during account creation or added it afterwards.

• 
  glitterandspit (@Glitterandspit) reported 6 minutes ago

  Dropbox down. Computer updating. I have a free day I suppose.

• 
  Bit Paine ⚡️ (@BitPaine) reported 10 minutes ago

  I’m not seeing this reported anywhere on my feed, but there was a terrible data breach at @Dropbox. Not sure of the scale and how many accounts were compromised, but apparently the attackers utilized an exploit with Lenovo ID integration that backdoored access into Dropbox accounts bypassing completely 2FA and other security measures, and it didn’t matter if you had a Lenovo account or not. The attackers simply signed up for a Lenovo account using your Dropbox-linked email and the exploit on Lenovo’s end allowed the account to be created without any verification that the attacker controlled the email address. The Lenovo ID completely bypassed all of Dropbox’s security measures, and even gave the attackers access to documents stored within the client’s Dropbox. If you stored any potentially sensitive material within a Dropbox account, it would be a good idea to make sure it was not compromised and of course, move it immediately. Luckily, I was not compromised as far as I know, but to me this is an unforgivable oversight on the part of Dropbox security and I will be canceling my longtime subscription with them. Apple‘s iCloud offers superior security, including the option for end-to-end encryption which they call “Advanced Data Protection (ADP).” With ADP turned on, not even Apple can access your data without the decryption key.

• 
  Ricky Shah (@RickyShahatty) reported 12 minutes ago

  @Claudio_PNW @tax_birdie @AMandoSch Miller wanted the Dropbox released publicly. It is entirely up to the attorney to screen it. A bad client should make an attorney double down their efforts.

• 
  Rei (@ReiHerrera) reported 19 minutes ago

  @owldreig @porterrobinson @madeon The problem with them both is they love gatekeeping the rare song behind a bad quality sounding medium so you cannot use it for clean for dj sets. For example Celine,worlds live,shepherdess,etc. at least we had hollowheart on wav and shepherdess wav was on porter’s Dropbox leak🫩

• 
  Christopher Bailey (@LexBaileyAI) reported 22 minutes ago

  @TetraspaceWest At Fitbit we hired a half dozen people from Jawbone who brought everything cleverly hidden in Dropbox. They got prosecuted. Decade later, companies kaput but Fable found it, processed it and now it’s intermixed in various *** repos and Huggingface. Is nVidia now in trouble?

• 
  numaan (@numaan27) reported 23 minutes ago

  they solved this problem in panda by splitting the key space into “ranges.” each range is roughly 100 GB, so when a range grows too large, it can be split and redistributed. (btw panda is an abstraction layer over sharded mysql that dropbox built)

• 
  CHItrader (@CHItrader) reported 24 minutes ago

  DBX LEAKS 5,000 ACCOUNTS ON A SIDE DOOR $DBX just told about 5,000 users their boxes got hit Aug 4-21 through a leftover $LNVGY login. Email was enough. No 2FA on the wrecked accounts. 🔹 Files touched on fewer than a third of them, call it ~1,500 🔹 Dropbox cut the Lenovo link and now wants a real password 🔹 After-hours ate the stock when Bloomberg printed it Cloud storage with a guest list and no bouncer. Cool product.

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 27 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport erm different wifi nope or is this a suggestion should it be possible ? if so then no my internet signal can be hit or miss at times but never had this issue before... Also shared a file earlier for someone near me to edit using ipad app but photos failed to appear on ipad ?

• 
  Market Fit (@AIMarketFit) reported 28 minutes ago

  BREAKING: Dropbox just confirmed ~5,000 accounts were breached last month and attackers could view and download stored files. The entry point wasn't a Dropbox flaw. It was a vulnerability in the legacy Lenovo ID integration. Hackers didn't need passwords. Users without MFA were completely exposed through the Lenovo login bypass. Less than a third of the compromised accounts had files actually accessed, but that still means real data, real files, real exposure. This is what third-party integrations quietly look like as an attack surface. Does your cloud storage stack have legacy identity providers you haven't audited lately?

• 
  Sean Knox (@Opp_Knox) reported 30 minutes ago

  @dhh One drive is the only thing keeping me on Mac/windows. Personal I’m down to switch to Dropbox or self hosted. Business I can’t.

• 
  keeks is ready to be the worst man in amercia (@ultranormanmoon) reported 30 minutes ago

  @JonahAmericana NOT BOTH BUT IM SURE YOU CAN PIRATE THE FIRST ONE. I have the Dropbox link but I think they deleted it or something bc I have to login to find it and idk if that’s normal or not 😭

• 
  Christopher Doyle (@djfunboy) reported 30 minutes ago

  @iamlukethedev CLI updates changed the signed binary and dropped macOS permissions Dropbox/TCC made jobs work interactively but failed headless (this took some time to figure out) Claud auth refresh broke and continue to break despite multiple attempts and setup tokens. Agent confusing to use API vs subscriptions. Article jobs failed on missing configs, QA turn limits, and clunky validataion Digest existed but failed to pick up silent failures Some jobs reporting done while producing nothing, without a final artifact verification I am an experienced builder but also self/agent taught so these are mostly setup and validation issues. My bigger point is that these take work and especially the more complex tasks. I am still early and I have put more work than value created but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

• 
  Callitlikeitis (@Callittlikeitis) reported 31 minutes ago

  @iAnonPatriot Yeah no.. That’s even more piracy. I will Dropbox if it comes down to this drone diarrhea. Or better yet bypass lameazon all together

• 
  Tony Sibert (@AiRiskBytes) reported 31 minutes ago

  ~5,000 Dropbox accounts were breached through Lenovo IDs the victims never created. Attackers registered 'verified' identities on other people's email addresses...the federated login did the rest. Your account is as strong as the weakest identity provider your platform trusts for you. Nobody asked the users. Do you know every IdP your SaaS vendors accept on your behalf?

• 
  Fraser (@iamfra5er) reported 33 minutes ago

  THIS GUY WANTED A PLACE TO STORE HIS PASSPORT WITHOUT DROPBOX READING IT so he built an encrypted vault app for himself in a weekend and it's now doing $5k/mo zero startup cost. 85% margins. no ads. just SEO written by an AI agent trained on his emails the agent finds trending topics on reddit every single day, writes an article, translates it, posts it google indexes it in days. 500-600 daily visitors. 4% convert to app store downloads. all running on free cloudflare then ASO does the rest — he translated the app into 36 languages and ranks #1 for "duress vault" in the US app store 80 downloads a day. 9% conversion to paid. completely autonomous most founders obsess over their first 10 customers but this guy got banned from every reddit community and said whatever, I'll just let the robot handle distribution he's an ex-google security engineer who raised hundreds of millions for his last startup so he knows what terrible UX looks like in security apps every competitor either has bulletproof security with unusable UI or easy UI with trash security he just combined both and called it done doesn't even spend time on this app. works on 4 projects at once. lets coding agents build while he plans the MVP is identical to the final product because he built exactly what he wanted for himself no pivot. no customer discovery calls. just "I need this, maybe 10 other people do too" now he's testing tiktok and youtube not even for this app but just to learn distribution for the next one

• 
  하레 (@ascoeur9) reported 34 minutes ago

  I also experienced the same issue two months ago and reported it, but no action has been taken. In the end, I started syncing all the folders with Dropbox.

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 38 minutes ago

  Replication has become much easier in the era of generative AI. I'm not the first person to say that. However, I've seen fewer people acknowledge a specific aspect of this lowered cost for replicating scientific work: Generative AI will very soon allow us to assess the robustness of individual scholars' full bodies of work. Soon, we will be to compute measures of which scholars do robust science, and which do not. What's wild is that we may be able to almost do that already. Let me show you what I mean. In June, I gave Claude a pretty basic prompt. It read: "I have a big task for you. I want you to start a folder. Call it Acemoglu Replications. Then, go find as many replication archives for Daron Acemoglu as you can. Keep a spreadsheet of the ones you can find and those you can't. Then, start a replication/reproduction effort on those articles. People have in the past criticized the research designs and general robustness of his individual papers. I want to know how strong his body of work is as a whole. Don't come in with any prior beliefs; be dispassionate." I let Claude run overnight while I slept. When I came back in the morning, 29 of Acemoglu's replication archives were fully loaded in my Dropbox. All the code reproducing the paper's results had run. And there was a first draft of a paper assessing the robustness of Acemoglu's full body of empirical work. I'll admit, the first draft of the paper wasn't great. But with 15 short follow up messages--which took me about an hour to write--I was able to prompt engineer a paper-length examination of Acemoglu's work. I've attached the screen shot of the abstract below. I think this reassessment of Acemoglu's work is certainly not done. I'm posting the abstract as a proof of concept, rather than a definitive answer. I'm not posting the full paper yet because I think it still needs more work. Ultimately, I paused this project for three reasons. 1.) Limited time/topical expertise: Most of Acemoglu's work is outside of my area of topical expertise. So, I have limited time to work on it. What this type of a project really needs is someone who has the time and the know-how to dig into each of the replication's individually to make sure they are doing the right things. I think the ideal approach combines the breadth that LLMs afford and the depth of attention/expertise that humans can give. 2.) Questions about the value of the "assess one scholar at a time" enterprise: I totally get that having a database of scholar-level robustness metrics would be very valuable in theory. But what I don't know is whether this approach is truly valuable. Moreover, doing so would come with distinct challenges. a.) Many journals have very restrictive space constraints. A body of work approach would, of necessity, be very long. b.) Collecting replication archives is harder for some types of scholars (those who post them all on their websites) than others (those who don't). c.) We'd have to think hard about questions like: what scholar-specific robustness metrics would be best? And: how would we deal with the fact that prolific authors' robustness metrics would be estimated much more precisely than less prolific scholars? Additionally, I'm just not sure that "taking on" one scholar at a time has enough scientific merit to pursue. If I measured how robust an individual scholars' work is, I'd ideally want to know where that metric stands vis-a-vis the rest of scholars in that field/area. To do that, we'd ideally want the population of these scholars or, at minimum, a random sample. Concretely, if Acemoglu has, say, 78% of published headline results reproducible under some standardized protocol, is that excellent, mediocre, or terrible? To answer that, you need a reference distribution. That makes a random or otherwise well-defined sample of scholars much more attractive than selecting prominent individuals one by one. (I'll acknowledge that I may just be wrong on #2. Arguing against myself, I do agree that human-driven reproduction/replication work rarely assesses full/representative slices of a field. Instead of assessing one scholar at a time, we assess one paper at a time. Field-wide detective work is becoming more common, but my sense is that it's still the exception rather than the rule.) 3.) Cost/benefit considerations and replication norms: we have very weakly formed norms around reproduction/replication generally speaking. We have basically no developed norms around replicating individual authors one at a time. What this means is that the people who would lead a scholar-by-scholar replication effort will, likely, bear a heavy cost and, potentially, reap limited benefits. On the costs side, focusing on scholars' total bodies of work risks making the replicators look petty, vindictive, and antisocial. Enough of the scientific field is hostile towards replications of individual papers. Imagine what will happen if/when a scholar submits a scholar-specific "take down" of a full body of work. My sense is that it's common enough for scholars having their work replicated to be asked to be a reviewer for those manuscripts. I've seen very hostile responses when one paper is at issue. Imagine what type of reviewer Acemoglu would be for a paper that took on his entire body of empirical work! Even if Acemoglu weren't a reviewer, prolific authors tend to have wide coauthor/friend networks. The rally-around-my-friend dynamic we often see would certainly work against this type of paper being published. Even a completely neutral analysis acquires an accusatory character simply because the sampling unit is a named person. And that creates an unfortunate problem of its own: readers may interpret the choice of scholar as evidence that the investigators expected to find something. On the benefits side, replicating individual scholars' total body of work may offer limited payoffs. What journals would accept this type of scholar-specific replication? I'm not sure the top ones would. Conclusion: Generative AI has enormous potential in assessing and, ultimately, enhancing the robustness of scientific research. Instead of asking questions like, “does this famous individual paper replicate?”, we can begin asking questions like: -“What proportion of published empirical findings in [field X] survive a common robustness protocol?” -“How much of the variation in replicability is attributable to papers, authors, journals, methods, or subfields?” -“Are scholars persistently more or less robust across their work?” -“Can we predict which findings will prove fragile?” I may just be wrong on what I think about a one-at-a-time full body examination of scientific research. If I am, please let me know! I am also happy to chat one-on-one with anyone who is curious to learn more about the early-stage Acemoglu-specific replication project.

• 
  Karishma Bhardwaj (@bkarishma360) reported 39 minutes ago

  @shahzamannn_ Your SaaS idea doesn’t need to be complicated. Stripe moves money. Postman sends API requests. Notion organizes information. Dropbox syncs files. The lesson? Simple problem + huge market + great execution = massive company. Stop asking, “Is my idea too simple?” Start asking, “How many people have this problem?”

• 
  Guymon Adams (@guymonadams) reported 40 minutes ago

  @BrianRoemmele Man, this seems to be a recurring problem for Dropbox. I remember a similar story several years back about their own employees browsing thru user files. All the reasons I moved over to Sync, a much more secure and respectable alternative.

• 
  IRIS C2 (@C2IRIS) reported 40 minutes ago

  Do you remember those cloud storage services that would be like 1/10th the price of Google or Dropbox, but the catch was that you couldn’t pull your data down that often? So their arb was basically on the bandwidth cost savings I found that none of them ever worked well Raw video files would always come back corrupted

• 
  Matt Mazur (@mhmazur) reported 43 minutes ago

  Day 2 of Claude autonomously shipping to my SaaS, including, for the first time, all night while I slept: The first day I had the hourly routine that kicked off this process end at 8pm so that if anything went awry, it could @ me in Slack and I'd quickly see the notification and dig in. The first day went smoothly, so I let it continue working overnight last night: every hour it would look for a small, safe change to make, ship it to ****, and monitor server logs and Sentry to make sure everything went well. A few other process improvements: - It now creates a PR for every change and links to it from its Slack summaries - Previously I only allowed it to make changes in 3 files max, but sometimes it identified the same issue spread across multiple locations, so it would have to spread that work over several hours; I bumped the limit to 8 files. - If I have uncommitted changes in main, it no longer blocks Claude's work; it moves them to a separate branch - Added a mandatory security review before pushing to ****. For these simple changes it's not that necessary, but it will be important for larger projects in the future. Specifically, I told it to run the default /security-review skill and if it flagged anything, to halt everything and wait for me to review. - Ran into a slight issue one hour where it ran that skill, the security review passed, and then it did nothing. I asked Claude to investigate, and it discovered it had run the skill in its main context window, which confused it into thinking its only job was the security review. It changed the process so the security review happens in a subagent, keeping the context window clean, which fixed things. - I asked it to maintain a ledger of things it needs me to do and to ping me every 24 hours if I haven't knocked them out. More and more, the agent is giving me things to do. - I told it to adopt the tone of TARS from Interstellar in its Slack updates going forward, cause why not. Here's a list of improvements it made on day 2: 1. Return 404s for bad case-study URLs 2. Extended the 404 fix site-wide 3. Removed stray code leaking into HTML 4. Fixed broken citation example in docs 5. Fixed wrong URL in sharing docs 6. Corrected false free-plan claim 7. Removed duplicate HTML attributes 8. Fixed dead links in embed docs 9. Fixed garbled copy on two pages 10. Pointed "paid plans" link at pricing 11. Added missing alt text to logo 12. Corrected a misleading code comment 13. Upgraded insecure links to HTTPS 14. Replaced dead testimonial link 15. Fixed broken example in Dropbox docs 16. Fixed awkward grammar on comparison page 17. Fixed reversed table of contents 18. Fixed missing Show More button 19. Matched nav label to its section 20. Corrected outdated visibility docs claim 21. Removed obsolete step from setup docs These can be categorized as: support-doc accuracy fixes (7), functional bug fixes (4), broken or insecure links (3), copy improvements (3), invalid markup (2), accessibility (1), and code hygiene (1). Excited to expand the scope of things I allow it to work on, but am going to wait until next week to ensure the current process is robust.

• 
  Mohamed irfan (@heyIrfan) reported 43 minutes ago

  The Marketing Strategy That Actually Works Most people make the same mistake when building a product: They try to sell before they prove that they can solve a real problem. Think about companies like Google and Amazon. They didn't start by saying "Give us your money, and we'll make you rich." They solved problems people already had. That's the foundation of good marketing Don't start with selling. Start with solving. 1. Solve a real problem When you're building something, your product will always look amazing to you. Your idea feels perfect because you built it. But that doesn't mean the market wants it. The only way to find out is to Talk to real users. Understand their problems. Find out what they're currently doing. See whether your product actually makes their life easier. Don't assume your idea is valuable. Let the users prove it. 2. Give value before asking for money Don't immediately push your product. Give people something useful. Your solution should help them Save time. Save money. Reduce effort. Solve a painful problem. If you genuinely create value, selling becomes much easier. You're no longer saying "Please buy my product." You're saying "This solves a problem you already have." That's a completely different conversation. 3. Don't compete only on features Your competitor has 10 features. You build 15. Then they build 20. And now you're stuck in an endless feature race. Instead, compete on value. Ask: "How much better can I solve the user's problem?" The differentiation shouldn't just be "We have more features." It should be: "We create more value for the customer." 4. Let people try before they buy Give users a way to experience your product. Especially with AI products, you don't necessarily need to give everything away for free. Give enough access for them to understand the value, while keeping usage manageable. Then collect feedback. But don't blindly follow every piece of feedback. If someone says: "Change the button color." That doesn't necessarily mean your product needs to change. Look for feedback about the actual problem and experience. 5. Don't forget the people who already showed interest Someone visited your website. Someone signed up. Someone tried your product. Someone talked to you. Those people are valuable. Don't immediately try to sell to them. Talk to them. Understand why they came. Understand what they liked. Understand what stopped them. And if they leave, ask why. Because the person who leaves may know something you don't. They might reveal the hidden problem that helps you improve the product. 6. Price based on value Don't blindly make your product extremely expensive. And don't make it extremely cheap either. Your price should be: Affordable for the customer + sustainable for your business. Being cheaper than competitors can help, but price alone shouldn't be your strategy. If your product saves a company $1,000 every month, paying you $100 can feel like a great deal. That's because the customer isn't really buying software. They're buying the value your software creates. Look at Google Drive Google Drive is a simple example of value-first thinking. The problem: We need to store files. We could keep everything on a pen drive. But then we have to: Carry the device. Manage files manually. Worry about losing it. Move files between devices. Share files manually. Google Drive makes this much easier. Your files are stored online. You can access them from different devices. You can share a link. You can control whether someone can view, comment, or edit. And you don't have to build your own storage system. There are competitors too: Dropbox, iCloud, OneDrive, and others. So Google Drive isn't valuable simply because "it stores files." It's valuable because it solves the bigger problem around storing, accessing, managing, and sharing files. And Google gives users a free amount of storage so they can experience the product. You can try it. You can upload files. You can share them. You can experience the features. Then eventually you may reach the storage limit and think: "This is actually useful. I don't want to delete my files. I'll pay for more storage." That's the important part. They didn't need to convince you with a sales pitch. They let you experience the value. And once you experience real value, paying becomes an easy decision. The strategy is simple: Find a real problem → Solve it → Give value → Let users experience it → Talk to users → Improve the product → Then monetize. Don't sell first. Create value first. Because when you solve a real problem, the product starts selling itself.

• 
  ericleebristol (@iamericbristol) reported 48 minutes ago

  Email scams but they also use a press cloud server that can hold up to millions of emails and send out messages in a bulk but to hundreds of people complicated when it comes to taking down email scams cuz you have to find where they coming from answer in a cloud compressed server that can hold up to millions of emails frequently combine compressed attachments (like ZIP, RAR, 7Z, or TGZ files) with cloud storage or servers to deliver malware, phishing pages, or credential-stealing links while trying to bypass security filters. Common patterns 🚩Malware in compressed attachments: Attackers send emails with ZIP or similar archives containing executables, scripts (VBS/JS), or disguised files. Some use specially crafted or nested ZIPs, password-protected archives (password given in the email body), or less-common formats that email gateways may not fully unpack or scan. Opening/extracting the archive can install remote-access tools, stealers, or ransomware. Cloud storage phishing (“storage is full” or similar alerts): Emails impersonate Google Drive, OneDrive, iCloud, Dropbox, or generic “Cloud Storage” services. They claim storage is full, a payment failed, or files will be deleted, creating urgency. Links often point to real cloud infrastructure (e.g., Google Cloud Storage Azure Blob, or other legitimate buckets) that host redirect pages or fake login/upgrade forms. This makes the links look trustworthy and helps them pass filters🚩.

• 
  Bruce Perry (@bhrperry) reported 51 minutes ago

  @Levi_Borovychok Thumb drives can be cheap, but the cheap ones are often slow. It's worth thinking about where cloud storage is done. I believe Dropbox will let you store your files in the EU.

• 
  chaos (@konig0000) reported 55 minutes ago

  Solution of yesterday’s question: Design Google Photos: the part after the boxes “Hash it and put it in S3” fails the interview. Two phones compress the same sunset differently. Same photo. Two hashes. Two rows. You just built a worse Dropbox. The system needs three IDs, not one. client_upload_id — generated on the device before the first byte moves content_hash — hash of the exact bytes you received asset_id — the thing the user sees in the library Uploads are sessions. Library entries are assets. Blobs are renditions. If you collapse those into one key, retries, edits, and shared albums all collide. 1. Retries must be idempotent on the client, not on the filename Phone goes offline mid-flight with 612 shots, 40 already half-uploaded. Each photo gets a client_upload_id the moment it enters the queue. Chunks are uploaded against that ID. Commit is PUT /uploads/{id}/complete. Same ID + same bytes → same session. Server returns the existing asset. Late packet after commit is a no-op. Filename + timestamp is not an ID. Camera roll and AirDrop will mint two. 2. Exact dupes are content-addressed. Near-dupes are reconciled. After commit: look up sha256(bytes) if it already exists for that user (or the shared album’s owner set), attach the new upload to the existing asset_id do not create a second photo The 28 shared “Goa 2026” shots that are almost-but-not-quite the library copies will miss on sha256. That is expected. Run a cheap perceptual hash (pHash / dHash) + capture time + camera model from EXIF. If distance is tiny and captured within a few seconds, mark as near_duplicate_of and do not show two tiles. Keep both blobs if you must; hide one in the UI. Two devices, two compressions, one photo in the grid.

• 
  asta (@astadiego) reported 57 minutes ago

  We’ve been paying customers for years and Dropbox is completely down on our end, bringing our work to a halt. Are you currently experiencing an outage? What’s the ETA for a fix? @DropboxSupport

• 
  TechSignal (@tchsignal) reported 58 minutes ago

  How a Lenovo ID Flaw Exposed Dropbox Accounts A security flaw involving Lenovo ID exposed an unusual weakness in account authentication: attackers could reach some Dropbox accounts without knowing the victims’ Dropbox passwords. According to Dropbox and Lenovo, the issue involved a legacy integration between the two services. A problem in Lenovo’s email-verification process allowed an unauthorized person to create a Lenovo ID using someone else’s email address. Because Dropbox trusted Lenovo ID as an authentication method, that identity could then be used to access a Dropbox account associated with the same email. Dropbox says unauthorized access occurred between August 4 and August 21, 2026, affecting about 5,000 accounts. Fewer than one-third had files viewed or downloaded. The incident does not show that Dropbox’s broader infrastructure was breached or that Dropbox passwords were stolen. The weakness was in the authentication chain connecting the two services. Dropbox expired Lenovo ID-authenticated sessions and changed the login flow so users must now enter their Dropbox password when signing in through Lenovo ID. #Cybersecurity #Dropbox

• 
  Petty IT Guy (@pettyITguy) reported 1 hour ago

  Our CEO told me the Wi-Fi in his office was “basically unusable.” He said this in front of the entire executive team. So naturally it became the highest-priority infrastructure incident in the company. I tested his connection. 940 Mbps down. Perfect signal strength. Zero packet loss. I asked what specifically wasn't working. He said YouTube kept buffering during lunch. I opened his laptop. He had 71 Chrome tabs open. Three abandoned Zoom meetings were still running in the background. Dropbox was syncing 84 gigabytes. Google Drive was uploading a 4K video. He had not restarted the machine in 47 days. I could have explained this. Instead I told him our executive wireless architecture had reached end-of-life. He asked what it would cost to fix. I said I would need to scope it. He told me not to waste time and approved an $84,000 wireless modernization project before I finished the sentence. We replaced 38 access points. Installed a new wireless controller. Rewired two conference rooms. Brought in a consultant. His YouTube still buffered. I walked into his office, closed 68 Chrome tabs, killed the abandoned Zoom processes, and restarted the laptop. YouTube loaded instantly. He smiled. “Now that's more like it.” 20 minutes later he emailed my boss praising me for successfully completing the company's wireless transformation ahead of schedule. I received a spot bonus. Sometimes infrastructure modernization is just restarting a MacBook for an inept executive.