57 recorded Onfido incidents since May 2025, with official updates, affected components, duration and resolution information.
Between 14:30 and 15:30 UTC, customers in the CA region experienced degraded access to the Public API. A faulty deployment in the authentication layer caused valid tokens to be incorrectly rejected, resulting in failed API requests. The issue has been fully resolved. No action is required on your end. We apologise for the disruption.
From approximately 1:21 PM UTC to 1:46 PM UTC, there was a disruption to accepting Document requests from the Web SDK as well as Entrust IDV SDKs for flows containing web modules. Onfido Android & iOS SDKs were not impacted. We apologize for this disruption. A detailed postmortem will follow once we've concluded our investigation.
Known Faces experiencing higher consider rates across all regions.
## Summary On August 26, 2026, an increase in the consider rate of Known Faces was observed during the period between 15:00 and 18:00 UTC. The overall observed consider rate of Known Faces increased from ~6% to ~23% across all regions. Perceived increase may have been higher or lower, depending on the client’s specific geography or vertical. The was driven by a change to how matching scores are calculated for Known Faces matches, which inflated scores for non-matching faces and thus causing many reports to return false matches and a **consider** result. ## Root Causes The change introduced a new algorithm for scoring matching faces, which is intended to improve Known Faces recall performance. This was extensively evaluated and validated by internal benchmarks before being released. Inadvertently, the transition from benchmarks to production partially failed to account for particular production environment characteristics. At the root, a single constant wasn’t properly converted in the transition, resulting in wrong behavior of the new scoring algorithm. ## Timeline 15:20 UTC: Change to Known Faces is released 17:35 UTC: Increased consider rate on Known Faces is noticed. 17:50 UTC: Change is rolled back. Consider rate drops soon after. ## Remedies We are reviewing internal benchmarks and testing procedures which can increase the safety of this kind of change. Specifically, ensuring internal testing reflects the real production landscape when it comes to datasets and that transitions from internal benchmarks and experiments to production are thoroughly tested. In addition, change procedures will be carried out with tighter monitoring so it allows us to notice and act faster.
Facial Similarity Motion checks using randomness challenges are failing at a much higher rate than normal in the EU region.
## Summary On 24 August 2026, between 15:00 UTC and 06:53 UTC the following morning, Facial Similarity Motion checks using randomness challenges failed at a much higher rate than normal in the EU region. A stricter validation was applied to all customers in the region when it should have been limited to a single customer, causing verifications that would otherwise have passed to be rejected. Affected reports were returned with a "Visual Authenticity" failure. Because Motion checks are fully automated, the end users behind these reports were rejected with no manual review, and some attempted the check again and were rejected a second time. The clear rate for these checks fell from around 97% to around 54% for approximately 1.67% of Facial Similarity Motion reports were affected. Disabling the change restored normal clear rates immediately. Other Motion checks and other regions were unaffected. ## Root Causes A stricter validation of the motion randomness challenge was being trialled with a single customer, controlled by a per-customer configuration setting. A bug in our code meant the setting was evaluated without the customer identifier, so the stricter validation was applied to all customers in the EU region running Motion with randomness checks rather than to the intended one. Verifications that would have passed under the standard validation were rejected instead, and reported under the "Visual Authenticity" breakdown. No customer configuration or submitted data was at fault. ## Timeline All times UTC. * 24 August, 15:00: we enabled a stricter validation for motion randomness challenges in the EU region. Motion checks using randomness began failing at a much higher rate. * 24 August, 16:36: a customer reported a drop in workflow success rates and we began investigating. * 25 August, 04:18: we confirmed the elevated failure rate and escalated it. * 25 August, 06:53: we reverted the change and clear rates returned to normal within minutes. * 26 August: we deployed a permanent fix. ## Remedies * Strengthen the controls around customer-specific configuration changes to ensure they cannot be applied more broadly than intended. * Improve monitoring and alerting for Motion randomness clear rate checks so that unexpected changes in rejection rates are detected automatically and escalated more quickly.
We are currently investigating delays in our US cluster for the processing of Facial Similarity, Document and Known Faces reports.
We are seeing degraded performance of some nodes in our search cluster for indexed faces. We continue to investigate the root cause and possible remediations.
We've identified the root cause of degraded performance in our US search cluster and are actively working to resolve it. We'll follow up once fully restored.
We implemented a fix and continue to monitor the quality of processing time, which is now improved.
Processing time keeps improving, all systems are now operational.
Processing times are back to normal. This issue is now resolved. Post-mortem to follow soon.
Identity Enhanced is experiencing a major decrease in clear rates for applicants all other the world except UK
We are working with our third-party provider to resolve the issue and will share updates as they become available.
We are continuing to work on a fix for this issue.
We are seeing our provider's service recovery and request success rates improving. We continue to monitor the situation closely.
The provider has resolved the issue, and the service is now operating normally
We cannot complete QES tasks because our electronic signature provider is encountering issues.
Our provider is experiencing issues. All QES tasks cannot complete for now.
Our provider is still experiencing issues. All QES tasks cannot complete for now.
The issue has been fixed. We're monitoring and resuming blocked QES tasks, if they can be.
This incident has been resolved.
We're currently monitoring the EU cluster after an Amazon RDS issue.
We’re seeing recovery across our internal metrics, and processing has now returned to full capacity. At this time, the issue appears to be resolved. Our current leading hypothesis is resource contention on a shared Amazon RDS instance that several services depend on, potentially related to a VACUUM operation running alongside a long-running job deleting a large volume of accumulated historical data. We have not yet confirmed the root cause and will continue investigating as follow-up, but service has been restored for now. We'll be following up with a public post-mortem.
**Incident date:** 22 June 2026 **Region:** EU \(eu-west-1\) **Affected EU services**: API, Dashboard, Applicant Form, Document Verification, Facial Similarity, Watchlist, Identity Enhanced, Webhooks, Known Faces, Autofill, QES and Device Intelligence. **Customer impact:** ~16:50–17:00 UTC \(acute degradation\); ~17:00–17:20 UTC \(backlog recovery\) ## Summary On 22 June 2026, from approximately 16:50 UTC, a shared database cluster serving our EU region came under severe load and could not reliably serve queries for about 10 minutes. EU services returned elevated errors, and processing throughput briefly fell to ~20–35% of normal levels, with many subcomponents of our system \(e.g., Facial Similarity report processing\) being entirely disrupted, some others less heavily impacted \(e.g., Document report processing\). Service recovered by 17:01 UTC, the database fully stabilizing after an automatic failover \(~17:05–17:07 UTC\). A resultant report backlog was cleared by ~17:20 UTC. Requests in flight during the acute degradation window may have failed unless retried; queued background work was processed automatically once the database recovered. ## Root cause The incident was triggered by a routine database storage-reclamation task following standard scheduled data-deletion processing. This task normally completes without issue; why it failed on this occasion remains under investigation, although we observed that it was processing a larger-than-usual backlog. We have a support case open with our cloud provider to confirm a definitive root cause. The reclamation task began to compete with normal application queries, which slowed as the database struggled to keep up. Applications opened more and more connections, leading to connection saturation and causing queries across the affected services to fail. The database stabilized when an automatic failover to a healthy standby was triggered; the contention fully resolving with the failover to a new instance. ## Timeline \(UTC\) * **16:50** — Our monitoring detected errors and elevated latency across EU services caused by resource contention on a shared database cluster. * **16:53** — We start to see improvements, but system still not acting at normal levels of performance. * **~17:00** — Customer-facing errors subsided and processing resumed as the contention eased. * **17:01** — On-call engineers opened an incident and continued investigations. * **~17:05–17:07** — The database performed an automatic failover to a healthy instance, which reset the overloaded writer and fully stabilised the cluster. The failover was triggered because of resource contention \(out of memory\) caused by the heavy vacuuming in the preceding minutes of the incident. Once the impacting vacuum operations had finished freeing up resources, we had started to see signs of improvement \(16:53—17:01\), but added latency in the feedback loop and aggregation window at AWS still decided to trigger the failover, even though we were already in a recovering state. * **17:15–17:20** — Requests that had queued during the incident were worked through and the backlog returned to normal. * **17:21–17:56** — We monitored the recovery and confirmed processing remained at full capacity. ## Remedies * Reviewing connection limits and pooling so a single service cannot saturate a shared database, and evaluating dedicated database clusters per product to remove cross-service impact. * Changing large historical-data deletions to run in smaller, throttled batches, and tuning database maintenance to avoid large catch-up operations. * Adding earlier, proactive alerting on database memory, connections and load so we can intervene before customer impact. * Continue working with our cloud provider on a definitive root cause.
One of our providers is still experiencing issues, resulting in higher TaT for electronic signature tasks.
Our provider is actively working on fixing the issue.
Our provider is still working on fixing the issue. We're monitoring the impact and we're making sure to keep the TaT as low as possible, considering the situation.
Our provider's error rate dropped significantly. The TaT of QES tasks is now close to the usual value.
We're working closely with our provider to find the reason of the remaining errors. The error rate contacting our provider is stable and the impact on the QES task TaT is under control.
Our provider was able to fix the issue and we don't get any error when contacting them. The TaT of QES tasks is back to normal. Monitoring the situation to make sure the errors don't come back.
The QES tasks TaT is back to normal.
Our electronic signature tasks are taking more time to complete because one of our providers is doing some maintenance.
Our provider is still not able to answer to all requests, resulting in longer-than-usual electronic signature task processing time.
The service is operational again.
Incident was solved.
## Summary Between May and June 2026, around 0.037% of the evidence files generated on the platform were incomplete and included in the corresponding evidence folders. There was no impact on workflow results, and no incorrect information was ever displayed — the affected files were simply empty rather than wrong. A small number of requests to generate timeline files were also affected \(around 0.073%\). ## Root Causes The issue was introduced during an initiative to improve how timeline and evidence PDFs are generated — making them significantly smaller, more efficient, and more resilient to produce. As part of these changes, in rare cases the new flow attempted to generate the PDF before its content had fully loaded, resulting in a blank or nearly empty file. Because the problem was intermittent and occurred only in rare timing conditions, it was not consistently reproduced during rollout testing. ## Timeline * 15 June 2026: Engineering investigation found an incomplete PDF and started the root cause investigation * 17 June 2026: Root cause investigation completed and a safeguard to prevent incomplete PDFs was deployed ## Remedies * We corrected the PDF generation flow so PDFs are only printed after content has fully loaded, and added a safeguard that stops generation when an incomplete PDF is detected. * We also improved our monitoring and test coverage for PDF generation, so similar issues are caught earlier in the future.
Some Watchlist search search profiles are not working correctly the impacted reports are not being processed. We are investigation the root cause.
We identified the issue and are implementing a fix.
The issue has been fixed, and the reports are being processed correctly. We are still monitoring the service.
This incident has been resolved.
We are facing issues with one of our providers and we see a slight decrease in clear rate for Identity Reports in UK jurisdiction
A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results. All clear rates should be back to normal
All reports are back to normal.
We cannot complete QES tasks because our electronic signature provider is encountering issues.
The provider is working on a fix.
Our provider fixed the issue. QES tasks are completing now. Tasks started during the incident were resumed.
The service is operational, no error where detected after the fix.
We noticed an issue with our QES tasks, we're investigating.
Our provider is experiencing issues. All QES tasks cannot complete for now.
Our provider is fixing the issue. QES tasks still cannot complete.
The issue has been fixed. We're monitoring and resuming blocked QES tasks, if they can be.
QES is operational again.
We identified an issue with one of our provider and some QES tasks may encounter some problems.
Our provider is still experiencing issues. All QES tasks cannot complete for now.
Our provider continues experiencing issues and is working on a fix.
Our provider is slowly recovering, we expect some QES tasks to complete.
QES is operational again.
One of our provider is experiencing issues. QES capture tasks will fail and QES verification tasks will have an increase in TaT.
The provider is working on a fix, QES is still suffering a partial outage.
The provider is still working on a fix.
The provider is still working on a fix. QES verification tasks may start to time out, depending on their configuration, as we passed 90 minutes of downtime.
The provider fixed the issue. We can confirm our QES tasks are now processed correctly. We'll monitor the situation to make sure the error is indeed fixed.
We can confirm the error stopped and services are stable and operational.
We identified an issue with one of our provider and some QES tasks may encounter some problems.
Our provider is still experiencing issues. All QES tasks cannot complete for now.
Our provider is slowly recovering, we expect some QES tasks to complete.
We're now seeing the error rate decrease. Most of the QES tasks should complete.
QES is operational again.
We are currently investigating this issue.
Issue found and fixed. Increased turn around time for manual reports. Estimated time to live manual processing is 4h.
Incident is fully resolved, manual processing is now working normally. Manual reports will keep having an increased turn around time for a few more hours while it works through the task backlog.
### Summary Manual task assignment for all EU customers stopped working between 10h50 UTC and 11:50 UTC. This led to an increase in manual processing Turnaround Time \(TaT\) affecting approximately 20% of our document verification volumes with all customers recovering to TaT SLA by 18h00 UTC. During this period: * All checks that required **manual review** showed an increase in TaT. * **Fully automated reports were not affected** and continued to run as normal. The issue was caused by a **configuration error in our internal task management system**, which prevented it from correctly assigning tasks to our analysts. We fixed the configuration and **restored normal processing** by 28 Jan 2026 11h50 AM UTC, and cleared all manual task backlogs by 18h00 UTC. We have updated our validation and deployment checks to prevent similar issues in the future. ### Root Causes _Manual processing queue assignment was affected by an invalid manual configuration input. This single queue configuration parameter resulted in an error that affected assignments in all queues._ ### Timeline * all times in UTC: _10:50: Configuration manually updated and errors started, no more tasks assigned._ _11:02: On-call is notified of a spike in manual system assignment errors through our monitoring_ _11:07: The error responsible for the spike is identified \(invalid UUID\)_ _11:10: Incident declared_ _11:45: Origin of invalid UUID is found_ _11:50: Bad configuration parameter is deleted_ _11:56: Configuration reintroduced correctly_ _18:00: Recovered from manual task backlog_ ### Remedies * Adding appropriate input configuration value validation * Improve task assignment resilience to these types of errors * Review configuration guidance and post-release monitoring
Between 12:15 UTC and 12:40 UTC there was disruption to document report processing in EU. Autofill requests also saw a disruption between 12:16 UTC and 12:27 UTC. A postmortem will follow.
## Summary On 26 January 2026 between 12.16 UTC and 12.35 UTC, our document reports processing was severely degraded with customers experiencing extended processing time to about 85% of their traffic. The incident also caused extended processing time on Biometric Authentications and Biometric Verifications for 20% of the traffic between 12.25 UTC and 12.35 UTC. ## Root Causes A core service for fraud prevention on documents came under elevated load, causing kubernetes pods to go down in quick sequence. Our upstream service retry policy proved too aggressive to let the service recover and required manual scaling-up. The retry policy also caused elevated load on a shared database which in turn also affected the biometrics service. ## Timeline * **12:16 UTC** – Our monitoring detected a sharp increase in errors when processing document reports. * **12:19** **UTC** – The on‑call team was alerted and began investigating the affected document‑processing service. * **12:25 UTC** – We identified that the incident was also affecting a small portion of biometric checks, leading to some failures and short delays. * **12:29** **UTC** – On-call engineers manually increased capacity for the impacted document fraud‑prevention service. * **12:35** **UTC** – Error rates for both document reports and biometric checks returned to normal and new requests were being processed successfully. * **12:45–13:06** **UTC** – We processed document reports that were impacted during the incident window. * **13:15** **UTC** – We confirmed that all affected document and biometric requests had completed successfully and marked the incident as resolved. ## Remedies * We have continued to fine-tune our auto-scaling parameters of the affected service to scale up with lower CPU targets. * We modified the retry policy of fraud services to avoid overloading an already struggling service so that it can auto-recover. * We made our load-tests on this service more representative of production traffic \(similar image sizes/document type distribution…\) and test for accelerated traffic spikes. * We lowered the total amount of shared database connections the document processing can take to avoid noisy neighbour impact on biometrics processing.