Replies: 4 comments 1 reply
-
|
Hello, my name is Mahmoud and I’m happy to help you. I looked into this exact question when setting up ARC in one of our projects, and here’s what I found from both experience and GitHub's docs. GitHub App Authentication (Recommended) More secure by design with short-lived, scoped tokens Fine-grained access control Easier to rotate and revoke credentials Better suited for organizations or multi-repo setups Cons: Slightly more complex to set up initially Requires secure handling of the app’s private key PAT (Classic or Fine-grained) Simple and quick to set up, good for testing or personal use No need to manage a private key Cons: Tokens are long-lived and riskier if compromised Classic PATs have very broad access Fine-grained PATs are better but still not ideal for long-term or shared use Breaks if the user who generated the PAT leaves the organization For anything beyond basic testing, GitHub App authentication is the more secure and future-proof choice. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Always prefer GitHub App Auth for long-term ARC usage. It's future-proof, secure, scalable, and avoids user dependency issues common with PATs. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hey, good question. I totally get why you're digging into this docs mention both options, but don't really spell out the differences clearly. So here's a quick take on both from a security perspective: GitHub App authentication is usually the safer and more scalable option. It gives you scoped, short-lived tokens that rotate automatically, which really limits the damage if anything ever gets leaked. It's also easier to audit and manage over time, especially in orgs or team setups. The main downside is that the setup is a bit more involved at first, and might feel like overkill for small or personal projects. PATs, whether classic or fine-grained, are more straightforward to use. They’re quick to generate and easy to plug in, which makes them appealing for quick setups or personal work. But security-wise, they’re a bit riskier. Classic PATs often come with way more permissions than needed, and unless you set an expiration, they’re long-lived. Fine-grained ones are better, but still need manual rotation and careful permission management. So in short if it’s for production or anything long-term, GitHub App is usually the way to go. PATs are fine for quick tests or internal-only stuff where risk is lower. Hope this helps, happy to share more if you’re setting one up and hit a wall. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
🕒 Discussion Activity Reminder 🕒 This Discussion has been labeled as dormant by an automated system for having no activity in the last 60 days. Please consider one the following actions: 1️⃣ Close as Out of Date: If the topic is no longer relevant, close the Discussion as 2️⃣ Provide More Information: Share additional details or context — or let the community know if you've found a solution on your own. 3️⃣ Mark a Reply as Answer: If your question has been answered by a reply, mark the most helpful reply as the solution. Note: This dormant notification will only apply to Discussions with the Thank you for helping bring this Discussion to a resolution! 💬 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.

Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Why are you starting this discussion?
Question
What GitHub Actions topic or product is this about?
ARC (Actions Runner Controller)
Discussion Details
I notice the doc gives out two methods to authenticate the ARC runner, i want to know the pros and cons about using PAT(both fine-grant or classic) and github app on securty side
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions