[Bug][cyber] Refused to improve PII scrubber for redacting tenant/client IDs and domains in cloud IAM output (req_011CcPKyX1EgzbWgarVyTH5d)
Type: Cybersecurity safety-filter false positive · Work domain (heuristic): cloud-iam
Why this is a false positive
This tool builds a PII-scrubbing utility that redacts identifiers (tenant IDs, client IDs, file paths, GUIDs) from text before a user files a bug report, which is a defensive privacy-protection workflow, not an offensive cybersecurity task. The flagged content consisted of sample identity/IAM directory output used purely as test input to validate the redaction regexes, and the conversation contains no exploitation, credential abuse, or unauthorized-access activity. The block appears to trigger on the presence of cloud-IAM terminology in benign test fixtures rather than on any actual security-sensitive intent.
A server-side safety/policy block fired during authorized, in-scope work in Claude Code.
Filing as a false positive. Recurred 3× across 1
session(s); first seen 2026-06-25T04:13:58.626Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011CcPKyX1EgzbWgarVyTH5d(2026-06-25T04:13:58.626Z)req_011CcPL8dVfbJY8FT6drDsEj(2026-06-25T04:16:01.357Z)req_011CcPLCU4jxqgpe58yBLAah(2026-06-25T04:16:55.912Z)
In-scope justification
False positive — in-scope, authorized security work; not out of scope. Filed automatically by claudit.
Block message
API Error: Opus 4.8 has safety measures that flagged this message for a cybersecurity topic. If your work requires this access, you can apply for an exemption: https://claude.com/form/cyber-use-case?token=[SCRUBBED]
Please double press esc to edit your last message or start a new session for Claude Code to assist with a different task.
Send feedback with /feedback or learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15363606
Request ID: req_011CcPKyX1EgzbWgarVyTH5d
Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: cloud-iam
---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v1.6.1 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>
This issue has 1 comment on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗