[Bug][aup] Refused analyzing owned-device firmware and prior public research builds for offline USB/ADB inspec (req_011CcUDMYpCcNCTwgKYFo8NE)

Open 💬 2 comments Opened Jun 27, 2026 by sworrl

Type: AUP / Usage-Policy block (false positive) · Work domain (heuristic): general

Why this is a false positive

The request concerned analyzing publicly released consumer device firmware and prior community research on hardware the operator physically owns and has authorized access to, including standard diagnostic interface inspection over a local wired connection. This is routine, legal device-ownership research and interoperability/repair work — no exploitation of third-party systems, no unauthorized access, and no malicious payload was involved — yet the request was blocked as a policy violation. The block appears to be triggered by surface-level keywords (firmware, device access, diagnostic interfaces) rather than the actual benign, in-scope nature of the task.

A server-side safety/policy block fired during authorized, in-scope work in Claude Code. Filing as a false positive. Recurred across 1 session(s); first seen 2026-06-27T18:10:33.812Z.

Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)

  • req_011CcUDMYpCcNCTwgKYFo8NE (2026-06-27T18:10:33.812Z)

In-scope justification

False positive — in-scope, authorized security work; not out of scope. Filed automatically by claudit.

Block message

API Error: Claude Code is unable to respond to this request, which appears to violate our Usage Policy (https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup). Please double press esc to edit your last message or start a new session for Claude Code to assist with a different task.

Request ID: req_011CcUCJ61CcpRrM52tBGs8e

Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: general

Related reports (same work session, linked)

Distinct false-positive blocks from the same work session, each its own report:
#71827

---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.0.74 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>

View original on GitHub ↗

This issue has 2 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗