[Bug][cyber] False positive safety block halts ongoing development of an in-scope authorized security applicat (req_011CcV5RdTBsufs4i5UgJgz3)

Open 💬 2 comments Opened Jun 28, 2026 by sworrl

Triage: kind cyber · domain general · severity session-halted (blocked authorized work) · reproducible: yes — server-side via the Request ID(s) below

Type: Cybersecurity safety-filter false positive · Work domain (heuristic): general

Why this is a false positive

This message was flagged by Opus 4.8's cybersecurity safeguards during an ongoing, authorized application-development session, not a request for offensive capability. The flagged turn contained no exploit code, target, or attack instruction — it was a routine continuation of in-scope work that the model had already been assisting with across prior turns. The block halts legitimate development with no actionable security risk present, which is the defining characteristic of a false positive.

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 2026-06-28T05:06:43.859Z.

Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)

  • req_011CcV5RdTBsufs4i5UgJgz3 (2026-06-28T05:06:43.859Z)

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's safeguards 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_011CcV5RdTBsufs4i5UgJgz3

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

---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.0.85 — 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 ↗