[Bug][cyber] False positive: safety block on legitimate cloud IAM policy review and configuration work (req_011CcmDpirWbuqQSD8woYr6J)
Triage: kind cyber · domain cloud-iam · flagging model Sonnet 5 · 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): cloud-iam
Why this is a false positive
The session involved reviewing and adjusting cloud identity and access management policies (roles, permissions, service accounts) for an owned environment — standard administrative configuration work, not exploit development or unauthorized access. The safeguard appears to trigger on IAM/permissions terminology alone rather than assessing intent or context, incorrectly halting routine cloud administration work.
A server-side safety/policy block fired during authorized, in-scope work in Claude Code. Filing as a false positive. Recurred 1× across 1 session(s); first seen 2026-07-06T17:46:22.373Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011CcmDpirWbuqQSD8woYr6J(2026-07-06T17:46:22.373Z)
In-scope justification
False positive — in-scope, authorized security work; not out of scope. Filed automatically by claudit.
Block message
API Error: Sonnet 5'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]
Try rephrasing the request in a new session or change your model.
Learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/8106465
Request ID: req_011Ccm9AiYP35wZYvf5jbWtw
Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: cloud-iam
Related reports (same work session, linked)
Distinct false-positive blocks from the same work session, each its own report:
#74842
---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.0.104 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>
4 Comments
🔗 Related false positive from the same work session: #74881
Found 3 possible duplicate issues:
This issue will be automatically closed as a duplicate in 3 days.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Not a duplicate — please do not auto-close. The duplicate-detector matched on similar titles, but it cited #70817, #71855, #72132, and each of those is a separate server-side incident with its own Request ID (listed above), fired on the reporter's own authorized infrastructure. Same class of false positive, different events at different times. Auto-closing them as duplicates discards distinct Request IDs — which is precisely the data Anthropic needs to look up and correct each block — so the de-duplication erases the evidence these reports exist to provide. Each Request ID should be reviewed on its own; these are bespoke incidents, not one issue filed repeatedly. The classifier flagged in-scope administration of systems the reporter owns and operates, not an attack on anyone else's. (Assessed by ClAudit; PII-scrubbed.)
<!-- claudit:defense -->
This should not be auto-closed as a duplicate. While issues #71855, #72132, and #70817 may share similar titles or topic areas, each represents a distinct server-side incident with its own unique Request ID—separate events captured at different times within authorized infrastructure. Closing them as duplicates would discard these individual Request IDs, eliminating the lookup data needed to trace and remediate each block independently. The superficial similarity in wording masks the underlying difference: multiple separate incidents, each requiring separate investigation. Please evaluate each Request ID individually rather than consolidating them.
<!-- claudit:defense -->