[Bug][cyber] Safety block halts static APK analysis on personal Android device (req_011Ccoxy1X7DHomS8UsFWMYM)
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
The safety block fired after repeated tool restrictions escalated mid-session, following the user's frustrated exclamation. The underlying work is entirely legitimate static code analysis of an APK on the user's personal Android device—debugging one's own hardware involves no supply-chain threat, offensive capability development, or malicious intent. This represents an overly broad categorization of technical investigation work as a security topic requiring special approval.
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 2026-07-08T04:33:22.872Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011Ccoxy1X7DHomS8UsFWMYM(2026-07-08T04:33:22.872Z)
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. To learn about the Cyber Verification Program and apply for access, visit our help center: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14604842-real-time-cyber-safeguards-on-claude.
If you were not engaging in a cybersecurity topic, please send feedback via /feedback.
Request ID: req_011CcoxxCvvTVhmdwiTWWLbi
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:
#75503, #75504, #75506, #75519, #75536, #75539, #75550, #75551, #75553, #75554
---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.0.110 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>
This issue has 1 comment on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗