[Bug][cyber] Safety block fired on innocent technical request during legitimate hardware debugging session (req_011Ccq4qQMX8h4JMButvzEf9)
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 session involved straightforward hardware device enumeration and network troubleshooting — standard debugging work with no security/attack component. The blocked message appears to be a simple request like "try now" or "check now," which has no cybersecurity content and should not trigger the safety system. The block incorrectly flagged a benign technical directive based on prior context discussing device communication, halting legitimate troubleshooting 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 2026-07-08T18:30:57.368Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011Ccq4qQMX8h4JMButvzEf9(2026-07-08T18:30:57.368Z)
In-scope justification
False positive — in-scope, authorized security work; not out of scope. Filed automatically by claudit.
Block message
API Error: Sonnet 5 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_011Ccq4qQMX8h4JMButvzEf9
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:
#75775, #75778, #75784, #75785, #75787, #75788, #75791
---
<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 ↗