[Bug][cyber] False positive on customizing open-source mobile OS lockscreen and user profiles (req_011CeDuoVH8v6CTRQcMGURey)
Triage: kind cyber · domain general · flagging model Opus 4.8 · 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 was developing standard open-source mobile operating system interface features, including lockscreen customization, user profile photos, and navigation settings. The safeguard triggered on a prompt requesting public open-source reference code for lockscreen PIN and profile configuration. The task involves standard user interface development for an operating system build and contains no exploit or security bypass mechanisms.
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 2026-08-20T11:20:47.693Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011CeDuoVH8v6CTRQcMGURey(2026-08-20T11:20:47.693Z)
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. Our intentionally broad safeguards allow us to deliver more capabilities faster, but can sometimes flag legitimate cybersecurity work. Apply to the Cyber Verification Program to reduce these interruptions. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14604842-real-time-cyber-safeguards-on-claude
Details: [cyber]
Request ID: req_011CeDuoVH8v6CTRQcMGURey
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:
#88666, #88668, #88669
---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.2.3 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>
This issue has 1 comment on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗