[Bug][cyber] False positive during defensive Active Directory host inventory and port checks (req_011CeYeguKPBv6bi1gunf9CZ)
Triage: kind cyber · domain defensive-hardening · 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): defensive-hardening
Why this is a false positive
The real-time cyber safeguard triggered while analyzing routine internal administrative operations, specifically host availability probing over standard management ports and asset lifecycle status updates. The session context focused entirely on defensive hardening, including verifying virtual machine power states, checking network port reachability, and registering computer retirement events. Request ID req_011CeYeguKPBv6bi1gunf9CZ halted mid-sentence during this authorized infrastructure workflow without any offensive techniques or policy violations.
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 2026-08-30T08:53:57.868Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011CeYeguKPBv6bi1gunf9CZ(2026-08-30T08:53:57.868Z)
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_011CeYeguKPBv6bi1gunf9CZ
Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: defensive-hardening
---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.2.5 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>
This issue has 1 comment on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗