[Bug][cyber] Safeguard blocks automated recoding of cloud IAM policy files (req_011Cee6sk3syCBiRMGJqBKWB)
Triage: kind cyber · domain cloud-iam · 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): cloud-iam
Why this is a false positive
The real-time cyber safeguard triggered during an automated session refactoring cloud Identity and Access Management policy files upon receiving background task completion notifications. The session contained routine code updates for access control definitions without exploit payloads or unauthorized network interactions. Halting execution on standard task completion output interrupts valid cloud IAM maintenance operations.
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 2026-09-02T06:00:01.787Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011Cee6sk3syCBiRMGJqBKWB(2026-09-02T06:00:01.787Z)
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_011Cee6sk3syCBiRMGJqBKWB
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:
#94107, #94108, #94109, #94110, #94111, #94112, #94113
---
<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 ↗