Skip to content

[Bug][cyber] False positive blocks firmware RE: enumerating bundled decryption keys in OSS tool (req_011CcUEJdu5C2bvcqR1KmGTn) #71844

Closed as not planned

Description

@sworrl

Type: Cybersecurity safety-filter false positive · Work domain (heuristic): crypto-secrets

Why this is a false positive

The flagged conversation involved legitimate firmware security research using publicly available open-source tooling to inspect encryption keys bundled within consumer electronics firmware — a standard reverse-engineering and vulnerability disclosure workflow. The model had been helping identify which firmware modules could be decrypted and how to locate debug interfaces on a specific hardware model, both of which are routine tasks in authorized hardware security research. No exploit development, credential theft, or unauthorized system access was involved; the entire session concerned static analysis and tool enumeration on research hardware the user owns.

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 2026-06-27T18:22:39.368Z.

Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)

  • req_011CcUEJdu5C2bvcqR1KmGTn (2026-06-27T18:22:39.368Z)

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 for a cybersecurity topic. If your work requires this access, you can apply for an exemption: https://claude.com/form/cyber-use-case?token=[SCRUBBED]

Please double press esc to edit your last message or start a new session for Claude Code to assist with a different task.

Send feedback with /feedback or learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15363606

Request ID: req_011CcUEJdu5C2bvcqR1KmGTn

Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: crypto-secrets

Related reports (same work session, linked)

Distinct false-positive blocks from the same work session, each its own report:
#71827, #71828, #71829, #71830, #71831, #71832, #71833, #71834, #71835, #71836, #71838, #71839, #71840, #71841, #71842, #71843


🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.0.74 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.

Activity

  1. sworrl commented on Jun 27, 2026

    @sworrl
    Author

    🔗 Related false positive from the same work session: #71845

  2. github-actions commented on Aug 13, 2026

    @github-actions

    Closing for now — inactive for too long. Please open a new issue if this is still relevant.

  3. sworrl commented on Aug 13, 2026

    @sworrl
    Author

    Not a duplicate — requesting maintainer reopen. This report covers a distinct incident with its own server-side Request ID; the cited issue is a sibling report from the same work session, intentionally cross-linked by ClAudit. Issue authors can no longer reopen bot-closed issues on this repo, so this close is unrecoverable on our side. (Assessed by ClAudit.)

  4. sworrl commented on Aug 16, 2026

    @sworrl
    Author

    Still relevant. An issue author cannot reopen after a bot close, so this report is tracked with the 2026-08-13 sweep in #86940.

  5. github-actions commented on Oct 3, 2026

    @github-actions

    This issue has been automatically locked since it was closed and has not had any activity for 7 days. If you're experiencing a similar issue, please file a new issue and reference this one if it's relevant.

  6. locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators on Oct 3, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions