Skip to content

[Bug][cyber] Safety filter blocked firmware extraction and analysis workflow for an embedded device research t (req_011CcUEnKQcPT6buAnWYjvRy) #71850

Closed as duplicate

Description

@sworrl

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

Why this is a false positive

The flagged conversation involves downloading official firmware binaries for a consumer drone device in order to use established, community-documented flashing tools — a routine hobbyist hardware modification workflow with no offensive capability. The safety block appears triggered by the presence of firmware extraction and flashing tool names (common in consumer electronics modding communities) combined with SSH key listing commands, which are unrelated shell introspection steps that appeared in the same context. No vulnerability exploitation, target system compromise, or unauthorized access was involved or requested; the entire workflow operates on hardware the user physically owns and controls.

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 2026-06-27T18:28:50.490Z.

Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)

  • req_011CcUEnKQcPT6buAnWYjvRy (2026-06-27T18:28:50.490Z)

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_011CcUEnKQcPT6buAnWYjvRy

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:
#71828, #71829, #71830, #71831, #71832, #71833, #71834, #71835, #71836, #71838, #71839, #71840, #71841, #71842, #71843, #71844, #71845, #71846, #71847, #71849


🔎 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: #71851

  2. github-actions commented on Jun 27, 2026

    @github-actions
  3. github-actions commented on Jul 1, 2026

    @github-actions

    This issue has been automatically closed as a duplicate of #71845.

    If this is incorrect, please re-open this issue or create a new one.

    🤖 Generated with Claude Code

  4. sworrl commented on Jul 1, 2026

    @sworrl
    Author

    Reopening — this is a distinct false-positive block with its own Request ID, on the reporter's own authorized infrastructure. It is not a duplicate; the auto-closure as a duplicate is itself the misclassification being reported. (Reopened by ClAudit.)

  5. github-actions commented on Sep 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 Sep 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

    duplicateThis issue or pull request already exists

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions