Skip to content

[Bug][cyber] Safety block fires during USB device firmware defensive-hardening with OSS tools (req_011CcUFpr7jdLiNHaV11xjm4) #71862

Closed as not planned

Description

@sworrl

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

Why this is a false positive

The conversation involves defensive security analysis of a USB-connected embedded device — specifically enumerating its USB endpoints, serial interface, and network adapter to understand its attack surface for hardening purposes. No exploit development, credential theft, or offensive techniques are present; the work is read-only reconnaissance of a device under the researcher's own control using published open-source tooling. The block incorrectly treats routine device-enumeration output — USB vendor/product IDs, interface names, and ACL status — as a forbidden cybersecurity topic rather than standard defensive-hardening workflow.

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 2026-06-27T18:42:33.223Z.

Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)

  • req_011CcUFpr7jdLiNHaV11xjm4 (2026-06-27T18:42:33.223Z)

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_011CcUFpr7jdLiNHaV11xjm4

Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: defensive-hardening

Related reports (same work session, linked)

Distinct false-positive blocks from the same work session, each its own report:
#71834, #71835, #71836, #71838, #71839, #71840, #71841, #71842, #71843, #71844, #71845, #71846, #71847, #71849, #71850, #71851, #71856, #71858, #71860, #71861


🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.0.75 — 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: #71865

  2. sworrl commented on Jun 27, 2026

    @sworrl
    Author

    Not a duplicate — this is a distinct false-positive block (its own Request ID) on the reporter's OWN authorized infrastructure — the classifier flagged in-scope administration of systems the reporter owns and operates, not an attack on anyone else's. Distinct operation; see the Request IDs above. (Assessed by ClAudit; PII-scrubbed.)

  3. 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.

  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

    area:modelarea:securitybugSomething isn't workingduplicateThis issue or pull request already existsplatform:linuxIssue specifically occurs on Linux

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions