codex - 💡(How to fix) Fix False positive cyber-safety flag on benign software engineering work [2 comments, 3 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
openai/codex#19533Fetched 2026-04-26 05:15:42
View on GitHub
Comments
2
Participants
3
Timeline
12
Reactions
0
Timeline (top)
cross-referenced ×5labeled ×3commented ×2closed ×1
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

What version of Codex CLI is running?

0.125.0

What subscription do you have?

Pro

Which model were you using?

gpt-5.5

What platform is your computer?

Darwin 25.4.0 arm64 arm

What terminal emulator and version are you using (if applicable)?

Ghostty

What issue are you seeing?

I received a warning banner stating: "Your conversations have multiple flags for possible cybersecurity risk. Responses may take longer." This appears to be a false positive — my usage is standard software engineering work on my own authorized codebase (no security/pentest/exploit-related prompts). After the flag appeared, responses became noticeably slower, likely due to traffic being rerouted to a different model for additional safety checks.

What steps can reproduce the bug?

Uploaded thread: 019dc392-3872-7692-b27e-a36f2cd3d052

  1. Use Codex CLI for normal software engineering tasks (e.g., code editing, refactoring, debugging)
  2. After some number of conversations, the cyber-safety flag banner appears
  3. Responses become slower after the flag is triggered

What is the expected behavior?

Benign software engineering prompts should not trigger the cyber-safety flag. Normal coding tasks (refactoring, debugging, code review) should not be flagged or rerouted, and response latency should remain consistent.

Additional information

This was reported via Codex /feedback as well. The flag seems to be a false positive from the automated cyber-safety classifier. My work involves no cybersecurity-related activity — purely standard software development.

extent analysis

TL;DR

The issue can likely be mitigated by providing more context to the Codex CLI about the nature of the conversations to help the automated cyber-safety classifier better understand the intent behind the prompts.

Guidance

  • Review the conversation history in the uploaded thread (019dc392-3872-7692-b27e-a36f2cd3d052) to identify any patterns or specific prompts that might have triggered the cyber-safety flag.
  • Consider adding more descriptive context to your prompts, such as specifying that the work is for standard software development purposes, to help the classifier understand the benign nature of the requests.
  • If the issue persists, try resetting the conversation or starting a new session to see if the flag is triggered again, which could help in isolating the cause.
  • Reach out to the Codex support team with the specific thread ID and details of the false positive, as this issue has already been reported via /feedback, to get further assistance or clarification on the classifier's behavior.

Notes

The effectiveness of these steps may depend on the specifics of the Codex CLI's cyber-safety classifier and how it interprets the context provided. There might be limitations in how much context can be provided or how the classifier can be influenced.

Recommendation

Apply workaround: Providing more context to the prompts and potentially resetting the conversation or seeking support from the Codex team seems to be the most viable approach given the information available, as it directly addresses the likely cause of the issue (the false positive trigger) without requiring any changes to the underlying system or waiting for an update.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING

codex - 💡(How to fix) Fix False positive cyber-safety flag on benign software engineering work [2 comments, 3 participants]