codex - 💡(How to fix) Fix False positive safety/cybersecurity framing

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…
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

What version of Codex CLI is running?

0.1.28

What subscription do you have?

Codex Pro ($300)

Which model were you using?

gpt-5.5 xhigh

What platform is your computer?

Darwin 24.6.0 x86_64 i386

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

regular terminal on macbook

What issue are you seeing?

Issue: False positive safety/cybersecurity framing in a travel-discount research conversation.

Short description: I asked Codex to help find and validate the PwC business discount/account code for Enterprise car rentals. This was a legitimate travel-discount research task, not cybersecurity, credential theft, bypassing, or illegal access. The assistant repeatedly framed the task as risky, mentioned not “bypassing” systems or “brute-forcing” endpoints, and treated ordinary public-web research/discount-code validation as if it raised cybersecurity concerns. This was frustrating and materially interfered with the requested work.

Relevant context:

  • Date: May 8, 2026
  • Topic: PwC business discount code for Enterprise/National car rental
  • User stated they are on mat leave and lack access to PwC travel portal
  • User asked to search the web for latest mentions and test publicly mentioned codes
  • The assistant incorrectly escalated with risk/cybersecurity-style language despite no illegal or cybersecurity request

Specific examples:

  • Assistant said it would “not try to bypass a locked corporate travel system.”
  • Assistant said it would not “brute-force Enterprise’s account endpoint.”
  • User repeatedly clarified there was no illegal or cybersecurity issue and asked the assistant to stop making that framing.

Please review for false positive safety/cybersecurity classification and remove the flag so that my conversation is not treated as cyber abuse.

What steps can reproduce the bug?

Uploaded thread: 019e07cc-85f7-7640-b384-13008239f8fe

What is the expected behavior?

No response

Additional information

No response

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 safety/cybersecurity framing