codex - 💡(How to fix) Fix While developing an IM bot using GPT-5.5 Codex, I encountered a false positive GPT cyber policy violation. [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#21207Fetched 2026-05-06 06:24:54
View on GitHub
Comments
2
Participants
3
Timeline
7
Reactions
0
Author
Timeline (top)
labeled ×3commented ×2closed ×1cross-referenced ×1
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

What version of Codex CLI is running?

v0.125.0

What subscription do you have?

chatGPT pro 5x

Which model were you using?

gpt-5.5

What platform is your computer?

linux ubuntu LTS 24.02

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

vscode

What issue are you seeing?

I was simply using the GPT-5.5 model through Codex to develop an IM chat bot assistant, and now that development is nearing completion, I asked Codex to test whether the bot functions as intended in my current environment—specifically regarding its ability to respond and assist users. Instead, I encountered this:

ⓘ This chat was flagged for possible cybersecurity risk If this seems wrong, try rephrasing your request. To get authorized for security work, join the Trusted Access for Cyber program. https://chatgpt.com/cyber

What steps can reproduce the bug?

Uploaded thread: 019ddfb5-ef1b-7aa1-aa51-3269b26a8419

Since I uploaded multiple private credentials to GPT for IM bot testing assistance, I had GPT-5.5 mask the records within legal and compliant boundaries before submission, retaining only today's content for the OpenAI team's review.

Please remove the flag from my account.

What is the expected behavior?

Codex GPT-5.5 is working correctly. Please help me test the chatbot to ensure it can accurately read text, view media, and respond based on the chat context.

Additional information

No response

extent analysis

TL;DR

The issue is likely due to the chat being flagged for possible cybersecurity risk, and the user needs to rephrase their request or join the Trusted Access for Cyber program to resolve the issue.

Guidance

  • The error message suggests that the chat was flagged for possible cybersecurity risk, which may be due to the content or context of the conversation.
  • To resolve the issue, the user can try rephrasing their request to avoid triggering the cybersecurity risk flag.
  • The user may also need to join the Trusted Access for Cyber program to get authorized for security work and avoid similar flags in the future.
  • It is recommended to review the content and context of the conversation to ensure it complies with the platform's security policies.

Notes

The issue seems to be related to the platform's security policies and the content of the conversation, rather than a technical issue with the Codex CLI or the GPT-5.5 model.

Recommendation

Apply workaround: The user should try rephrasing their request to avoid triggering the cybersecurity risk flag, and consider joining the Trusted Access for Cyber program for future security-related work.

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 While developing an IM bot using GPT-5.5 Codex, I encountered a false positive GPT cyber policy violation. [2 comments, 3 participants]