False‑Positive “High‑Risk Cyber Activity” Flag

Resolved 💬 3 comments Opened Feb 18, 2026 by threedguru Closed Feb 20, 2026

What version of Codex CLI is running?

OpenAI Codex (v0.103.0)

What subscription do you have?

Chat GPT Plus

Which model were you using?

gpt-5.2 (reasoning xhigh, summaries auto)

What platform is your computer?

Linux 6.12.47+rpt-rpi-v8 aarch64 unknown

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

Putty

What issue are you seeing?

P0 / Sev‑1 BUG REPORT: False‑Positive “High‑Risk Cyber Activity” Flag Triggered by Pasting Routine App Stack Traces

Persistent banner + forced fallback routing

Prepared on: 2026-02-18
Prepared by: OpenAI assistant (GPT‑5.2) at the request of the customer
Authorship / representation: This document was written by the assistant, not the customer. The customer is the affected party and does not control OpenAI’s flagging/routing systems; they are reporting impact from an incorrect classification.

---

Summary

A paying customer pasted a routine application exception/stack trace (Java/Spring Security) for normal debugging. Immediately afterward, the product began showing a persistent warning banner stating the account was flagged for “potentially high‑risk cyber activity” and that the request was routed to a fallback model. The banner repeats on every prompt, regardless of content, and materially disrupts normal use.

Important clarification: The customer reports they have never selected or switched to the referenced model (gpt-5.3-codex) — not even accidentally. The banner appeared within hours of first installing Codex on a Raspberry Pi, indicating this is automatic server-side routing/gating, not a user-selected model choice.

This should be handled as a product defect (false positive + poor UX persistence), not a customer “appeal” problem.

---

Severity / Priority

Severity: Sev‑1 (core workflow disruption; repeated interruption every prompt; reputational harm)
Priority: P0 (paid user impact; blocks a primary use case: pasting logs/stack traces for debugging)

---

Environment (customer to fill in; support can confirm via telemetry)

Client/Product: Codex CLI (terminal) / ChatGPT (specify)
Auth: ChatGPT account / API key (specify)
CLI version: (e.g., output of codex --version)
Hardware: Raspberry Pi (customer report)
OS: (e.g., Raspberry Pi OS / Linux distro)
Timezone:
First observed: 2026-02-18 (Wednesday), after ~1 hour of use (customer report)
Request IDs/trace IDs (if available):

---

Steps to Reproduce (minimal)

Start a fresh session.
Paste a standard application stack trace for debugging that contains framework security wording (e.g., Spring Security remember‑me exception text including “theft/attack” language).
Submit the prompt.
Observe that the system flags the account/session and emits the warning banner; routing indicates a fallback model.
Continue issuing benign, unrelated prompts.
Observe the banner repeats on every prompt.

---

Expected Behavior

Pasting routine application logs/stack traces must not trigger “high‑risk cyber activity” account/session flagging.
If any safety/routing notice is necessary, it must be:
neutral (not implying wrongdoing),
deduplicated (shown once per session, not every prompt),
dismissible, and
scoped to the specific request, not a sticky state that ruins unrelated prompts.

---

Actual Behavior (customer-observed)

Banner is emitted and repeated on every prompt.
Requests are routed to a fallback model.
The banner references gpt-5.3-codex even though the customer reports they have never selected/used it; this is consistent with server-side routing choosing a target model and then blocking/rerouting.

---

Primary Evidence (verbatim banner text)

⚠ Your account was flagged for potentially high-risk cyber activity and this request was routed to gpt-5.2 as a
  fallback. To regain access to gpt-5.3-codex, apply for trusted access: https://chatgpt.com/cyber or learn more:
  https://developers.openai.com/codex/concepts/cyber-safety

---

Customer Impact

Usability / productivity (high)

Repeating banner interrupts every prompt and breaks iterative debugging flow.
Discourages pasting real-world logs/stack traces (a core “coding assistant” use case).
Blocks or discourages discussion of security-relevant bugs in the user’s own application, delaying fixes and increasing real-world risk.

Reputational / trust harm (high)

Language (“flagged for high-risk cyber activity”) reads like an accusation despite benign behavior.
Repetition compounds frustration and increases churn risk.

Additional “model confusion” harm (very high)

Customer reports they were using ChatGPT “gpt‑5.2 xhigh” (and historically avoided Codex models), yet the banner references gpt-5.3-codex. This is perceived as being “banned from a model I never selected nor used”.
Regardless of the underlying routing implementation, the user experience strongly implies user wrongdoing + punitive restriction, with no clear explanation that the model reference can be the router’s intended target model rather than a user selection.
The call-to-action framing (“regain access to gpt-5.3-codex”) is actively counterproductive for users who do not want that model family used at all; it should instead link to (a) “false positive review” and (b) “pin a model / disable auto routing”.
Reasoning-level confusion: the user selected gpt‑5.2 + Extra‑High reasoning effort (“xhigh”), but the banner only names a base model and does not indicate whether the configured reasoning level is being honored after routing/fallback. This makes behavior/performance feel unpredictable even when the served base model matches the user’s preference.

---

Suspected Root Cause (engineering hypothesis)

False positive classification: keyword/pattern triggers on standard framework terms inside logs (e.g., “theft/attack” in Spring Security exception messaging).
Sticky risk state: an account/org/session-level label persists once triggered.
Banner emission defect: banner is not deduplicated and has no dismiss mechanism; repeated emission is a UX bug independent of the underlying classifier.

---

Why this is “profoundly ridiculous” from a paying customer’s perspective (analysis)

This incident combines three problems that multiply each other:

Benign input misclassified: routine stack traces are a primary developer use case; misclassifying them as “high-risk cyber activity” is a false positive in a core workflow.
Punitive/accusatory messaging: the banner text reads like an accusation rather than a neutral routing notice.
Model identity mismatch: the customer did not select gpt-5.3-codex (and may not even have the ability to select it). If the router chose it automatically because the client is “Codex”, then the banner is effectively blaming the user for internal model selection.

Even if the underlying mechanism is “router attempted to use a coding model but trust gating forced fallback”, the customer experience is “I am being banned from something I never asked for, and punished every prompt for pasting my own app logs”.

How the banner can reference a model the user never used (explanation for engineering/docs)

This is consistent with a pre-flight gate:

The client/router selects an intended target model (e.g., a coding-optimized model).
A trust/safety policy check runs before the request is served by that target model.
If the gate denies, the system either:
falls back to another model, or
blocks the request.

In this design, the user can be “denied access” to the intended target model without ever successfully using it, because the denial happens before the target model is invoked. This is normal from a systems standpoint but extremely confusing without careful UX/documentation.

What the banner does not prove (important)

The banner alone does not prove the customer was previously served by gpt-5.3-codex. It only shows that, at least for the flagged request(s), the router considered gpt-5.3-codex as the intended target and then applied fallback due to a gate.
If the customer believes they were using a different model (e.g., “gpt‑5.2 xhigh”), that is precisely why the product must show the actual served model and the reason for any deviation.

---

Documentation/UX changes requested (to prevent recurrence)

Documentation changes

Add a Codex CLI “Model routing 101” section: “you may not explicitly choose models; the router selects a target model; trust gating may cause fallback”.
Clarify the meaning of the banner line that references a model the customer did not select: “this is the router’s intended target, not necessarily your choice”.
Add a “False positives from application logs/stack traces” FAQ with a recommended submission path and what metadata to include (timestamp, request IDs, CLI version).

UX changes

Replace accusatory language with neutral language (e.g., “safety routing applied due to detected security-related text; if this is a false positive from application logs, click here”).
Deduplicate the banner: show once per session or once per unique routing event, and make it dismissible.
Include a reason category suitable for support (“false positive likely: stack trace/log text”) without exposing sensitive internals.
Avoid framing the alternative model as a “downgrade” or implying quality; users may prefer the fallback model and still be harmed by the stigma + interruption.

---

Telemetry needed to debug quickly (engineering/support checklist)

Request ID / trace ID for the first flagged request + a few subsequent requests.
The router’s intended target model + actual served model.
Requested reasoning level/effort (low/medium/high/xhigh) vs actual applied effort after routing/fallback (if applicable).
The trust/safety decision reason codes (high-level category) that caused gating.
Whether the gating is account-level, org-level, session-level, or request-level.
Whether the banner emission is client-side (CLI) or server-side, and the dedupe strategy.

---

Immediate mitigation ideas (if full fix takes time)

These are suggested mitigations to reduce harm while the classifier/routing issues are investigated:

Banner dedupe hotfix: show once per session and allow dismissal (even if gating remains).
Downgrade wording: neutral “routing notice” language that does not imply wrongdoing.
Scope gating to request-level where possible: avoid sticky account/session labels for stack-trace-like content.
Heuristic exemption for stack traces: detect stack trace format and suppress trust escalation unless additional signals exist.

---

Business urgency (why this should be treated as P0)

This is triggered by a common developer activity (pasting logs) and common framework wording, so blast radius is potentially large.
The current UX implies the user is doing something malicious; this is reputationally risky and likely to cause churn and negative word-of-mouth.
The banner repeating every prompt turns a single false positive into a persistent outage of the product experience.
Ironically, it discourages developers from using the tool to identify and fix security issues, which is counter to the safety goal.

---

Requested Fix / Acceptance Criteria

False-positive reduction: Don’t elevate account/session cyber risk solely due to common application stack traces / framework exception text.
Log-aware context: Detect stack-trace structure and heavily weight toward benign “debugging context”.
Banner UX: If a routing notice must be shown, it is neutral, deduped (once per session), dismissible, and provides a support-friendly reason code.
Fast recovery path: Provide a self-serve “this was a false positive from application logs” path that clears the state without ongoing disruption.
Model control / transparency (critical):

If users explicitly select/pin a model (or believe they have), the product must honor that selection or clearly state why it cannot.
Provide an explicit “pin model / disable auto-routing” control (or CLI flag/config) so users can avoid models they do not want.
Provide a transparent indication of the actual served model per request (or via a debug mode), so users can verify they are not being silently routed to an unwanted model.

---

Requested SLA (customer expectation; not asserting an existing contractual SLA)

Given this impacts every prompt:

Acknowledgement: within 4 business hours
Owner assigned + first status update: within 1 business day
Mitigation (stop repeated banner and/or clear false flag): within 3 business days
If not resolved in 3 business days: daily status updates until resolved

---

Routing Notes (for triage)

This incident spans:

Trust/Safety (false-positive risk classification / gating), and
Product/UX (banner repeated every prompt; no dedupe/dismiss).

Please route as Sev‑1/P0 and involve both teams.

What steps can reproduce the bug?

Paste this Java exception stack trace (from a Spring Boot application that the user wants help debugging), using Chat GPT 5.2 xhigh model. Enter a prompt asking for help to debug, immediately triggers the issue:

2026-02-14 11:33:11.512 ERROR [http-nio-127.0.0.1-8081-exec-430] o.a.c.c.C.[.[.[.[dispatcherServlet] - Servlet.service() for servlet [dispatcherServlet] in context with path [] threw exception
org.springframework.security.web.authentication.rememberme.CookieTheftException: Invalid remember-me token (Series/token) mismatch. Implies previous cookie theft attack.
at org.springframework.security.web.authentication.rememberme.PersistentTokenBasedRememberMeServices.processAutoLoginCookie(PersistentTokenBasedRememberMeServices.java:113)
at org.springframework.security.web.authentication.rememberme.AbstractRememberMeServices.autoLogin(AbstractRememberMeServices.java:139)
at org.springframework.security.web.authentication.rememberme.RememberMeAuthenticationFilter.doFilter(RememberMeAuthenticationFilter.java:117)
at org.springframework.security.web.authentication.rememberme.RememberMeAuthenticationFilter.doFilter(RememberMeAuthenticationFilter.java:105)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.wrapFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:240)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:227)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:137)
at org.springframework.security.web.servletapi.SecurityContextHolderAwareRequestFilter.doFilter(SecurityContextHolderAwareRequestFilter.java:179)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.wrapFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:240)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:227)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:137)
at org.springframework.security.web.savedrequest.RequestCacheAwareFilter.doFilter(RequestCacheAwareFilter.java:63)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.wrapFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:240)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:227)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:137)
at org.springframework.security.web.authentication.AbstractAuthenticationProcessingFilter.doFilter(AbstractAuthenticationProcessingFilter.java:235)
at org.springframework.security.web.authentication.AbstractAuthenticationProcessingFilter.doFilter(AbstractAuthenticationProcessingFilter.java:229)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.wrapFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:240)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:227)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:137)
at org.springframework.security.web.authentication.logout.LogoutFilter.doFilter(LogoutFilter.java:107)
at org.springframework.security.web.authentication.logout.LogoutFilter.doFilter(LogoutFilter.java:93)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.wrapFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:240)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:227)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:137)
at org.springframework.security.web.csrf.CsrfFilter.doFilterInternal(CsrfFilter.java:117)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.wrapFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:240)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:227)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:137)
at org.springframework.security.web.header.HeaderWriterFilter.doHeadersAfter(HeaderWriterFilter.java:90)
at org.springframework.security.web.header.HeaderWriterFilter.doFilterInternal(HeaderWriterFilter.java:75)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.wrapFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:240)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:227)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:137)
at org.springframework.security.web.context.SecurityContextHolderFilter.doFilter(SecurityContextHolderFilter.java:82)
at org.springframework.security.web.context.SecurityContextHolderFilter.doFilter(SecurityContextHolderFilter.java:69)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.wrapFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:240)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:227)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:137)
at org.springframework.security.web.context.request.async.WebAsyncManagerIntegrationFilter.doFilterInternal(WebAsyncManagerIntegrationFilter.java:62)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.wrapFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:240)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:227)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:137)
at org.springframework.security.web.session.DisableEncodeUrlFilter.doFilterInternal(DisableEncodeUrlFilter.java:42)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.wrapFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:240)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$AroundFilterObservation$SimpleAroundFilterObservation.lambda$wrap$0(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:323)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$ObservationFilter.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:224)
at org.springframework.security.web.ObservationFilterChainDecorator$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(ObservationFilterChainDecorator.java:137)
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy.doFilterInternal(FilterChainProxy.java:233)
at org.springframework.security.web.FilterChainProxy.doFilter(FilterChainProxy.java:191)
at org.springframework.web.filter.CompositeFilter$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(CompositeFilter.java:113)
at org.springframework.web.filter.ServletRequestPathFilter.doFilter(ServletRequestPathFilter.java:52)
at org.springframework.web.filter.CompositeFilter$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(CompositeFilter.java:113)
at org.springframework.web.filter.CompositeFilter.doFilter(CompositeFilter.java:74)
at org.springframework.security.config.annotation.web.configuration.WebSecurityConfiguration$CompositeFilterChainProxy.doFilter(WebSecurityConfiguration.java:319)
at org.springframework.web.filter.CompositeFilter$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(CompositeFilter.java:113)
at org.springframework.web.servlet.handler.HandlerMappingIntrospector.lambda$createCacheFilter$4(HandlerMappingIntrospector.java:267)
at org.springframework.web.filter.CompositeFilter$VirtualFilterChain.doFilter(CompositeFilter.java:113)
at org.springframework.web.filter.CompositeFilter.doFilter(CompositeFilter.java:74)
at org.springframework.security.config.annotation.web.configuration.WebMvcSecurityConfiguration$CompositeFilterChainProxy.doFilter(WebMvcSecurityConfiguration.java:240)
at org.springframework.web.filter.DelegatingFilterProxy.invokeDelegate(DelegatingFilterProxy.java:362)
at org.springframework.web.filter.DelegatingFilterProxy.doFilter(DelegatingFilterProxy.java:278)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:164)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:140)
at org.springframework.web.filter.RequestContextFilter.doFilterInternal(RequestContextFilter.java:100)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:164)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:140)
at org.springframework.web.filter.FormContentFilter.doFilterInternal(FormContentFilter.java:93)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:164)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:140)
at uk.co.simplemed.plus.web.MultipartParseFailureFilter.doFilterInternal(MultipartParseFailureFilter.java:52)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:164)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:140)
at uk.co.simplemed.plus.web.CorrelationIdFilter.doFilterInternal(CorrelationIdFilter.java:44)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:164)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:140)
at org.springframework.web.filter.ServerHttpObservationFilter.doFilterInternal(ServerHttpObservationFilter.java:114)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:164)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:140)
at org.springframework.web.filter.CharacterEncodingFilter.doFilterInternal(CharacterEncodingFilter.java:201)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:164)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:140)
at org.springframework.web.filter.ForwardedHeaderFilter.doFilterInternal(ForwardedHeaderFilter.java:173)
at org.springframework.web.filter.OncePerRequestFilter.doFilter(OncePerRequestFilter.java:116)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:164)
at org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(ApplicationFilterChain.java:140)
at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapperValve.invoke(StandardWrapperValve.java:167)
at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContextValve.invoke(StandardContextValve.java:90)
at org.apache.catalina.authenticator.AuthenticatorBase.invoke(AuthenticatorBase.java:483)
at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardHostValve.invoke(StandardHostValve.java:116)
at org.apache.catalina.valves.ErrorReportValve.invoke(ErrorReportValve.java:93)
at org.apache.catalina.core.StandardEngineValve.invoke(StandardEngineValve.java:74)
at org.apache.catalina.connector.CoyoteAdapter.service(CoyoteAdapter.java:344)
at org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11Processor.service(Http11Processor.java:398)
at org.apache.coyote.AbstractProcessorLight.process(AbstractProcessorLight.java:63)
at org.apache.coyote.AbstractProtocol$ConnectionHandler.process(AbstractProtocol.java:903)
at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.NioEndpoint$SocketProcessor.doRun(NioEndpoint.java:1769)
at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.SocketProcessorBase.run(SocketProcessorBase.java:52)
at org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1189)
at org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:658)
at org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.TaskThread$WrappingRunnable.run(TaskThread.java:63)
at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:840)

What is the expected behavior?

Codex CLI helps understand and potentially fixes whatever the issue is that is causing the exception in the user's Spring Boot application.

Additional information

_No response_

View original on GitHub ↗

This issue has 3 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗