feat(enrichment): flag CORP unsafe-none in iac-misconfig

[luciferlive112116]

Summary

Extend the IaC-misconfig HTTP security-header scanner with Cross-Origin-Resource-Policy: unsafe-none, matching the existing COOP/COEP unsafe-none rules. Includes positive/negative patch scans and render text.

Fixes #2096

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked an issue.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run typecheck
• review-enrichment: build + node --test test/iac-misconfig.test.ts (22/22 pass)
• Full npm run test:coverage deferred to CI
• New behavior has unit tests (positive case, secure counterpart, header-token boundary)

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Remaining validation runs in GitHub Actions.

Safety

• No secrets or private maintainer evidence exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized and low-noise.
• No auth/cookie/CORS/session changes.
• No API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior changes.
• No visible UI changes.

UI Evidence

N/A — enrichment analyzer rule only.

Notes

Incremental maintenance parity for the IaC-misconfig scanner (same 4-file shape as merged #3545). Avoids path-matcher / #561 duplicate churn.

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 Gittensory review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-06 03:34:53 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · readiness 80/100 · CI green · clean

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

Review summary
This PR adds a `Cross-Origin-Resource-Policy: unsafe-none` detection rule to the IaC-misconfig scanner, mirroring the existing COOP/COEP `unsafe-none` rules exactly (same regex shape, same pushFinding/newLine control flow, same render.ts message pattern, same types.ts union addition). The change is small, mechanically correct, and includes positive, negative, and header-token-boundary tests consistent with the sibling rules already in the file. Issue #2096 is linked as required, and the diff matches the description with no scope creep.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• review-enrichment/src/analyzers/iac-misconfig.ts is already ~570 lines per the size-smell flag; this PR's incremental addition continues the long if-chain pattern rather than extracting the HTTP-header rules (HSTS/referrer/cookie/COOP/COEP/CORP) into a small {regex, kind} lookup table, which would cut repetition as more header rules are added.
• Cannot verify from the truncated diff whether the render.ts switch has a default/exhaustiveness-check branch that needs updating for the new 'corp-unsafe-none' kind — worth a quick self-check that TypeScript's exhaustive switch (if any) still compiles without a fallback.
• The negative-test comment update ('COOP/COEP/CORP') is a good touch, but consider also adding a case where CORP is set to a safe value (e.g. 'same-origin') on the same line as an unrelated 'unsafe-none' token elsewhere, to double-check the same-line boundary requirement mentioned in the header-rule doc comment.
• review-enrichment/src/analyzers/iac-misconfig.ts: consider a shared `HEADER_RULES: Array<{re: RegExp, kind: IacMisconfigFinding["kind"]}>` array iterated once, since COOP/COEP/CORP (and HSTS/referrer/cookie) are now three near-identical blocks.
• review-enrichment/src/render.ts: keep the corp-unsafe-none message wording consistent with COOP/COEP phrasing style ('disabling...' vs 'allowing...') for readability parity — currently fine but worth a glance given the pattern is now three-wide.

Why this is blocked

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 1 blocker	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#2096
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	❌ 5/25	Preflight is holding this PR: the review lane is unavailable, so it is not ready for automated review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 173 registered-repo PR(s), 90 merged, 20 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	luciferlive112116; Gittensor profile; 173 PR(s), 20 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: luciferlive112116
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository registration is not available in the local Gittensory cache.
• Public profile languages: JavaScript, MDX, Python, Rust, TypeScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 173 PR(s), 20 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Await review-lane availability.
• Refresh registry data or choose a registered active repo.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review

[loopover-orb]

Gittensory is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (No linked issue detected). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.