🛡️ Sentinel: [HIGH] Fix case-sensitive check allowing sensitive file exposure

[seonghobae]

🚨 Severity: HIGH
💡 Vulnerability: The process_ignore_file function used an exact case-sensitive check against its defaultSensitiveFiles list.
🎯 Impact: Variations of sensitive files (like ID_RSA, Secrets.yml, or Config.json) would bypass the filter and be exposed in the statically generated HTML output, leading to potential Information Exposure.
🔧 Fix: Normalized the incoming file name to lowercase before checking against the defaultSensitiveFiles list (and explicitly re-added .DS_Store to cover its original case).
✅ Verification: Ensure the test suite passes (./gradlew test) and jacoco verification succeeds. A specific test case testSensitiveFilesCaseInsensitive has been added to prove uppercase sensitive files are now correctly excluded.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 8093453771505607579 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 7f058f519e6ddf11bde8409f5a18f8f06fba8c2e
• Workflow run: 29285841096
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: APPROVE (exit 0)

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .jules/sentinel.md, src/main/kotlin/html4tree/main.kt, src/test/kotlin/html4tree/MainTest.kt, src/test/kotlin/html4tree/SecurityTest.kt.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports test coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports docstring coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .jules/sentinel.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: deterministic repair does not infer browser runtime execution; source-backed DOM/UI evidence and trusted workflow receipts were reviewed when present, and non-web surfaces used API/CLI/log/docs/workflow evidence instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

Adversarial validation

{"status":"passed","probes":[{"path":"src/main/kotlin/html4tree/main.kt","line":213,"hypothesis":"Case variations of sensitive files (e.g., `ID_RSA`) bypass the filter","attack_or_counterexample":"Created `ID_RSA` file and verified it is excluded","evidence":"Executed `SecurityTest.kt` test case `testSensitiveFilesCaseInsensitive`","outcome":"falsified"},{"path":"src/test/kotlin/html4tree/SecurityTest.kt","line":1,"hypothesis":"New test does not cover all edge cases","attack_or_counterexample":"Reviewed test for coverage of mixed-case and edge-case files","evidence":"Test covers `ID_RSA` and verifies exclusion in `index.html`","outcome":"falsified"}],"residual_risk":"Low; test coverage ensures case variations are handled, but future edge cases (e.g., Unicode case folding) may need additional validation."}

• Result: APPROVE
• Reason: Security enhancement for case-insensitive sensitive file checks
• Head SHA: 7f058f519e6ddf11bde8409f5a18f8f06fba8c2e
• Workflow run: 29285841096
• Workflow attempt: 1