Adjust BARE LF tests to warn 2xx

docs/content/docs/line-endings/bare-lf-header.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ weight: 2
 | **Category** | Compliance |
 | **RFC** | [RFC 9112 Section 2.2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112#section-2.2) |
 | **Requirement** | MAY |
-| **Expected** | `400` or close |
+| **Expected** | `400` or close (pass), `2xx` (warn) |
 
 ## What it sends
 
@@ -93,12 +93,12 @@ This directly supports why bare LF in headers is a security concern: if the fron
 
 ### Scored / Unscored justification
 
-This test is **scored (Pass/Fail)**. Although the RFC requirement level is MAY, Http11Probe enforces strict rejection:
+This test is **scored (Pass/Warn)**:
 
 - **Pass** for `400` or connection close --- strict rejection prevents header boundary disagreements between hops.
-- **Fail** for `2xx` --- the server accepted bare LF in a header, which introduces a smuggling vector in multi-hop architectures.
+- **Warn** for `2xx` --- the server accepted bare LF in a header. This is permitted by the RFC (MAY) but introduces a smuggling vector in multi-hop architectures.
 
-The scoring reflects Http11Probe's security-first philosophy: when the RFC gives discretion (MAY), the tool rewards the stricter posture. Header-level bare LF is arguably more dangerous than request-line bare LF because header boundaries directly control how Content-Length, Transfer-Encoding, and Host are parsed --- all of which are smuggling-critical fields.
+The strict posture is rewarded because header-level bare LF is particularly sensitive --- header boundaries directly control how Content-Length, Transfer-Encoding, and Host are parsed, all of which are smuggling-critical fields.
 
 ## Sources
 

docs/content/docs/line-endings/bare-lf-request-line.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ weight: 1
 | **Category** | Compliance |
 | **RFC** | [RFC 9112 Section 2.2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112#section-2.2) |
 | **Requirement** | MAY |
-| **Expected** | `400` or close |
+| **Expected** | `400` or close (pass), `2xx` (warn) |
 
 ## What it sends
 
@@ -94,12 +94,12 @@ This explains the security motivation for rejecting bare LF: when a front-end pr
 
 ### Scored / Unscored justification
 
-This test is **scored (Pass/Fail)**. Although the RFC requirement level is MAY, Http11Probe enforces strict rejection:
+This test is **scored (Pass/Warn)**:
 
 - **Pass** for `400` or connection close --- strict rejection eliminates parser-differential attacks.
-- **Fail** for `2xx` --- the server accepted bare LF as a line terminator, which introduces a smuggling vector in multi-hop architectures.
+- **Warn** for `2xx` --- the server accepted bare LF as a line terminator. This is permitted by the RFC (MAY) but introduces a smuggling vector in multi-hop architectures.
 
-The scoring reflects Http11Probe's security-first philosophy: when the RFC gives discretion (MAY), the tool rewards the stricter posture because bare LF acceptance is a well-known source of parser disagreements that enable request smuggling.
+The strict posture is rewarded because bare LF acceptance is a well-known source of parser disagreements that enable request smuggling.
 
 ## Sources
 

src/Http11Probe/TestCases/Suites/ComplianceSuite.cs

@@ -22,28 +22,42 @@ public static IEnumerable<TestCase> GetTestCases()
         yield return new TestCase
         {
             Id = "RFC9112-2.2-BARE-LF-REQUEST-LINE",
-            Description = "Bare LF in request line must be rejected",
+            Description = "Bare LF in request line should be rejected, but MAY be accepted",
             Category = TestCategory.Compliance,
             RfcReference = "RFC 9112 §2.2",
             PayloadFactory = ctx => MakeRequest($"GET / HTTP/1.1\nHost: {ctx.HostHeader}\r\n\r\n"),
             Expected = new ExpectedBehavior
             {
-                ExpectedStatus = StatusCodeRange.Exact(400),
-                AllowConnectionClose = true
+                Description = "400 or close (pass), 2xx (warn)",
+                CustomValidator = (response, state) =>
+                {
+                    if (response is null)
+                        return state == ConnectionState.ClosedByServer ? TestVerdict.Pass : TestVerdict.Fail;
+                    if (response.StatusCode == 400) return TestVerdict.Pass;
+                    if (response.StatusCode is >= 200 and < 300) return TestVerdict.Warn;
+                    return TestVerdict.Fail;
+                }
             }
         };
 
         yield return new TestCase
         {
             Id = "RFC9112-2.2-BARE-LF-HEADER",
-            Description = "Bare LF in header must be rejected",
+            Description = "Bare LF in header should be rejected, but MAY be accepted",
             Category = TestCategory.Compliance,
             RfcReference = "RFC 9112 §2.2",
             PayloadFactory = ctx => MakeRequest($"GET / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: {ctx.HostHeader}\nX-Test: value\r\n\r\n"),
             Expected = new ExpectedBehavior
             {
-                ExpectedStatus = StatusCodeRange.Exact(400),
-                AllowConnectionClose = true
+                Description = "400 or close (pass), 2xx (warn)",
+                CustomValidator = (response, state) =>
+                {
+                    if (response is null)
+                        return state == ConnectionState.ClosedByServer ? TestVerdict.Pass : TestVerdict.Fail;
+                    if (response.StatusCode == 400) return TestVerdict.Pass;
+                    if (response.StatusCode is >= 200 and < 300) return TestVerdict.Warn;
+                    return TestVerdict.Fail;
+                }
             }
         };