Cursor Security Checklist for AI Coding Teams

Quick Cursor Security Checklist

1. Treat AI Output as a Draft

The safest mental model is simple: AI output is a draft, not a final security decision. Cursor can help create useful code, but it does not know every business rule, data sensitivity requirement, production setting, or compliance expectation for your app.

Review generated code the same way you would review code from a new contributor. Ask what assumptions it makes. Check whether the server enforces the same rules as the UI. Look for copied examples, permissive defaults, placeholder secrets, and helper functions that quietly bypass validation.

This does not slow teams down as much as it sounds. A lightweight review checklist catches many of the issues that would otherwise appear later in production or during customer due diligence.

2. Protect Secrets and Environment Variables

One of the most common risks in AI-assisted development is accidental secret exposure. Generated examples may include placeholder values, local tokens, database URLs, or copy-pasted credentials. Even fake-looking examples can trigger security scanners if they resemble real keys.

Use environment variables for secrets. Keep .env files out of Git. Review commit history before making a repository public. Run secret scanning in pull requests. Do not ask AI tools to process real private keys, production tokens, customer data, or credentials.

If a secret reaches the repository, treat it as compromised. Remove it from code, rotate it with the provider, and verify that no deployment or logs still expose it.

3. Review Authentication and Authorization

AI-generated apps often produce a working login flow quickly. That is not the same as complete access control. The important question is not only whether a user can sign in, but what the user can do after signing in.

Check that protected API routes verify the authenticated user on the server. Confirm that user IDs, tenant IDs, role IDs, and ownership checks cannot be changed from the client. Test direct API calls, not only UI flows. If the app uses a database platform with row-level security, verify policies instead of assuming they exist.

For admin areas, require explicit role checks. Do not hide admin buttons in the UI and assume that is enough. The server must reject unauthorized requests.

4. Validate Inputs and Outputs

Generated code often focuses on the happy path. Security problems appear when inputs are unexpected, malformed, or intentionally hostile.

Validate request bodies. Reject unknown fields where appropriate. Use parameterized database queries. Avoid dynamic evaluation. Avoid passing untrusted input into command strings, HTML rendering, file paths, or templates. Escape output based on context.

For frontend apps, remember that client-side validation improves UX but does not protect the backend. Server-side validation is the security boundary.

5. Review Dependencies and Generated Project Structure

AI coding platforms can add packages quickly. Some are useful. Some are unnecessary. Some may be outdated, abandoned, or too broad for the task.

Review new dependencies before merge. Check whether the package is maintained, whether it has known vulnerabilities, and whether a smaller built-in alternative exists. Pay attention to lockfile changes. Dependency risk is not only about direct imports; transitive packages can introduce issues too.

In AI-built apps, also review project structure. Make sure server-only code stays server-only, secrets are not imported into client bundles, and generated helper functions do not mix trusted and untrusted contexts.

6. Harden Browser and Deployment Configuration

AI-generated apps often work locally before they are safe to ship. Production configuration needs a separate pass.

Check HTTPS, HSTS, secure cookies, CSP, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy, CORS, rate limiting, error handling, and logging. Avoid exposing stack traces or internal service names. Confirm that preview deployments do not accidentally expose admin tools or test credentials.

Website and configuration findings may not have a trusted code file to patch. In those cases, ZeriFlow's Fix with AI can provide guidance rather than inventing a fake diff.

7. Use PR Scanning and Baselines

For teams using Cursor, pull requests are the right place to catch new risk. A baseline-aware security check should compare the PR against the target branch and focus on newly introduced issues rather than failing every change for old warnings.

This matters for developer trust. If the same legacy warning fails every unrelated PR, teams learn to ignore the security check. If the check blocks newly introduced critical, high-risk, secret, or regression findings, it becomes useful.

ZeriFlow's PR scanning is designed around that model: report existing issues, but block meaningful new risk.

8. Turn Findings Into Fixes

The best security workflow does not stop after a finding. Developers need to know what the issue means, where it applies, what change is recommended, and how to verify the fix.

ZeriFlow helps with that flow. Explain with AI can translate a finding into plain language. Fix with AI can generate remediation steps. Patch Preview can show a proposed code diff when trusted source context exists. Auto-Fix GitHub PRs can create a reviewable pull request for eligible CI findings after explicit approval.

The key safety point is review. ZeriFlow does not auto-merge. Developers still inspect the change, run tests, and decide whether to merge.

Practical Review Workflow for Cursor

Related ZeriFlow Guides

• Cursor Security Checklist for AI-Built Apps
• How to Secure AI-Generated Code Before Shipping
• AI Vulnerability Remediation Explained

A Practical Operating Model

Security for AI-built software works best when it becomes part of the normal development rhythm. The goal is not to create a heavy process that slows every experiment. The goal is to define a small number of checks that happen every time code moves closer to production.

For a solo founder, that may mean scanning before launch, reviewing authentication flows, and fixing the highest-risk issues first. For a team, it may mean pull request scanning, baseline-aware gating, security review for sensitive changes, and a clear owner for remediation.

Use this operating model:

1. 1Define what data is sensitive.
2. 2Define which routes and APIs require authentication.
3. 3Review generated code before merging.
4. 4Scan pull requests for new issues.
5. 5Turn findings into fix plans.
6. 6Preview patches only when source context is trusted.
7. 7Require human review before merging generated fixes.
8. 8Verify fixes with a follow-up scan.

This keeps security practical. Developers still move quickly, but every important change passes through a repeatable review path.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

AI-assisted teams often make the same mistakes because generated apps can look production-ready before they are actually hardened.

These mistakes are avoidable when the team treats AI as a development accelerator, not a replacement for engineering judgment.

How ZeriFlow Helps

ZeriFlow is useful because it connects detection to remediation. A scan can identify a problem, but the next step is what determines whether risk actually goes down.

Explain with AI helps developers understand why a finding matters. Fix with AI turns that finding into a practical remediation plan. Patch Preview gives the team a proposed diff when a trusted file path and source context exist. Auto-Fix GitHub PRs can create a reviewable pull request for eligible CI findings after explicit approval.

The boundaries are just as important as the features. ZeriFlow does not auto-merge fixes. It does not invent file paths for website or configuration findings. It does not treat every issue as a code patch. That conservative behavior is what makes AI remediation usable in real developer workflows.

Team Checklist Before Production

Before shipping an AI-built feature, run through a final production checklist. This is useful even when the team already has automated scans, because checklists catch workflow gaps that scanners may not see.

• Confirm every sensitive API requires server-side authentication.
• Confirm object ownership checks cannot be bypassed by changing an ID.
• Confirm admin routes require explicit admin roles.
• Confirm secrets are not present in code, logs, commits, or client bundles.
• Confirm dependencies were reviewed and scanned.
• Confirm security headers and cookie settings are production-ready.
• Confirm rate limits exist for expensive or abuse-prone endpoints.
• Confirm error messages do not reveal internals.
• Confirm pull request findings are reviewed before merge.
• Confirm any AI-generated fix is reviewed by a human.

This checklist is intentionally practical. It gives developers a way to pause before launch without needing a full enterprise security process. Over time, teams can automate more of it, but the habit matters first.

How to Prioritize Findings

Not every finding deserves the same response. Critical issues, high-risk issues, exposed secrets, and exploitable authorization flaws should move first. Medium and warning-level issues should still be tracked, but they should not create so much noise that developers ignore the security workflow.

Prioritize based on impact, exploitability, exposure, and whether the finding was newly introduced. A new secret in a pull request is different from an old informational warning on the main branch. A missing website header may need guidance, while an unsafe code pattern with a trusted file path may be a candidate for Patch Preview or a reviewed GitHub fix PR.

The best workflow keeps both truths in mind: report the full picture, but block the changes that create meaningful new risk.

FAQ

Is Cursor code secure by default?

No tool can guarantee secure output by default. Treat generated code as a draft that needs review, scanning, testing, and production hardening.

What is the biggest security risk with Cursor?

The biggest risk is usually not the AI tool itself. It is shipping generated code without reviewing secrets, authorization, validation, dependencies, and deployment configuration.

Should AI-generated code be scanned in CI?

Yes. Pull request scanning helps catch new issues before merge, especially when development speed increases.

Can ZeriFlow fix Cursor findings automatically?

ZeriFlow can explain findings, generate fix plans, preview patches when trusted source context exists, and create reviewable GitHub fix PRs for supported CI findings. It does not auto-merge.

What should I do before launching an AI-built app?

Review authentication, authorization, secrets, dependencies, security headers, logging, error handling, rate limits, and scan results. Then verify fixes before launch.

Schema Data

Final Takeaway

Cursor can help teams build faster, but speed makes security review more important, not less important. Use a practical checklist, scan pull requests, and turn findings into reviewed fixes. ZeriFlow can help by acting as an AI Security Copilot for understanding, fixing, previewing, and reviewing security remediation.