Test reject proofs without header round boundaries on interceptor

[sstanculeanu]

Reasoning behind the pull request

Proposed changes

Testing procedure

Pre-requisites

Based on the Contributing Guidelines the PR author and the reviewers must check the following requirements are met:

• was the PR targeted to the correct branch?
• if this is a larger feature that probably needs more than one PR, is there a feat branch created?
• if this is a feat branch merging, do all satellite projects have a proper tag inside go.mod?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 88.46154% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 77.56%. Comparing base (7caded5) to head (cbf7930).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ck/interceptedBlocks/interceptedEquivalentProof.go	69.23%	7 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
dataRetriever/requestHandlers/requestHandler.go	92.30%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...de/chainSimulator/components/manualRoundHandler.go	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
node/chainSimulator/configs/configs.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...rceptors/factory/interceptedTrieNodeDataFactory.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                    Coverage Diff                     @@
##           feat/supernova-async-exec    #7811   +/-   ##
==========================================================
  Coverage                      77.56%   77.56%           
==========================================================
  Files                            882      882           
  Lines                         123719   123784   +65     
==========================================================
+ Hits                           95958    96013   +55     
- Misses                         21402    21413   +11     
+ Partials                        6359     6358    -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[mihaieremia]

Shouldn't all this check be

  if header.GetRound() != iep.proof.GetHeaderRound() ||
     header.GetNonce() != iep.proof.GetHeaderNonce() ||
     header.GetEpoch() != iep.proof.GetHeaderEpoch() {
      return ErrInvalidProof
  }

It an attacker uses a correct round/nonce or epoch will by pass this entire check completly, no ?