[PM-18772] Rename AesCbc256 to Aes256Cbc

[quexten]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-18772
Clients bitwarden/clients#13637

📔 Objective

Currently we use: Aes256Cbc, but also AesCbc256 in the SDK. In the web clients we use AesCbc256. In general the former order is more common.

For instance, TLS defines: TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384. JWK defines: AES_128_CBC_HMAC_SHA_256, SSH defines aes256-cbc, COSE defines: A256CBC.
This is because the block cipher is: AES-128-Bit / AES-256-Bit, and the mode of operation is CBC. Semantically, we are currently splitting up the block cipher used and interjecting the mode of operation in the middle.

This PR renames the instances used in the SDK of AesCbc256 to be consistent with other standards, and to be consistent within our codebase. There will be a corresponding PR for the web clients (this is in draft until then).

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation
  team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed
  issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 76eda149-f322-4b0b-a711-6fb82f8a23e6

Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 66.29%. Comparing base (0d5755e) to head (4a0c164).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...rates/bitwarden-crypto/src/enc_string/symmetric.rs	81.25%	3 Missing ⚠️
crates/bitwarden-crypto/src/store/context.rs	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #172   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.29%   66.29%           
=======================================
  Files         199      199           
  Lines       15596    15596           
=======================================
  Hits        10340    10340           
  Misses       5256     5256           

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud