[BEEEP/POC] Noise IPC CryptoProvider

[quexten]

🎟️ Tracking

📔 Objective

Adds a cryptoprovider implementation for the IPC channel based on NOISE / snow (https://github.com/mcginty/snow). Currently we use the default, non-post-quantum protocol suite, but snow even has compile-time support for PQ ciphers.

The wire format specifically accounts for us later switching away from Noise. This is not planned, but in the past this came to bite us, so in this case the wire format (but not the rest of the structures / impls) account for multiple crypto implementations.

Further, ciborium/cbor is used for encoding. This is a transitive dependency of cose aswell and simply more efficient than json.

⏰ 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 – c1130460-bac2-43a1-91c6-72ed41c59c79

Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request

[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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.72152% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.73%. Comparing base (b99e954) to head (14b8da5).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/bitwarden-ipc/src/wasm/error.rs	0.00%	14 Missing ⚠️
.../bitwarden-ipc/src/traits/noise_crypto_provider.rs	96.74%	7 Missing ⚠️
crates/bitwarden-ipc/src/error.rs	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #219      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.20%   67.73%   +0.52%     
==========================================
  Files         210      211       +1     
  Lines       15952    16271     +319     
==========================================
+ Hits        10721    11021     +300     
- Misses       5231     5250      +19     

☔ 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.