Add certificate parsing to webserver plugins

[JSCU-CNI]

This PR adds basic x509 certificate parsing to the webserver plugins of apache and nginx.

[Schamper]

@yunzheng what are your thoughts on this pattern?

[yunzheng]

Nothing wrong with this pattern. Other options could've been using a webserver metadata RecordDescriptor in combination with GroupedRecord, or using extend_record. But it seems there are already other Webserver-like RecordDescriptors defined so I think this is fine.

It will however, overwrite the _source, _generated and _version fields. But depending if that's an issue or not, can be fixed by using cert._asdict(exclude=["_source", "_generated", "_version"]).

[Schamper]

Looks like the certlog plugin now has some field conflicts, can you resolve?

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 9 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing JSCU-CNI:webserver-certs (82f9193) with main (e0cbfed)}

[JSCU-CNI]

Looks like the certlog plugin now has some field conflicts, can you resolve?

Temporarily fixed in 1f9b66a. Created a separate issue for further normalization of CertLog certificates in #1452.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 80.55556% with 21 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.38%. Comparing base (e0cbfed) to head (82f9193).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
dissect/target/helpers/certificate.py	78.00%	11 Missing ⚠️
dissect/target/plugins/apps/webserver/nginx.py	80.64%	6 Missing ⚠️
dissect/target/plugins/apps/webserver/apache.py	84.00%	4 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1415      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   80.38%   80.38%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         392      393       +1     
  Lines       34446    34539      +93     
==========================================
+ Hits        27691    27764      +73     
- Misses       6755     6775      +20     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	80.38% <80.55%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.

[Schamper]

https://github.com/fox-it/dissect.target/actions/runs/20137146396/job/57795922605?pr=1415

Look like some test failures?

[JSCU-CNI]

I am unable to reproduce the issue locally unfortunately.

[Schamper]

Seems pretty consistent on Windows 3.10 and 3.11. If you can't reproduce I'll take a look somewhere next week.

[Schamper]

I'll take a look somewhere next week.

I'm otherwise a very honest and dependable person.

Anyway, the problem was that some fields that were typed as path would be initialized with strings. I'm not entirely sure if fox-it/flow.record#200 would've fixed this too, but at least now we properly pass in Path-like objects,