Removing keys if absent on EKM

[rrrooommmaaa]

This PR removes keys not present on EKM, redirects to setup page in case no keys are in the storage,
or silently generates a new key in case PASS_PHRASE_QUIET_AUTOGEN flag is present.
Also, correctly sets up passphrases for newly added keys (based on the location of an existing key's pass phrase)

close#4596

---

Tests(delete all except exactly one):

• Tests added or updated

---

To be filled by reviewers

I have reviewed that this PR... (tick whichever items you personally focused on during this review):

• addresses the issue it closes (if any)
• code is readable and understandable
• is accompanied with tests, or tests are not needed
• is free of vulnerabilities
• is documented clearly and usefully, or doesn't need documentation

[rrrooommmaaa]

Most of the scenarios are covered now.
It'd be interesting to emulate a situation when EKM supplies 2 instances of a key with the same identity --
two versions of the same key at once. We should handle this situation gracefully, right? It makes sense to store only one copy of the key -- but which one?

[rrrooommmaaa]

Ping @tomholub
Can you comment on what strategy on removing passphrases I should adhere to?

[tomholub]

Thank you - various comments that will help me with code comprehension. Many apply already to the original code but this PR highlighted the need to rename them.

[tomholub]

Yes, especially for stored ones. But anyway also removing the memory ones is the same amount of work.

[tomholub]

@rrrooommmaaa is it ready for final review? There's something still going on with tests, and it looks like a git merge is in order.

[rrrooommmaaa]

is it ready for final review? There's something still going on with tests, and it looks like a git merge is in order.

Yes, it is ready. I think it's reacting to client_secret from master probably because this change was merged, not rebased.

[gitguardian]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 1 secret following the scan of your pull request.

Please consider investigating the findings and remediating the incidents. Failure to do so may lead to compromising the associated services or software components.

🔎 Detected hardcoded secret in your pull request

GitGuardian id	Secret	Commit	Filename
4313719	Google OAuth2 Keys	c355519	extension/js/common/api/email-provider/gmail/google-auth.ts	View secret

🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets

1. Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
2. Replace and store your secret safely. Learn here the best practices.
3. Revoke and rotate this secret.
4. If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.

To avoid such incidents in the future consider

• following these best practices for managing and storing secrets including API keys and other credentials
• install secret detection on pre-commit to catch secret before it leaves your machine and ease remediation.

---

<sup>🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.

Our GitHub checks need improvements? Share your feedbacks!</sup>

[tomholub]

So far good, still some reviewing to do.

[rrrooommmaaa]

There's something still going on with tests

Some tests are acting flaky indeed

[tomholub]

With a comment - please see below

[tomholub]

All looks good to me, good to merge once tests are passing

[tomholub]

Ah, GitGuardian