[PM-18772] Rename AesCbc256 to Aes256Cbc

[quexten]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-18697
https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-18772

This is a follow-up PR to:
#13578
#13598
#13599

Corresponding SDK pr: bitwarden/sdk-internal#172

📔 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).

📸 Screenshots

⏰ 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

[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

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 1b4d7128-b231-4e6d-b18d-dab1d50a9514

Fixed Issues (1)

Great job! The following issues were fixed in this Pull Request

Severity	Issue	Source File / Package
	Missing_HSTS_Header	/apps/web/src/app/tools/reports/pages/inactive-two-factor-report.component.ts: 116