[cleaner] Add option to prep audit logs

[pmoravec]

Some (short)hostnames or usernames can be hidden in audit logs.

Allow parsing audit logs to obfuscate this type of sensitive data.

Closes: #4277
Relevant: #4258

---

Please place an 'X' inside each '[]' to confirm you adhere to our Contributor Guidelines

• Is the commit message split over multiple lines and hard-wrapped at 72 characters?
• Is the subject and message clear and concise?
• Does the subject start with [plugin_name] if submitting a plugin patch or a [section_name] if part of the core sosreport code?
• Does the commit contain a Signed-off-by: First Lastname email@example.com?
• Are any related Issues or existing PRs properly referenced via a Closes (Issue) or Resolved (PR) line?
• Are all passwords or private data gathered by this PR obfuscated?

[pmoravec]

This isnt final yet, rather asking for a feedback of the direction.

IMHO we should scrub hostnames and usernames in audit logs, like I discussed in https://github.com/orgs/sosreport/discussions/4258.

To prevent repetitive reading of audit logs, I hook the prepping into the main cleaner class in some way. Does this sound good to you?

Should we deal with compressed audit logs - should we decompress and parse them? Even if --keep-binary-files is not set?

Does this behaviour deserve a cmdline option? And if so, what default value? I feel no cmdline option is the best choice, but I think there can be different opinions and valid arguments here.

I am looking for your feedback before I complete the PR (just some bits remain, functionality is there).

[packit-as-a-service]

Congratulations! One of the builds has completed. 🍾

You can install the built RPMs by following these steps:

• sudo dnf install -y 'dnf*-command(copr)'
• dnf copr enable packit/sosreport-sos-4277
• And now you can install the packages.

Please note that the RPMs should be used only in a testing environment.

[pmoravec]

This PR is ready for a review, though not yet for merge. Before merge, I need to know answers to #4277 (comment) to let me incorporate the feedback in the PR.

Is the RFE behind the PR sane and worth implementing?