Modify configuration to be aligned with new structure

[uri-weisman]

What does this PR do?

1. Update policy version to latest - v1.2.9
2. Modify config serialization to fit new fleet configuration.

Related Issues

• Cloud Security - Update AWS hbs file integrations#4931

Checklist

• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added the necessary README/documentation (if appropriate)

[mergify]

This pull request does not have a backport label. Could you fix it @uri-weisman? 🙏
To fixup this pull request, you need to add the backport labels for the needed
branches, such as:

• backport-v./d./d./d is the label to automatically backport to the 8./d branch. /d is the digit
  NOTE: backport-skip has been added to this pull request.

[github-actions]

Cloudbeat CI 🤖

Allure Report: http://csp-allure-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/allure_reports/cloudbeat/prs/649/index.html

[amirbenun]

I don't see why AWSConfig should be a part of BenchmarkConfig.
For example, vulnerability management is not a benchmark but we will want to reuse the AWS authentication logic there.

[uri-weisman]

I see.
We can keep this structure and rename BenchmarkConfig to something more general to include vulnerability management.

[amirbenun]

Besides the integration already sending the AWS credentials as part of the benchmark config, is there a real reason to enforce that coupling? In the future we will have also GCPConfig and AzureConfig are they all going to be part of an object that also contains the benchmark details?
I think we should have a CloudConfig object, that for now holds only aws credentials, while benchmark config should be a separate object.

[jeniawhite]

Why do we have these values instead of nil or empty values that will omitempty the keys in unmarshal flow?
no_access_key_was_set
no_secret_was_set

I think this creates a more complex flow where we populate fields with mock values just to fail later on.
I would expect the behavior to be different where we do not populate the fields and just fail on validation that the fields were non-existent or continue the flow without keys in case of anonymous access (which this change blocks since it mocks something invalid).

Obviously, this would require changes to the config.go and potentially changes to the validator in case we do not want to rely on config.go, but as of today all of our validations happen in the config.go layer.

[uri-weisman]

No real reason just wanted to be aligned with the EKS config file.
I'll revert it to an empty string.

[gurevichdmitry]

@uri-weisman, deploy dir files approved. Please also update cloudbeat-eks-pytest.yaml in tests dir.

[gurevichdmitry]

@uri-weisman, the file tests/deploy/cloudbeat-eks-pytest.yaml should be also updated with the code above.

[uri-weisman]

@gurevichdmitry - thanks updated.

[gurevichdmitry]

@uri-weisman, deploy files approved.