Replace Wappalyzer

[ammar92]

Changes

This implements python-Wappalyzer that replaces the Wappalyzer boefje and normalizer. Unfortunately, the most recent version of that package has not yet been released on pypi, hence the git dependency in the pyproject file.

Issue link

Closes #2533

---

Code Checklist

• All the commits in this PR are properly PGP-signed and verified.
• This PR only contains functionality relevant to the issue; tickets have been created for newly discovered issues.
• I have written unit tests for the changes or fixes I made.
• For any non-trivial functionality, I have added integration and/or end-to-end tests.
• I have performed a self-review of my code and refactored it to the best of my abilities.

Communication

• I have informed others of any required .env changes files if required and changed the .env-dist accordingly.
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation, if necessary.
• I have included comments in the code to elaborate on what is not self-evident from the code itself, including references to issues and discussions online, or implicit behavior of an interface.

---

Checklist for code reviewers:

Copy-paste the checklist from the docs/source/templates folder into your comment.

---

Checklist for QA:

Copy-paste the checklist from the docs/source/templates folder into your comment.

[originalsouth]

Seems to work as advertised.

[dekkers]

Looks good to me, moved to QA

[stephanie0x00]

Checklist for QA:

• I have checked out this branch, and successfully ran a fresh make reset.
• I confirmed that there are no unintended functional regressions in this branch:
  • I have managed to pass the onboarding flow
  • Objects and Findings are created properly
  • Tasks are created and completed properly
• I confirmed that the PR's advertised feature or hotfix works as intended.

What works:

The new Wappalyzer works as expected, when scanned against mispo.es both 36 findings are shown on the main branch compared to this branch (DNS, nmap TCP, wappalyzer and webpage analysis boefjes are enabled).

What doesn't work:

For another added domain the number of findings are different 61 (this branch) vs 69 (main) findings when scanning mispo.es and an additional domain. The difference appears to be in the identification of some jQuery findings for the additional domain. My guess is that the javascript files are not detected based on the extension for the additional domain, as the javascript files have a .gjs extension.

Bug or feature?:

See above.

[ammar92]

For another added domain the number of findings are different 61 (this branch) vs 69 (main) findings when scanning mispo.es and an additional domain. The difference appears to be in the identification of some jQuery findings for the additional domain. My guess is that the javascript files are not detected based on the extension for the additional domain, as the javascript files have a .gjs extension.

Good observation and thanks for the review. The new implementation is not a fully compatible replacement for the current implementation, so (minor) differences are expected.