No, cover and concealment do not normally influence each other.
Cover and concealment are different properties.
Cover is derived from interrupted lines of effect:
The target is around a corner or protected by terrain. For example, the target might be in the same square as a small tree, obscured by a small pillar or a large piece of furniture, or behind a low wall.
Concealment is derived from obscured terrain:
Lightly Obscured: Squares of dim light, foliage, fog, smoke, heavy falling snow, or rain are lightly obscured.
Heavily Obscured: Squares of heavy foliage, heavy fog, or heavy smoke are heavily obscured.
A creature has total concealment when it is in a totally obscured square. Example: Total darkness.
Therefore, hiding directly behind a corner may be sufficient to give a character cover, but there's nothing preventing monsters from perceiving that character in that square. However, if it's in a darkened corner, there may exist low-light in the square as well as physical obstruction. Both interrupting line of effect and having some condition that worsens visibility.
Most stealth checks require:
A creature can make a Stealth check against a target only if the creature has superior cover or total concealment against that target or if the creature is outside the target’s line of sight.
Which a darkened corner would not normally grant, save for special cases like the Shade race.
If someone is hiding, do detection attempts always have disadvantage?
This is a great question. From the rules, the answer appears to be 'No', but it isn't explicitly stated. I'm inferring it from this section of the basic rules for Hiding:
Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance
someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To
determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM
compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s
passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the
creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses
or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For
disadvantage, subtract 5.
For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency
bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and
proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom
(Perception) of 14.
Emphasis mine. In this case, the rules are specifically explaining how to calculate the passive perception to detect a hidden creature. Since the rules for hidden dictate that the creature must necessarily be unable to be seen clearly (implying light or heavy obscurement), we can infer that this hidden creature is in some way obscured from the searcher. However, since the passive perception total listed is 14, and does not in any way reference a -5 modifier for an obscured creature, it seems like we can be reasonably sure that detecting hidden creatures happens outside the influence of obscurement. Otherwise, the math present would necessarily have to include a -5 for detecting an obscured creature.
Can you sneak up on someone in dim light according to RAW?
This one is DM dependent according to the rules. We can piece this together from the examples that the basic rules give us:
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger
all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach
a creature, it usually sees you.
This gives rules for when a creature can detect a hidden creature approaching it. However, since it specifically calls out 'in combat', and since 'out of combat' is not addressed, we have to assume that being out of combat doesn't change the core ruling of the 'hidden' effect (otherwise it would also have a callout, because specific beats general).
The generic hiding rules that necessarily must apply out of combat are:
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you
make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a
vase), you give away your position.
and the errata:
The DM decides when
circumstances are appropriate for hiding.
Also, the question isn’t whether a creature
can see you when you’re hiding. The question is whether it can see you clearly.
So in this case, the game is deferring to the DM. You are well within RAW to tell the player that they can't approach the character in dim light from the front and remain hidden. This is even more overt than a simple rule-0, because the published rules specifically call out the DM's ability to overrule it.
My reading of the published rules appear to default to allowing that, but they also give the huge caveat that the DM can overrule it. However, with what we found out above, the detecting creature would NOT receive a -5 penalty by default (unless conditions occurred to warrant disadvantage on the check(s)).
Best Answer
Concealment is indeed not a game term in 5e. However, the concept still exists.
Namely, these kinds of things do not produce a direct accuracy penalty, but instead provide disadvantage or even the effects of the Blinded condition. There are two states here.
Lightly obscured. This is like light fog or dim light. It imposes disadvantage on Wisdom(perception) (not attacks) if you don't have a way around it.
Heavily obscured. This is darkness or heavy fog, or dense foliage. It imposes the affects of the blinded condition, which are auto failure of any check requiring sight, and advantage to attack you and disadvantage on your attacks.
So no, concealment is not a game term here, but it's concepts are still alive and well.