Segmentation fault when supplying ipv6 host address

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Build
2. ./littleblackbox -r ::1
3. Segmentation fault

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Expected output: scanning localhostv6 or an error message that ipv6 isn't 
supported

Instead: Segmentation fault

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Version: r22 trunk
OS: Linux calisto 2.6.35-24-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Thu Dec 2 02:41:37 UTC 2010 
x86_64 GNU/Linux

Please provide any additional information below.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jvr...@gmail.com on 8 Jan 2011 at 4:41

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Confirmed, fixed, checked in.

Original comment by heffne...@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2011 at 3:58

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I've confirmed that that particular fault was fixed. Having said that, I've 
found many more things that can be supplied to -r that will yield a segfault.

[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r ::1
Invalid host '::1'!
No suitable certificate fingerprint provided!

so far, so good

[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r -:1
Segmentation fault
[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r -1
Segmentation fault
[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r -
Segmentation fault
[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r q
Segmentation fault
[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r qw
Segmentation fault
[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r z
Segmentation fault

[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r localhost
Socket: Connection refused
Socket: Connection refused
No suitable certificate fingerprint provided!

okay, so this works

[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r lo
Segmentation fault
[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r loc
Segmentation fault
[~/src/littleblackbox/bin (master)⚡] ➔ ./littleblackbox -r loop
Segmentation fault

I understand you'd rather have fewer than more dependencies, but some sort of 
options parsing one might be a good idea. If nothing else because it'll free 
you to work on the stuff-that-matters (tm), rather than chase down bugs in the 
CLI interface.

Anyway, keep up the good work. It's good having one more tool at one's disposal 
to make certain networking equipment is as secure as it can reasonably be.

Original comment by jvr...@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2011 at 4:27