From owner-freebsd-questions  Sat Feb  8 18:35:10 1997
Return-Path: <owner-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA18040
          for questions-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:35:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from admin.cyberenet.net (mail@admin.cyberenet.net [204.213.252.6])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA18034
          for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from twwells.com [199.79.159.1] (root)
	by admin.cyberenet.net with smtp (Exim 1.59 #1)
	id 0vtP6e-00004i-00; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 21:35:04 -0500
Received: by twwells.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #8)
	id m0vtP1x-0000rTC; Sat, 8 Feb 97 21:30 EST
Message-Id: <m0vtP1x-0000rTC@twwells.com>
From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Subject: Re: 2.1.7 binaries and 2.1.5 system (fwd)
To: dg@root.com
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 21:30:13 -0500 (EST)
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199702090200.SAA05603@root.com> from "David Greenman" at Feb 8, 97 06:00:10 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>    There are no incompatibilites like this that I know of. You should have no
> trouble with a mix of 2.1.5, 2.1.6, and 2.1.7 executables...although you
> _should_ upgrade all of system binaries to 2.1.7 as there will be many other
> potential security holes fixed in the release, too.

Yeah, I know. :-) But I've got too many simultaneous crises going
on right now. And my "system" stuff isn't precisely stock, so it's
not a matter of just plopping in a new /bin, etc. What I'm going
to do is drop in replacements for the things that users can call
that will cause problems with system-level security. That's
something I can do in an hour or so, instead of the N hour upgrade
process I otherwise would have to go through. Once the rest of the
messes are dealt with, I'll do a proper upgrade....