From owner-freebsd-security  Sat Mar  1 04:48:52 1997
Return-Path: <owner-security>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA03540
          for security-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 04:48:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gvr.win.tue.nl (root@gvr.win.tue.nl [131.155.210.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA03531
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 04:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from guido@localhost) by gvr.win.tue.nl (8.8.5/8.8.2) id NAA18698; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 13:48:34 +0100 (MET)
From: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.win.tue.nl>
Message-Id: <199703011248.NAA18698@gvr.win.tue.nl>
Subject: Re: 2.1.7 requires a rebuild of /usr/local binaries?
In-Reply-To: <199702211734.KAA03840@elara.frii.com> from "gnat@frii.com" at "Feb 21, 97 10:34:25 am"
To: gnat@frii.com
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 13:48:34 +0100 (MET)
Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

gnat@frii.com wrote:
> I've just installed 2.1.7 (upgrading from 2.1.5) on my own machine,
> prior to upgrading all our servers.  The advisory re: the setlocale
> bug said to rebuild all statically linked binaries and probably all
> dynamically linked ones too.
> 
> Going to the 2.1.7-RELEASE/packages directory, however, I see it's
> just a link to the 2.1.6 packages directory.  Does this mean that I
> don't have to rebuild all my binaries after all?

Indeed. A scan through all ports revealed apparently no suid binaries
taht are statically linked. The only problems would arise with these
kind of binaries.

-Guido