Or are you saying, "Ron Rivest was wrong, Whitfield Diffie was right" is still a horrible title?
Yes. That title made me think "ok, what famous argument dud they have which this is referring to?" (the way "Torvalds was wrong, Tanenbaum was right" would) and I can't think of any famous arguments about whether people have enough entropy in their prime generation.
To an implementor, isn't one of the biggest differences between DH (super easy to implement) and RSA (considerably trickier) the difference between needing one prime number instead of two?
Anyways I take your point. The paper really doesn't have too much to do with the title.
To me, the biggest difference between DH and RSA is that DH is stateful and RSA is stateless. Next up is that with DH you're generating random exponents each time instead of doing it once during key generation.
The number of primes involved is way down on my list of important differences between DH and RSA.
Stephen was wrong, Kip was right! :)
The whole title is horrible because of its not even related to the outcome of the experiment/paper. Ron and Whit are neither both right nor both wrong, nothing in the article even came close to proving such a title. Using bad entropy is wrong.
What would be nice to see is the age of the affected certificates graphed in a scatter. It would be interesting to note if there are patterns of grouping. We all read the articles from Peter Goodman et al where he demonstrates horrible entropy [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0].
Or are you saying, "Ron Rivest was wrong, Whitfield Diffie was right" is still a horrible title?
The whole paper had the feel of a rump session pub, didn't it?