On 10/31/07, Shane Kerr <Shane_Kerr@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > There seem to be two ideas you are presenting here, both intended to imply that > the developers at ISC are technically incompetent: > > 1. Using a pseudo-random number generator should be called "crypto". > No, but a pseudo random number generator whose output *should not be predictable* is a *cryptographic* random number generator, hence "crypto". Isn't it obvious that a DNS server should generate an *unpredictable* DNS ID? and if the chosen algorithm can be predicted easily, doesn't this constitute "extremely weak crypto"? > 2. The particular pseudo-random number generator that BIND 9 now uses is a poor > choice. No, that is not what I said. Don't change the subject. The discussion is about bind 9.4.1, not 9.4.1-P1. This is obvious from the use of past tense in both your original statement and my previous email. So I still maintain that bind9 had (up to and inc. 9.4.1) extremely weak crypto.
