From Newsgroup: sci.crypt

Byrl Raze Buckbriar <news0@octade.net> wrote:

MegaRand - build a large random entropy pool with no period,

pattern, or bias.

I've analyzed your MegaRand code and must express serious concerns about
its cryptographic validity and the misleading claims.

The code primarily sources entropy from /dev/urandom (a PRNG), then
engages in extensive file system operations and data transformations
that provide no additional entropy. The complex directory structure
and multiple shuffling operations are computationally expensive but cryptographically irrelevant - they cannot increase entropy beyond
the initial /dev/urandom seed.

Most concerning is the final step: encrypting the random pool using
a key derived from itself. This is cryptographically meaningless and
provides no security benefit. The ChaCha20 encryption of already-
random data with a key derived from that same data is equivalent to
applying multiple identity transformations.

As someone working with genuine entropy sources (atmospheric noise
capture for one-time pads), I must emphasize that true randomness
requires physical entropy sources, not elaborate transformations of pseudorandom inputs.

This implementation appears to be security theater rather than cryptographically sound design.

- Battosai
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.crypt

On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 05:37:26 -0000 (UTC)
Battosai <cuadratica@protonmail.com> wrote:

This implementation appears to be security theater rather than cryptographically sound design.

Really? An anonymous cartoon character wants to talk about theater?

How ironic.

I am not moved to expend any energy refuting this cartoon's false analysis. If any real human with a real public corpus of work wants to ask about my scripts then I would be willing to address such real people provided they are free of both deceit and hidden motives.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.crypt

Byrl Raze Buckbriar <news0@octade.net> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 05:37:26 -0000 (UTC)
Battosai <cuadratica@protonmail.com> wrote:

This implementation appears to be security theater rather than
cryptographically sound design.

Really? An anonymous cartoon character wants to talk about theater?

How ironic.

I am not moved to expend any energy refuting this cartoon's false
analysis. If any real human with a real public corpus of work wants
to ask about my scripts then I would be willing to address such real
people provided they are free of both deceit and hidden motives.

The effort of proof falls upon those making grandiose claims. You are apparently claiming your system provides better randomness than other conventional methods. This, despite the fact that in 99.9% of the
cases, every instance of "I have a better widget" as it regards
cryptography or randomness is snake-oil.

Therefore the burden is upon you to show that your claims have merit.
The analysis by the nik Battosai is statistically more likely to be
100% correct than not in this instance.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2