From Newsgroup: sci.crypt

To the sci.crypt community,

I am writing to alert members about serious cryptographic flaws and misrepresentations in software packages recently posted by Byrl Raze
Buckbriar (OCTADE), specifically: KSRNG, MegaRand, and GOLDILOCKER 448.

As a researcher working with information-theoretic security and
cryptographic implementations, I have identified fundamental errors
that render these tools cryptographically dangerous.

== KSRNG (Key Strike Random Generator) ==

Claim: "Generates very, very random seeds that are truly random."

Analysis:
- Primary entropy source is /dev/urandom (CSPRNG), not true randomness
- Keystroke timing provides minimal entropy (1-2 bits/keystroke)
- Extensive shuffling/hashing operations cannot increase entropy
- Marketing as "true random" is scientifically inaccurate

== MegaRand ==

Claim: "Builds a large random entropy pool with no period, pattern, or bias."

Analysis:
- Relies on /dev/urandom while claiming "true randomness"
- Complex file structure provides zero cryptographic benefit
- Final step encrypts random data with itself (cryptographic nonsense)
- Computationally expensive security theater

== GOLDILOCKER 448 ==

Claim: "Generates Goldilocks (ED448) keys from a seed phrase."

Analysis:
- ED448 requires random generation; deterministic creation violates
elliptic curve security assumptions
- Manual construction of OpenSSL key headers demonstrates fundamental
misunderstanding of cryptographic formats
- Misuse of BIP39 specification without checksums or proper encoding
- Will produce cryptographically broken keys

== Common Patterns ==

All three implementations exhibit:
1. Reliance on /dev/urandom while claiming "true randomness"
2. Computationally expensive operations that provide no cryptographic benefit 3. Fundamental misunderstandings of entropy and cryptographic primitives
4. Marketing claims that contradict actual implementation

== Security Implications ==

These tools pose actual risks to users:
- False sense of security through "cryptographic theater"
- Potential use in production systems where security is critical
- Wasted computational resources for zero security benefit

== Recommendations ==

1. Avoid these implementations for any security-sensitive purpose
2. Use established, peer-reviewed cryptographic libraries
3. Verify cryptographic claims against academic literature
4. Report potentially dangerous cryptographic misinformation

I welcome discussion and peer review of these findings.

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

From Newsgroup: sci.crypt

Critical Analysis: Cryptographic Misrepresentations in "OCTADE's"
Software Suite

To the sci.crypt community,

I am writing to alert members about serious cryptographic flaws and misrepresentations in software packages recently posted by Byrl Raze
Buckbriar (OCTADE), specifically: KSRNG, MegaRand, and GOLDILOCKER 448.

As a researcher working with information-theoretic security and
cryptographic implementations, I have identified fundamental errors
that render these tools cryptographically dangerous.

== KSRNG (Key Strike Random Generator) ==

Claim: "Generates very, very random seeds that are truly random."

Analysis:
- Primary entropy source is /dev/urandom (CSPRNG), not true randomness
- Keystroke timing provides minimal entropy (1-2 bits/keystroke)
- Extensive shuffling/hashing operations cannot increase entropy
- Marketing as "true random" is scientifically inaccurate

== MegaRand ==

Claim: "Builds a large random entropy pool with no period, pattern, or bias."

Analysis:
- Relies on /dev/urandom while claiming "true randomness"
- Complex file structure provides zero cryptographic benefit
- Final step encrypts random data with itself (cryptographic nonsense)
- Computationally expensive security theater

== GOLDILOCKER 448 ==

Claim: "Generates Goldilocks (ED448) keys from a seed phrase."

Analysis:
- ED448 requires random generation; deterministic creation violates
elliptic curve security assumptions
- Manual construction of OpenSSL key headers demonstrates fundamental
misunderstanding of cryptographic formats
- Misuse of BIP39 specification without checksums or proper encoding
- Will produce cryptographically broken keys

== Common Patterns ==

All three implementations exhibit:
1. Reliance on /dev/urandom while claiming "true randomness"
2. Computationally expensive operations that provide no cryptographic benefit 3. Fundamental misunderstandings of entropy and cryptographic primitives
4. Marketing claims that contradict actual implementation

== Security Implications ==

These tools pose actual risks to users:
- False sense of security through "cryptographic theater"
- Potential use in production systems where security is critical
- Wasted computational resources for zero security benefit

== Recommendations ==

1. Avoid these implementations for any security-sensitive purpose
2. Use established, peer-reviewed cryptographic libraries
3. Verify cryptographic claims against academic literature
4. Report potentially dangerous cryptographic misinformation

I welcome discussion and peer review of these findings.

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

From Newsgroup: sci.crypt

On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 05:53:57 -0000 (UTC)
Battosai <cuadratica@protonmail.com> wrote:

Did the cartoon character, "Battosai", use Claude AI or some other LLM to generate this mendacious misinformation? I could write a book to debunk the nonsense, ignorance, and grandstanding in this cartoon character's posts. Battosi employs ambiguous, amorphous and frightening trigger words with no scientific meaning to make things sound 'scary' with itself as the hero. As Battosai is an anonymous cartoon character I shan't waste my time addressing addled malice. I will not refute the false points in its posts because I justifiably suspect it made them just to waste my time.

<.....>

I welcome discussion and peer review of these findings.

Really? A cartoon character wants to do peer review? Has Battosai published a paper for peer review?

If Battosai posts links to its public works published under a real human name then maybe we could peer review those.

If Battosai posts any more delusional rot under its cartoon character nym don't expect any response from me. It could take reams of writing to refute nonsense. Therefore refusing to respond to anonymous cranks is not an admission of their claims. I owe no duty to debate with a anonymous cartoon. Whatever anontroll lunacy this cartoon is trying to draw me into--I'm not interested.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.crypt

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

On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 05:53:57 -0000 (UTC)
Battosai <cuadratica@protonmail.com> wrote:

Did the cartoon character, "Battosai", use Claude AI or some other
LLM to generate this mendacious misinformation?

It hardly matters. Battosai's rebuttal is by far more believable than
your grandiose claims about your scheme.

I could write a book to debunk the nonsense, ignorance, and
grandstanding in this cartoon character's posts.

Please do if you find it so easy.

Battosi employs ambiguous, amorphous and frightening trigger words
with no scientific meaning to make things sound 'scary' with itself
as the hero. As Battosai is an anonymous cartoon character I shan't
waste my time addressing addled malice. I will not refute the false
points in its posts because I justifiably suspect it made them just
to waste my time.

Battosi's analysis uses standard words in standard ways relevant to cryptography/randomness generation.

Your posts use ambiguous, amorphous ... words with no scientific
meaning.

I welcome discussion and peer review of these findings.

Really? A cartoon character wants to do peer review? Has Battosai published a paper for peer review?

Have you?

If Battosai posts links to its public works published under a real
human name then maybe we could peer review those.

If Battosai posts any more delusional rot under its cartoon character
nym don't expect any response from me.

That would be best for the group, as it would mean you would go away.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.crypt

On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 02:22:38 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Cranium the predatory lying snake wrote:

If Battosai posts any more delusional rot under its cartoon character
nym don't expect any response from me.

That would be best for the group, as it would mean you would go away.

Why should I go away when you already have gone away?


((( PLONK )))

((( FOAD )))

((( ESAD )))

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2