It is just possible they decided crypto code that uses it was safer to skip zeros. (Whist mathematically it should be no more likely; it is vastly more likely someone will actually try that key).
It is also possible that their code was generating too many zeros and the easiest fix was to discard them all.
Can you clarify what you mean by "it is vastly more likely someone will actually try that key"?
I'm guessing you don't think there are people calling rdrand in a loop and throwing away the output with high probability except when it is 0, but I can't see how else you imagine people would be vastly more likely to use the output when it is 0?
In lots of scenarios I know the software used to generate the key; the only unknown is the random numbers used. If I am searching for weaknesses it is highly likely I would try keys with different seeds; zero, one, are going to me much more likely choices here then hoping I can guess the right values.
If someone was using RDRAND16 to seed a PRNG, choosing to omit one single value (a zero) from the return value would not significantly improve the generated values, if at all.
ZiiS · · focus · HN ↗
It is also possible that their code was generating too many zeros and the easiest fix was to discard them all.
dark-star · · focus · HN ↗
jstanley · · focus · HN ↗
I'm guessing you don't think there are people calling rdrand in a loop and throwing away the output with high probability except when it is 0, but I can't see how else you imagine people would be vastly more likely to use the output when it is 0?
ZiiS · · focus · HN ↗
jstanley · · focus · HN ↗
ZiiS · · focus · HN ↗
jstanley · · focus · HN ↗
necovek · · focus · HN ↗
ZiiS · · focus · HN ↗