> This authentication exploit bypasses the login screen despite BitLocker, so it's technically a BitLocker bypass No. No, it is not. Let me give a similar exam

> This authentication exploit bypasses the login screen despite BitLocker, so it's technically a BitLocker bypass No. No, it is not. Let me give a similar example: lets say the drive requires a PIN and i ask the user to enter the PIN, then i still get to the starting conditions of this article. Technically i could argue it now includes a social engineering variant of a bitlocker bypass, but it should be very obvious there is no actual bypass, only an "assume it is open" precondition. The article has an "assume the device is configured in a way that i can walk right past bitlocker to the lockscreen" and then calls it "Bypassing BitLocker in 6 easy steps". No, just no. Not technically, not theoretically, just no. Not to be unfair to the author, the lockscreen bypass is clever and teaches a lot about defensive coding. It is a good finding. But the article gets dragged down by the sensationalist title, because the content is not what it says it is.