I think OP’s point is that singling out BitLocker when the attack is not specific to it is misleading. It leaves the wrong impression that other methods relying

I think OP’s point is that singling out BitLocker when the attack is not specific to it is misleading. It leaves the wrong impression that other methods relying on the same key exchange mechanism are safe. Name dropping BitLocker was one sure way to gather attention for something that had been proven years ago, and had already reached a “close enough for all intents and purposes” price point [0]. Not unlike name dropping Tesla or Apple even for mundane things. [0] https://pulsesecurity.co.nz/articles/TPM-sniffing https://pulsesecurity.co.nz/articles/TPM-sniffing