Yeah this article is complete garbage. Who upvotes this stuff?

And what about taking a nice drive down Jean Baptiste Pointe du Sable Lake Shore Drive?

Wow Forbes cybersecurity reporting is absolute dog shit. So much text to say absolutely nothing useful.

Anyway, this is just an AITM redirection onto a malicious site in the middle that pretends to be the MFA portal and intercept the session cookie.

Microsoft uses TPM PCRs 7+11 for BitLocker which is more secure than the Linux implementations mentioned in the article.

PCR 7 is the Secure Boot measurement which means it can’t be unlocked unless every signed boot component has not been tampered with up to the point of unlock by the EFI bootloader. PCR 11 is simply flipped from a 0 to a 1 by the bootloader to protect the keys from being extracted in user land from an already booted system.

The article is correct that most Linux implementations blindly following these kinds of “guides” are not secure. Without additional PCRs, specifically 8 and 9 measuring the grub commands (no single-user bypass) and initrd (which is usually on an unencrypted partition), it is trivial to bypass. But the downside of using these additional PCRs is that you need to manually unlock with a LUKS2 password and reseal the keys in TPM whenever the kernel and or initrd updates.

Of course to be really secure, you want to require a PIN in addition to TPM to unlock the disk under any OS. But Microsoft’s TPM-only implementation is fairly secure with only a few advanced vulnerabilities such as LogoFAIL and cold boot attacks.