> No actual breach seems to of occurred: We asked if anyone else had accessed the servers, the spokesperson said its logs showed access "by only a single non-au

> No actual breach seems to of occurred: We asked if anyone else had accessed the servers, the spokesperson said its logs showed access "by only a single non-authorized IP address which we traced back to a data security consultant who contacted us about about two weeks ago," referring to Vickery. Suspicious wording, if indeed "The four servers were quietly secured the next day.". Normally the PR response would have emphasised that e.g. "we took action immeiately and resolved the problem within 24 hours". And as for "non-authorized IP address" - really? Is IP address whitelisting used to secure this stuff? And if so, then how on earth did an unauthorized IP address get through? And then "the company downplayed the exposure, saying the data was less than half a percent of its cloud service" - but according to TFA that 0.5% included the master keys!?! At the least, their public responses are feeble and imprecise. Which leads to the suspicion that something darker happened.