It looks like there is a response from the company in there and it probably needed an EQ review before releasing. It starts off with attacking the reporters, an

It looks like there is a response from the company in there and it probably needed an EQ review before releasing. It starts off with attacking the reporters, and then this: > ... I know you guys promote some kind of app security solution commercially, but I did note in my earlier response that our company and MsgSafe has never shipped an app that was not in BETA only and that the 5-year-old app beta was abandoned years ago. Trying to ignore the fact that there might have been malware in a security-focused message application they shipped is concerning. (I _can_ imagine how it might have been done innocently - a beta intended to be internal-only w/ various metrics analysis et al, for example). It's hard to trust part of the business if a separate section of the company engages in that sort of behavior. That said, their note about an unrelated party in the US registering the same name for a company in the US is really weird and concerning. > Our attorneys believe someone could have done this (and it agrees with our event timeline we’re creating as we investigate) for physical actions taken and may have used this with insurance companies to obtain additional nonpublic information about our company and our insurance infrastructure which is large and complicated just like every CA’s insurance has to be. This feels vaguely scary if you run businesses abroad with US-based hosting or physical infrastructure.