No, they claimed: "We have no knowledge" and "we are not aware" which does not mean "the vulnerabilities discovered through exfiltration were not used". That a

No, they claimed: "We have no knowledge" and "we are not aware" which does not mean "the vulnerabilities discovered through exfiltration were not used". That admits nearly every possible class of outcome as long they did not actively already know about it and chose to say they did not. The specific words that their lawyers intentionally drafted explicitly even allow them to intentionally spend effort to destroy any evidence that would lead them to learn if the vulnerabilities were used and still successfully claim that they were telling the truth in a court of law. You should not assume their highly paid lawyers meant anything other than the most tortured possible technically correct statement. PR statements drafted by legal are a monkey's paw. Treat them like it.