Welcome back to Cyber Reasons Malicious Life. I'm Ran Levy.

The following is the second in a two-part story about the 2011 RSA breach.

In part one we heard from Sam Currie and Dave Kasting Nola about how the breach was discovered

by an attentive employee who noticed sensitive data exiting from RSA's servers.

Sensitive information regarding secure ID, the company's flagship product, was stolen.

It was yet unclear whether the attackers had managed to get hold of the

cryptographic key that they needed in order to decrypt the stolen data.

If they haven't, RSA was in the clear. But if they did have the key, then hundreds of

RSA's clients were at serious risk.

RSA's management then had a tough choice to make. Should they disclose what

happened and suffer the consequences even though it was possible that no real damage

was done or should they maybe keep quiet and hope the

whole mess just goes away.

Art Kovaleo, RSA's CEO, made the call. We are going to do the right thing, he said. And they did.

History has a way of repeating itself.

Last December, the New York Times reported a breach at Fire Rye.

It was shocking for obvious reasons.

Few entities in the world are as secure as a top cybersecurity company like

them. It became an even bigger mess when they realized that the fire-ripe breach was just one small part of a much bigger

Solowind's supply chain attack. In the month's sense experts have been trying to make sense of such a momentous event.

A nation-state supply chain attack that even cyber security companies couldn't stop because they themselves were victims.

It's unprecedented, never before seen.

...