The article confuses me: it seems to be conflating the RSA algorithm (which I could easily believe might be used to encrypt military GPS) with the RSA company (a division of EMC which was hacked and had its SecurID product compromised recently).
Am I missing something, or is the author just confused? Why would having "broken into EMC's RSA servers" be at all related to being "in pursuit of a cryptanalytic attack against RSA"?
I was a little confused also, I am under the impression that he is mentioning 2 points.
1) Attack on RSA to attempt to see if RSA has some attack on the RSA algorithm hidden.
2) Using an attack on SecurID to attempt to get more information from a Lockheed Martin or other breach.
Yes, it was widely reported that Lockheed was a target after SecurID was breached. Whether or not anything useful was extracted from Lockheed's systems, and whether or not any Lockheed data was involved in spoofing the drone, is pure speculation. It seems equally plausible that Iran had an inside man at a defense contractor. After all, history has shown how relatively inexpensive and effective double agents are to state actors.
Am I missing something, or is the author just confused? Why would having "broken into EMC's RSA servers" be at all related to being "in pursuit of a cryptanalytic attack against RSA"?