The cost of trusting one copy.
A decade of headline breaches, plotted by year and estimated cost. Click any breach to see what happened — and, honestly, how SkyeConnex's encrypt-then-shard architecture would have changed the outcome.
What SkyeConnex changes — and what it doesn't
Almost none of these breaches were exotic. Most were a stolen password, an unpatched server, or a misconfiguration — and in nearly every case the attacker walked out with readable data from a single reconstructable copy. That is the part architecture can change.
SkyeConnex does not stop the intrusion. It will not catch a phishing email, fix an unpatched library, or prevent credential theft — and we would distrust anyone who claimed otherwise. What it removes is the payoff. Data is encrypted on the client and split into erasure-coded shards distributed across independent providers, under keys the operator never holds. So when the intrusion succeeds — and eventually one will — the attacker exfiltrates ciphertext fragments that decrypt to nothing, and recovery comes from surviving nodes instead of the attacker's decryptor.
The breach still happens. The disclosure doesn't. Model your own exposure →
Figures are best-available public estimates drawn from settlements, regulator fines, disclosed remediation and acquisition write-downs; items marked with an asterisk are rough estimates. They are indicative of scale, not audited totals.
See it on your own data.
Book a briefing and we'll run the encrypt-encode-scatter pipeline on a file you bring — and show you what a subpoena or an exfiltration would actually return.