So, just to be clear because I found your link filled with a bit too much corporate speak:

1. The linked Hudson Rock post is explicitly claiming that the breaches at Ticketmaster and Santander Bank were caused by a Snowflake employee whose credentials were compromised.

2. This bullet point, "We did find evidence that similar to impacted customer accounts, the threat actor obtained personal credentials to and accessed a demo account owned by a former Snowflake employee. It did not contain sensitive data." (emphasis mine) says pretty clearly to me, then, that Snowflake believes the Hudson Rock account to be false.

So is that a correct understanding then?

The OP Hudson Rock writes something that I understand is saying: This was more than a breach of one customer's credentials, they got some employee creds and they weren't protected by 2 factor so they got into other customer accounts using that engineer's creds.

The snowflake writeup reads to me as if a customer's account creds got compromised - and it implied to me that was the end of it, no central or other account access on thoes creds. Nothing about this use of some employee account info that didn't have 2 factor auth on it.

1. I'm sure snowflake wants all access creds of any kind for their internal employees to use 2fa.

2. It used to be at least as a customer you could create a name/password without 2fa to log in to your own info there if you wanted to, like say as a customer you create a db or table and want to access it.

For 1. Those accounts would be set up by customers, so if they didn’t require 2FA, it didn’t happen.

Will there be any direct comment regarding the article here?

The linked post now contains unambiguous denials of the majority of claims in TFA, and TFA has been taken down.

the ad for protection services?

Yes, I know... I've seen that, also the posts on Reddit/HN and so on, but I am just curious if there is some truth to it.

snowflake has released a handful of statements and articles. giving attention to the ad would only be promoting it. unlikely to be allowed.