You can't fit the designs for anything more complicated than a paper clip on less than 1TB of disk these days. Forget about actual technical data associated with said design.
I regularly have plans for entire skyscrapers including structural, civil, MEP, fire suppression, landscape and interiors in files under 5GB. I have no idea where you got that idea from.
I was really more trying to make a joke about how the WaPo article says "including secret plans about ..." in the article itself. Which um... means the plans aren't secret now, even if they were before. I mean, now instead of just the Chinese government knowing about our secret sub based missile program, everyone knows! Yay security!
And honestly, it was the specificness of the number (614GB) that kinda hit me. So... what? That's the entire size of the disk space available to the system(s) that was/were hacked? In any sort of design environment, that's absolutely tiny
. I mean, that could be one guys laptop with whatever data happened to be there (which I'd suspect is what we're actually talking about here). But I'm questioning the totality of said data in that case. The vague phrase "relating to" used a couple times also kinds trips my "they're making this sound a lot worse than it probably is" sense.
The labeling of this as "massive amounts of sensitive data" made me laugh is all.