and they ensure that the company uses every [sic] they have got, leaving them with no choice but to demonstrate their defense capabilities to the attacker.
This doesn't make sense. To require them to use every defense they have would require the attacker to be precisely calibrated with the defenses the company has.
It's much more likely that the attacker has more offenses that the company doesn't have defenses for or that the attacker has fewer attacks and that the company has defenses that are not employed.
Even more likely is a disjoint match - the attacker has attacks the company is not prepared for and the company is prepared for some attacks the attacker is not employing.
The only way the statement could make sense as written is if the attacker has a priori inside knowledge of the companies' defenses. That would be a much bigger story. More likely is that at least some of the claims in the article are not well-founded and/or outright propaganda.