Low-level as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-_and_low-level, not as in "very little access" (which I'm assuming is the impression you're getting: correct me if I'm mistaken)

I see that meaning but the way it was written you would think the context was access

And low-level access (to me) means root access. The only lower level access I can think of would be if someone broke into the datacenter and stole the server ;)

broke into the fab and altered the microcode ;)

Don't even need to do that, a simple BIOS update can update the microcode on most semi-recent Intels.

EDIT: I'd assume other architectures as well, Intels are the only ones I know about, however.

I think most people that read the story will read it that same way though, since it says 'Automatic had a low-level break-in'

bah - who cares, they have bigger problems than PR message wording

"Low" as in far down the stack; deep; not near the surface.

The concept is synonymous with how close you can get to 'system' where there is no additional abstraction.

A dinky example say is for instance you may need a password for X, but if you have access to disable the need for the password in X, you have lower level access. In the case at hand, with root level access you can read all the keys, passwords, settings in all the WP config files, otherwise you wouldn't be able to. You could also quietly add an additional password to the database allowing a bad application to run behind the scenes doing bad things with the data.

This makes for a very good simple CS test question.