As you probably know, the computing time in the worst case scenario for brute forcing a cryptographic key generally doubles by each bit added. That is, it would

As you probably know, the computing time in the worst case scenario for brute forcing a cryptographic key generally doubles by each bit added. That is, it would take twice the effort to brute-force 129 bits compared 128 bits. The security of RSA however depends on the factoring of very large numbers, and that means that for example, RSA-2048 doesn't translate into 2048 bits of security but 112 (roughly symmetric equivalent) bits based on the best factoring algorithms (for comparison, the RSA-512 the article mentions has an 56 bit equivalent and RSA-1024 has a 80 bit equivalent security, so RSA-1024 would take roughly 2^(80-56) ~= 17 million times to compute the worst-case scenario and RSA-2048 would take 2^(112-80) = 4.3 thousand million times more). According to the Wikipedia article on RSA numbers, RSA-220 (66b) was factored in 2016, RSA-230 (69b) in 2018, RSA-240 (72b) in 2019 and RSA-260 (76b) this year, which is too close to RSA-1024 (80b) to be comfortable. For RSA-250, the team reported it took "roughly 2,700 core-years, using Intel Xeon Gold 6130 CPUs at 2.1 GHz.". I am not going to (or feel qualified to) make estimates of how that would translate to RSA-1024, but it does sound plausible given enough resources.