Information, system frequency, gains, jam resistance/sensitivity, frequency agility and modes, missile capability (at a system level or only performance). All of this is useful for dealing with a hostile SAM.
Some may prevent engagement at all, others may increase the odds of survival of it's targets, or destruction of the launch vehicle.
The Israeli Codes can be modified easily enough once the compromise is known if a change is considered desirable and cost effective, but changing the parameters of a SAM system takes a much greater effort if it is at all feasible. There might be a knock on effect if US uses compatible systems to the Israeli ones etc, but the compromise may not be as significant as the engineering data on the TOR if it is reasonably complete.
The original article clearly mentions some "codes" in relation not only to Israeli drones, but also in relation to Iranian Tors ("in exchange Russia provided Israel with codes for Iranian Tor-M1", a direct translation). I highly doubt that Russians would provide any useful technical data about Iranian Tors to Israel because of one reason: export Tors are way too similar to those used by Russian Army, compromising Iranian ones would also compromise the Russian ones. Therefore I suppose that even if some information was given to Israel (which I highly doubt), this may be codes to activate a some kind of "kill switch", which is built into these export systems by manufacturer.
P. S.: If you can read Russian, please read first post at my link - some interesting info from a man "in the loop": http://www.balancer.ru/g/p2739880
One phrase from there: "It appears that Iranians, fearing of "zakladki" (there is an opinion that their fears are not unfounded), aren't using Tor's built-in IFF system". ("Zakladki" is a Russian term for "kill switch", or some other "trojan horse" function in some hardware or software).
