Latest news with #NationalSecurityAct2023
Business News Wales
23-07-2025
- Business
- Business News Wales
Insider Cyber Threats Remain Major Concern for UK Organisations
Will Ashford Brown Insider threats continue to have organisations on high alert, affecting over 34% of businesses globally every year, a financial services firm says. Heligan Group said that 66% of companies recently surveyed believed insider attacks to be more likely than an external attack. The threat from insiders can broadly be categorised into unintentional and intentional, it added. A malicious insider falls into the latter category, which can be anyone with legitimate access to an organisation's assets who exploits their position for unauthorised purposes. The risk comes from not just employees but also contractors, partners and suppliers. The British Museum was plagued by an insider cyber-attack in January, where a dismissed IT contractor entered and deactivated core IT systems. X also suffered a mass data leak in April, exposing user data for more than 2.8 billion accounts, which was the work of an alleged ex-employee who stole data during a period of redundancies. Will Ashford Brown, Director of Strategic Insights at Heligan Group, said: 'The majority of insider breaches are not malicious but are a result of staff performing their jobs, but taking shortcuts to be more efficient. Ironically, this is mainly due to restrictive security measures to protect against the threat of compromise. A classic example is a member of staff who writes all their passwords on a post-it note under their keyboard or at the back of their notebook because IT policy means they must enter a separate, complex, 14-character-long password to access each of the various systems they need to do their job.' Organisations must therefore distinguish between staff who adopt insecure workarounds because security policies conflict with business requirements and staff who are genuinely malicious insiders. The mitigations need to be different based on the threat, but both are real insider threat challenges. 'As organisations implement increasingly sophisticated physical and cyber security measures to protect their assets from external threats, the recruitment of insiders becomes a more attractive option for those attempting to gain access', added Will. 'If this is sponsored or directed by foreign state actors, then there is a strong chance that the incident would fall under the UK's relatively new National Security Act 2023, which governs the nation's response to acts of espionage, including commercial espionage.' The UK currently has multiple government departments and agencies combating insider threats and actively working on mitigations. The NPSA (National Protective Security Authority) stands out from the crowd, producing a comprehensive framework for mitigating the insider threat based on research in physical security processes, behavioural science and critical infrastructure protection, said Heligan Group. Will continued: 'While following a framework like the NPSA's doesn't guarantee fail-safe security from the threat of malicious or unwitting insider activity, it does provide a far greater depth of protection and fosters a strong security culture and a sense of ownership and responsibility for acting against insider threats. 'UK organisations must ensure that their offboarding processes are watertight, as those responsible for insider threats will know their systems inside and out. Disgruntled employees will be aware of every loophole available and must have their access revoked as soon as their employment has been terminated. Insider cyber threats have continued to surface in 2025, and organisations have to be on guard.'
The National
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
‘No breach' by UK Government of human rights on Russia probe
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found there was no breach of measures aimed at ensuring free and fair elections after a long-running legal action backed by three former MPs. The Strasbourg court acknowledged there was evidence of a 'significant and ongoing threat' to the UK's democratic processes from Vladimir Putin's country, but said Westminster had taken action to respond to the danger. The case was lodged at the ECtHR in 2022 by three then-MPs, Labour's Ben Bradshaw, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas and the SNP's Alyn Smith (below), after applications for a judicial review of Boris Johnson's decision not to order an investigation into Russian activities were declined by domestic courts. In a judgment published yesterday, the court ruled that the UK Government's response did not violate the right to free elections. The judgment said: 'While the Court does not underestimate the threat posed by the spreading of disinformation and the running of 'influence campaigns', their nature is nevertheless such that it is difficult to assess accurately the impact that they may have on individual voters and, by extension, on the outcome of a given election.' There was also a risk to freedom of expression if there were 'knee-jerk reactions' to debate during an election contest. 'There is a very fine line between addressing the dangers of disinformation and outright censorship,' the judgment said. READ MORE: 'Wake up, America!': Alan Cumming hits out at Donald Trump over trans attacks Any actions taken by states 'to counter the risk of foreign election interference through the dissemination of disinformation and the running of influence campaigns' would have to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 'Therefore, while states should not remain passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat they must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in the choice of means to be adopted in order to counter such threats,' the judgment said. 'In the court's view, the United Kingdom's response to the threat of Russian election interference did not fall outside the wide margin of appreciation afforded to it in this area.' The case followed reports from the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) which looked at alleged Russian disinformation campaigns, including during the 2016 Brexit referendum. The court noted that 'there were undoubtedly shortcomings in the Government's initial response' to the Russian threat but there were 'thorough and independent investigations' by the ISC and the DCMS committee. The judgment also noted that following the publication of the ISC report in 2020 there had been new laws passed to help address the risk: the Elections Act 2022, the National Security Act 2023 ('the NSA 2023') and the Online Safety Act 2023. Following the judgment, Lucas said: 'It's hugely significant that the court has found in favour of our case that foreign interference is a threat to our right to free and fair elections and that they recognise there will be cases when states do have a duty to investigate. And while it's clearly disappointing that they found that the Government had done enough, I've no doubt that this will continue to be contested. 'The bottom line is that we still cannot be assured that our democratic system is robust against foreign interference – and for as long as that is the case, we will continue to explore all possible avenues for remedy.' READ MORE: Broadcast watchdog called in over Labour's 'misleading' Scottish water claim Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day, the law firm which represented the three former MPs, said: 'In an important judgment, which will have far-reaching implications, the court has accepted, contrary to the UK's submissions, that in order to safeguard citizens' right to free and fair elections, states will in certain circumstances have to take positive action against foreign interference in electoral processes including by investigating credible allegations. 'Our clients continue to think the UK has fallen short of protecting our democracy and are considering next steps in relation to the court's conclusion that there has been no violation of their right to free and fair elections.' A UK Government spokesman said: 'We note today's judgment, which found no violation. 'We are committed to safeguarding our electoral processes, which is why we recently announced tougher new rules on political donations to protect our elections from the growing danger of foreign interference. 'These changes will boost transparency and accountability in politics by closing loopholes that would allow foreign donors to influence elections. 'More broadly, national security is our first responsibility, and we have taken action to harden and sharpen our approach to threats – whether standing with Ukraine against Russia's illegal invasion, placing Russia on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and working with allies to monitor and counter Russian submarines and ships in UK waters.'
The Herald Scotland
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Human rights ‘not breached over election interference probe refusal'
The Strasbourg court acknowledged there was evidence of a 'significant and ongoing threat' to the UK's democratic processes from Vladimir Putin's country, but said Westminster had taken action to respond to the danger. Judgment Bradshaw and Others v. the United Kingdom – Alleged interference by Russia in UK elections – the UK Government's response did not violate the right to free electionshttps:// #CEDH #ECHRpress — ECHR CEDH (@ECHR_CEDH) July 22, 2025 The case was lodged at the ECtHR in 2022 by three then-MPs, Labour's Sir Ben Bradshaw, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas and the SNP's Alyn Smith, after applications for a judicial review of Boris Johnson's decision not to order an investigation into Russian activities were declined by domestic courts. In a judgment published on Tuesday, the court ruled that the UK government's response did not violate the right to free elections. The judgment said: 'While the Court does not underestimate the threat posed by the spreading of disinformation and the running of 'influence campaigns', their nature is nevertheless such that it is difficult to assess accurately the impact that they may have on individual voters and, by extension, on the outcome of a given election.' There was also a risk to freedom of expression if there were 'knee-jerk reactions' to debate during an election contest. 'There is a very fine line between addressing the dangers of disinformation and outright censorship,' the judgment said. Any actions taken by states 'to counter the risk of foreign election interference through the dissemination of disinformation and the running of influence campaigns' would have to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 'Therefore, while states should not remain passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat they must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in the choice of means to be adopted in order to counter such threats,' the judgment said. 'In the court's view, the United Kingdom's response to the threat of Russian election interference did not fall outside the wide margin of appreciation afforded to it in this area.' The case followed reports from the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) which looked at alleged Russian disinformation campaigns, including during the 2016 Brexit referendum. The court noted that 'there were undoubtedly shortcomings in the Government's initial response' to the Russian threat but there were 'thorough and independent investigations' by the ISC and the DCMS committee.. The judgment also noted that following the publication of the ISC report in 2020 there had been new laws passed to help address the risk: the Elections Act 2022, the National Security Act 2023 ('the NSA 2023') and the Online Safety Act 2023. Following the judgment, Ms Lucas said: 'It's hugely significant that the court has found in favour of our case that foreign interference is a threat to our right to free and fair elections and that they recognise there will be cases when states do have a duty to investigate. 'And while it's clearly disappointing that they found that the Government had done enough, I've no doubt that this will continue to be contested. 'The bottom line is that we still cannot be assured that our democratic system is robust against foreign interference – and for as long as that is the case, we will continue to explore all possible avenues for remedy.' Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day – the law firm which represented the three former MPs, said: 'In an important judgment, which will have far-reaching implications, the court has accepted, contrary to the UK's submissions, that in order to safeguard citizens' right to free and fair elections, states will in certain circumstances have to take positive action against foreign interference in electoral processes including by investigating credible allegations. 'Our clients continue to think the UK has fallen short of protecting our democracy and are considering next steps in relation to the court's conclusion that there has been no violation of their right to free and fair elections.'
Novaya Gazeta Europe
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Novaya Gazeta Europe
Three British men found guilty of Wagner-linked arson attack in London — Novaya Gazeta Europe
Three British men have been found guilty of committing an arson attack on behalf of the Russian Wagner Group on a warehouse in London being used to supply humanitarian aid and satellite to Ukraine, BBC News reported on Tuesday. Jakeem Rose, 23, Ugnius Asmena, 20, and Nii Mensah, 23, were all found guilty on Tuesday at the Old Bailey court in London of aggravated arson with intent to endanger life. The attack, which caused around £1 million (€860,000) in damages in March 2024, was orchestrated by two other men, Dylan Earl, 20, and Jake Reeves, 23, who had already admitted to committing aggravated arson on behalf of the Wagner Group of Russian mercenaries. The men are the first to be convicted under the UK's National Security Act 2023 for such foreign-directed hostile activity. According to The Guardian, the court heard that Earl had told a Wagner Group operative he met on Telegram he wanted to carry out further 'missions' for the mercenaries following the warehouse fire. Further plots, the BBC reported, involved additional arson attacks on a west London restaurant and wine shop owned by Yevgeny Chichvarkin, a multi-millionaire and Russian dissident who was named a 'foreign agent' by Russia's Justice Ministry in June 2022, and a plot to abduct him. 'This case is a clear example of an organisation linked to the Russian state using 'proxies', in this case British men, to carry out very serious criminal activity in this country on their behalf,' Commander Dominic Murphy, head of London's Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, said on Tuesday. 'Seemingly motivated by the promise of money, they were prepared to commit criminal acts on behalf of Russia,' he said. 'I hope these convictions send a strong warning of the very serious consequences of committing offences on behalf of a foreign country.' In late May, The Financial Times reported that British security officials were looking into whether Russia was behind three arson attacks on properties linked to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer perpetrated by two Ukrainian men and a Romanian national. In early June, Schemes, the investigative unit of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Ukrainian-language service, discovered that one of the men, Roman Lavrynovych, had posted in a job recruitment chat on Telegram that he was seeking employment. Such group chats are reportedly commonly used by Russian intelligence agencies to hire proxies, RFE/RL reported. In the last year, Moscow has been accused of carrying out numerous acts of sabotage and arson attacks on public buildings, transport networks and other infrastructure in several European countries, including Poland and Lithuania, as part of what experts believe is a hybrid warfare strategy designed to destabilise the West.
Sunday World
09-07-2025
- Sunday World
Dealer who wanted to link Kinahans, IRA and Russia found guilty of warehouse attack
Dylan Earl orchestrated the arson attack on the Ukraine-linked facility on the orders of Russia's terrorist Wagner Group A 20-year-old drug dealer who had grand ambitions to 'build a link' between the IRA, the Kinahan Cartel and Russia, has been found guilty for his role in the burning down of a warehouse in London. Dylan Earl orchestrated the arson attack along with Gatwick airport cleaner Jake Reeves (23) on the Ukraine-linked facility on the orders of Russia's terrorist Wagner Group. Three men who acted as 'proxies' for Vladimir Putin's regime Ugnius Asmena, Nii Mensah and Jakeem Rose were tracked down after they set two units on fire in east London on March 20 last year. Apparently motivated by the lure of cash, Mensah (23) livestreamed on his phone as he and Rose (also 23) set fire to the industrial unit. Jake Reeves Meanwhile, a trial at the Old Bailey was told how fixer Asmena (20) waited in a car nearby as the warehouse in Leyton was targeted as it was being used to supply humanitarian aid and StarLink satellite equipment to Ukraine. Earl and Reeves who had previously admitted aggravated arson on behalf of the terror group have become the first defendants to be convicted of acting as proxies for Wagner under the National Security Act 2023. Earl who has also admitted possessing cocaine and thousands of pounds in criminal cash had been plotting to kidnap the establishment's owner, the wealthy Russian dissident Evgeny Chichvarkin. Mensah, Rose and Asmena have been found guilty of aggravated arson with intent to endanger life following an Old Bailey trial. Driver Paul English (61) was cleared of wrongdoing while Ashton Evans (20) was found guilty of failing to disclose information about terrorist acts relating to the Mayfair plot. However, he was cleared of failing to tell authorities about the warehouse arson while Dmirjus Paulauskas (23) was also cleared of two similar offences relating to both terrorist plots. Commander Dominic Murphy, head of the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command, said the case clearly demonstrated how an organisation linked to the Russian state was using 'proxies', 'in this case British men, to carry out very serious criminal activity in this country on their behalf'. 'The ringleaders, Earl and Reeves, willingly acted as hostile agents on behalf of the Russian state,' he said. 'I am pleased that, working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service, we were able to use the new National Security Act legislation, which meant the severity of Earl and Reeves's offending was reflected in the charges they faced.' The arsonists recorded the attack on their phones Sixty firefighters from eight crews had to get the blaze under control, which had put members of the public 'at great risk' according to Murphy, and it was only by good fortune 'nobody was seriously injured or worse'. The commander added that those involved, 'seemingly motivated by the promise of money, were prepared to commit criminal acts on behalf of Russia'. He said: 'I hope these convictions send a strong warning of the very serious consequences of committing offences on behalf of a foreign country.' Both businesses in the damaged units were Ukrainian-owned. The Met's Counter Terrorism Command took over the investigation when it emerged that another warehouse linked to one of the companies had been subject to an arson attack in Madrid. The court was told how investigators gathered 'overwhelming' evidence linking the arsonists to the Leyton attack. The three arsonists who carried out the attack, Ugnius Asmena, Nii Mensah, and Jakeem Rose As Mr English drove the trio in his Kia Picanto through south London, which was covered by CCTV, they were tracked by phone data and traffic cameras. Rose and Mensah were also seen on footage getting out of the vehicle, and climbing over a wall as they approached the warehouses. Rose dropped a very large knife with his DNA on it, as they fled the scene, while Mensah later messaged Reeves to say he 'left his Rambo at the scene'. Prosecutor Duncan Penny KC said that while the arsonists were motivated by the promise of money, Earl and Reeves had been working on behalf of Russia. Earl had told a Wagner operative he met on Telegram he was keen to carry out a series of 'missions' and admitted preparing to set fire to the Hide Restaurant and Hedonism Wines in Mayfair, west London. He also admitted to the kidnap plot of owner Mr Chichvarkin, described as a 'high-profile Russian dissident and refugee' who has been vocal in his criticism of Putin and the war in Ukraine. Dylan Earl Today's News in 90 Seconds - July 9th Reeves, from Croydon, south London, who was also prepared to accept money from a foreign intelligence service to target the Russian dissident had sent an unknown contact Mr Chichvarkin's name and said he would make an 'amazing target'. Earl's Wagner contact, named Privet Bot, instructed him to watch the period drama The Americans and use it as a 'manual' for his covert mission. Set during the Cold War, the television series is about two KGB agents posing as Americans in Washington DC to spy on the American government. Drug dealer Earl also appeared to brag in further chats with Privet Bot that he had criminal connections and could 'sort' an introduction to the IRA and Kinahan Irish organised crime group. He was arrested in a B&Q car park in Hinckley, Leicestershire, and videos of the warehouse fire being started were found on his iPhone. Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said the convicted defendants would be sentenced on a date to be fixed in the autumn.
