Nigel Farage’s Russian hack claim ‘without any merit’, former NCSC chief says | Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage’s claim that a Russian hack was behind the Guardian report on the £5 million gift he received from a crypto billionaire has been described as “without merit” by a former head of the National Cyber ​​Security Centre.

Ciaran Martin, the founding head of the agency, which is part of GCHQ, said Farage’s claim, if true, would have major implications for Britain’s policy towards Russia, but the Reform England leader had not yet produced “a shred of evidence”.

It is understood Farage has not yet asked the NCSC to investigate his apparent belief that the Guardian’s disclosure of crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne’s multimillion-pound donation was the result of a Russian “hack-and-leak” operation.

Martin said such an operation by the Kremlin would amount to an “unprecedentedly aggressive interference” in Britain’s democracy and that Farage should contact both the NCSC to investigate and make public technical evidence supporting his claim.

Martin said: “The aspiring Prime Minister essentially claimed that Russia had launched an unprecedentedly aggressive intervention in British politics – a malicious intervention – and has produced not a shred of evidence to support this claim.

“He made a serious foreign policy and national security claim which, if true, would have major implications for British policy towards Russia.

“This allegation is very, very serious. It would be a matter of national security. If this is true, the government should now be in an emergency session of the COBR to consider its response to Russia’s most serious interference in Britain’s internal affairs.”

Farage’s claim comes after the parliamentary commissioner launched an investigation into the standards surrounding Harborne’s failure to declare the gift he made in 2024.

Parliament’s transparency rules require MPs to register political gifts and donations above a certain threshold.

The reform leader claims Harborne’s gift is exempt for both his personal and security reasons.

Over the weekend, a UK Reform source claimed that an analysis of Farage’s phone by “counterespionage experts” had found that “Farage’s phone, email and bank accounts were compromised by hostile actors almost certainly linked to Moscow using spear phishing tactics.”

Reform UK told the Mail on Sunday that only four people were aware of the gift; Farage added that the alleged Russian activity was “deeply worrying” and highlighted “the threat they pose to British security”.

A spokesman for the Guardian described Farage’s claim as “an attempt to divert attention from legitimate scrutiny of his financial affairs”. They added: “Rather than face scrutiny from journalists and politicians, Nigel Farage is once again hiding behind an unfounded attack on the media.”

Martin said there was a cross-party consensus that cyberattacks on politicians were “attacks on the integrity of our political system, attacks on the country, attacks on our national security.”

He said it was Farage’s responsibility to report the matter to the relevant authorities, given the serious consequences for the country and democracy.

He said: “It would require some kind of response from the national government, whether it be additional sanctions, expulsion of diplomats, etc. But as it stands, this is a completely unfounded claim.”

“Who knows what the future may reveal, of course I can’t say for sure that it hasn’t happened and if the facts change I will change my view.

“But this is true of most allegations and the onus is on Mr Farage to provide at least some evidence that we should take this deeply disturbing allegation seriously.

“But now, judging by what he said in the Mail on Sunday, this is a completely false and unsubstantiated claim.

“What he is talking about is not just Russia’s hacking, it is what we call a hack-exfiltration operation, which is something different.

“This is much more serious because it violates international norms and is a direct intervention aimed at destabilizing our democracy and politics in ways that espionage cannot.”

He added: “The Prime Minister-designate must approach this situation with the utmost seriousness and fully cooperate with the National Cyber ​​Security Center and other relevant authorities, otherwise you should not make these accusations because they are too serious to be floating around.”

Martin questioned Reform UK’s claim that a “team of counter-espionage experts” hired by the party had concluded the hack was almost certainly ordered by Russia.

He said: “Let’s break this down a bit. It doesn’t seem to have gone to the authorities. A cybersecurity company with ‘counter-espionage’ experts and digital forensics capabilities? Who are they? What did they do? Do they exist? They should at least release some technical evidence.”

“To take a phone and say that my phone, my email, and my bank account have been hacked and that there are traces of the Russian state on it, based on the analysis of a single device, is a tremendous technical leap.

“It is not impossible, but in most cases you would need to do much more through a concrete and verifiable investigation.”

“The Russians don’t leave a little flag on the devices,” Martin added.

“You need detailed technical evidence, and some of that is sometimes not even accessible to the private sector,” he said. “The only proper address for an accusation of this magnitude is therefore the British security services, and in this case specifically the National Cyber ​​Security Center at GCHQ.”

The reform was approached for comment.