7 ms·

UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson Sacked over Huawei Leak

66 points by jmsflknr 8y ago

insomniacity 8y ago
I'd love to know how he was caught. Not enough security on his phone - or old school interviews and sources?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  With his almost glorious ability to insert foot in mouth, I would put money on self-incrimination.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    It's also possible he didn't do it. He hasn't exactly impressed anyone - except himself - during his brief but very exciting tenure, and it's possible May was looking for an excuse to get rid of him while also pointing the finger at a convenient scapegoat. We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't.
    - Veen 8y ago
      We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't. It's amazing it got this far. Leak inquiries almost never discover a culprit (by design) and it's unheard of for a minister to actually get sacked for leaking.
      - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
        It's more amazing that Williamson was ever Defence Minister in the first place. Latest: "Theresa May considers the matter closed." So there we are. No police investigation into a rather serious matter of national security. Meanwhile Williamson himself is absolutely insistent he's innocent and that the internal investigation was ineffective - which means that if he is innocent, someone else was responsible. And if he's telling the truth, that person remains unnamed, and in a ministerial position.
        mathieuh 8y ago
        The UK has a Crown Prosecution Service which is a public service responsible for bringing charges against people. It’s not up to HMG.
        switch007 8y ago
        According to wikipedia Attorney General is responsible for the CPS, who answers to the Ministry of Justice...which is a Government department.
        M2Ys4U 8y ago
        An AG interfering with or blocking the CPS from bringing a prosecution would be a _big_ deal.
        switch007 8y ago
        That's one way to look at it, sure. But technically it is up to the Government though?
        StaticRedux 8y ago
        Justice Department answers to Trump. Doesn't mean he can tell them to just go arrest someone. No matter how many times he tries.
        switch007 8y ago
        The US is not the UK
        kodz4 8y ago
        Quite sure thats a Yes Minister episode.
        inflatableDodo 8y ago
        All of Thatcher-In-The-Rye's tenure has been an extended 'Yes Minister' episode. Though I think the writers would never have gone quite as far as Boris 'Fuck Business' Johnson. Who may very well become our next PM.
      - KaiserPro 8y ago
        true, but normally its a leak of policy, or something politically embarrassing. (brexit will be a great success/terrible failure because of x, delete to taste) But this is different, this is a leak of an actual state secrets. This is much more secret because its expressly illegal. (the official secrets act makes many things vaguely illegal, but leaking things marked "secret" or similar is an actual offence.) Not only is it illegal, its also leaking other country's intelligence, which is a massive nono
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    I think the first indication was when he refused to cooperate with the investigation. Or perhaps he had a Huawei phone.
- mtgx 8y ago
  They probably couldn't even tell him how they caught him, because then they'd have to admit that GCHQ is spying on most government members, too.
  - jsty 8y ago
    Given the technical aptitude of most politicians in the UK, he may equally likely have used a government-issued device
    - westiseast 8y ago
      This sprang to mind: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15396956 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15396956 Letwin had a habit of reading correspondence whilst in a public park in the mornings and then dumping it in public bins once dealt with. Mirror reporters just followed him around and fished sensitive material out of the bins.
  - sethhochberg 8y ago
    This is part of the reason why governments make info-sharing pacts between their spy agencies, right? You might have a policy of constitution preventing you from spying on your own citizens, but your allies certainly don't play by those same rules.
- KaiserPro 8y ago
  I doubt it was that. From what I have heard he was the only one trying to blame it on civil servants. Plus as its a criminal matter they would have been able to get warrants to get call records. As the journalist that broke the story is known, its not hard to figure out from there.
- DanBC 8y ago
  He's a fucking idiot. Here's the letter May sent, which makes it sound like regular interviewing and discussions: https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1123635838523465729 https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1123635838523465729 (But, obviously, the security services aren't going to say "we know it was him"). This, from Buzzfeed, about him is telling: https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/britains-new-defence-secretary-has-stepped-out-of-the https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/britains-new-defence-se...
- adwww 8y ago
  Honestly leaks are such a common part of the current UK government he is probably just suprised that THIS TIME people are taking it seriously.
expressrunning 8y ago
Relevant discussion a day ago: Vodafone Found Hidden Backdoors in Huawei Equipment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19786102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19786102
- gnode 8y ago
  While this is being touted as a smoking gun, calling it a "backdoor" may be reaching: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/30/huawei_enterprise_router_backdoor_is_telnet/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/30/huawei_enterprise_r...
  - sp332 8y ago
    I think this article is disingenuous. It's telnet on a nonstandard port with hardcoded credentials, that was added back in after being removed when it was spotted in previous security testing. Edit: this according to one of the sources in the Bloomberg article, who claims to have read internal Vodaphone documents https://twitter.com/raistolo/status/1123283199348621312 https://twitter.com/raistolo/status/1123283199348621312
    - strainer 8y ago
      A telnet service responds to a plain port scan. So it was categorically not hidden. Vodaphone explain this themselves in the linked register article: >It added the Telnet service was found during an audit, which means it can't have been that secret or hidden: "The issues were identified by independent security testing, initiated by Vodafone as part of our routine security measures, and fixed at the time by Huawei.
      - DelightOne 8y ago
        So a backdoor is okay incase it's not hidden?
        strainer 8y ago
tamalesfan 8y ago
Eight days after the leak the guy is fired... The takeaway is; don't interfere with the PLA/Huawei.
13415 8y ago
In general, this is one of the news threads that I persistently don't understand. There is too much information missing. Why are European countries so keen on allowing Huawei to build some critical infrastructure? Do they face threats from China? If so, how are these made? And then there is the other side of the coin, that the US allegations look credible overall, but it is also known that the NSA and GCHQ built spying tools into existing European infrastructure. Is the US trying to do this again but this wouldn't work if Huawei was involved? Which companies can actually build these kind of networks? Couldn't e.g. France and Germany build them on their own? Or would that be too expensive? Questions over questions...
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  > Why are European countries so keen on allowing Huawei to build some critical infrastructure? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/technology/huawei-europe-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/technology/huawei-europe-...
- gnode 8y ago
  The desire to use Huawei is that they're a major player in the telecommunications infrastructure market. The governmental advice / requirements not to use Huawei equipment is because China is not trusted, and diplomatic relations with China are bad. There appears to be no hard evidence that Huawei have abused their trust, yet at the same time, that doesn't mean they couldn't. It's not possible to differentiate innocent security vulnerabilities with underhandedly engineered ones. Ultimately it doesn't matter whether Huawei are abusing their position of trust or not, but whether they could be used as a weapon by their host country, to which the answer is that they could be, as for any such company anywhere. So ultimately it's a diplomatic issue.
- hacker_9 8y ago
  It's cheap, and there is not enough conclusive evidence about the allegations. The US-led artificial trade war with China also gives pause when they are the accusers. If a credible EU country brought something up I'd expect it'd be taken much more seriously.
- user5994461 8y ago
make3 8y ago
isn't the fact that she was trying to have Huawei participate to the infrastructure without people knowing it the actual scandal worth being sacked for? that's crazy
emilfihlman 8y ago
I wonder, if Huawei is really spying for China and May (and other politicians) know about this and endorse that, shouldn't that be treason?
- lucozade 8y ago
  Shouldn’t what be treason?
- M2Ys4U 8y ago
  I'm not sure it qualifies under the Treason Act 1351: > When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s Companion, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife of the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition, and if a Man slea the Chancellor,Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King,and his Royal Majesty. or the Treason Felony Act 1848: > If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be transported beyond the seas for the term or his or her natural life
rb808 8y ago
The concern I dont understand. If all traffic is encrypted, what is the risk of Huawei equipment handling traffic? Are people worried about spying or being able to switch interrupt service?
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  There's still metadata. Also I'd think that lawful-intercept features mean that telecom traffic is not end-to-end encrypted, so unencrypted streams might be accessible to telecom equipment like this unless the customer is using a nonstandard encrypted phone.
- rwmj 8y ago
  One worry is that in a war situation (cyber or shooting) the Chinese govt might be able to disable UK networks, for example by sending an obscure sequence of plaintext bytes which is understood by the routers.
stiffnovigrad 8y ago
I love that people are rationalizing for a dictatorship-lead China with concentration camps in the west (xinjiang), religious oppression in the south (tibet), democratic oppression in the east (hong kong), and aggression in the east (artificial islands in south china sea, nearly crashing into US battleships, massive buildup in warships), that is seeking to invade Europe with spy technologies from its state firm is: huawei doesn't have backdoors => the backdoors are (easily?) found by security audits. nothing to see here.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. It's not what this site is for. Please read the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19800040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19800040 and marked it off-topic.
supergirl 8y ago
maybe conspiracy but I have a feeling this is part of US strategy to kick Huawei out of Europe, from the last few countries that didn't already ban them, UK and Italy. I can't imagine any way for UK to allow Huawei to build 5G once US said it is forbidden
te_chris 8y ago
The same Gavin Williamson who threatened China with military action while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was there trying to hold trade talks? I’m shocked. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/16/gavin-williamson-china-warship-threat-philip-hammond https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/16/gavin-willi...

66 points by jmsflknr 8y ago

insomniacity 8y ago

I'd love to know how he was caught. Not enough security on his phone - or old school interviews and sources?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
With his almost glorious ability to insert foot in mouth, I would put money on self-incrimination.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  It's also possible he didn't do it. He hasn't exactly impressed anyone - except himself - during his brief but very exciting tenure, and it's possible May was looking for an excuse to get rid of him while also pointing the finger at a convenient scapegoat. We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't.
  - Veen 8y ago
    We'll see if this proceeds to a criminal investigation. My guess is it won't. It's amazing it got this far. Leak inquiries almost never discover a culprit (by design) and it's unheard of for a minister to actually get sacked for leaking.
    - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
      It's more amazing that Williamson was ever Defence Minister in the first place. Latest: "Theresa May considers the matter closed." So there we are. No police investigation into a rather serious matter of national security. Meanwhile Williamson himself is absolutely insistent he's innocent and that the internal investigation was ineffective - which means that if he is innocent, someone else was responsible. And if he's telling the truth, that person remains unnamed, and in a ministerial position.
      - mathieuh 8y ago
        The UK has a Crown Prosecution Service which is a public service responsible for bringing charges against people. It’s not up to HMG.
        switch007 8y ago
        According to wikipedia Attorney General is responsible for the CPS, who answers to the Ministry of Justice...which is a Government department.
        M2Ys4U 8y ago
        An AG interfering with or blocking the CPS from bringing a prosecution would be a _big_ deal.
        switch007 8y ago
        That's one way to look at it, sure. But technically it is up to the Government though?
        StaticRedux 8y ago
        Justice Department answers to Trump. Doesn't mean he can tell them to just go arrest someone. No matter how many times he tries.
        switch007 8y ago
        The US is not the UK
      - kodz4 8y ago
        Quite sure thats a Yes Minister episode.
        inflatableDodo 8y ago
        All of Thatcher-In-The-Rye's tenure has been an extended 'Yes Minister' episode. Though I think the writers would never have gone quite as far as Boris 'Fuck Business' Johnson. Who may very well become our next PM.
    - KaiserPro 8y ago
      true, but normally its a leak of policy, or something politically embarrassing. (brexit will be a great success/terrible failure because of x, delete to taste) But this is different, this is a leak of an actual state secrets. This is much more secret because its expressly illegal. (the official secrets act makes many things vaguely illegal, but leaking things marked "secret" or similar is an actual offence.) Not only is it illegal, its also leaking other country's intelligence, which is a massive nono
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  I think the first indication was when he refused to cooperate with the investigation. Or perhaps he had a Huawei phone.
mtgx 8y ago
They probably couldn't even tell him how they caught him, because then they'd have to admit that GCHQ is spying on most government members, too.
- jsty 8y ago
  Given the technical aptitude of most politicians in the UK, he may equally likely have used a government-issued device
  - westiseast 8y ago
    This sprang to mind: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15396956 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15396956 Letwin had a habit of reading correspondence whilst in a public park in the mornings and then dumping it in public bins once dealt with. Mirror reporters just followed him around and fished sensitive material out of the bins.
- sethhochberg 8y ago
  This is part of the reason why governments make info-sharing pacts between their spy agencies, right? You might have a policy of constitution preventing you from spying on your own citizens, but your allies certainly don't play by those same rules.
KaiserPro 8y ago
I doubt it was that. From what I have heard he was the only one trying to blame it on civil servants. Plus as its a criminal matter they would have been able to get warrants to get call records. As the journalist that broke the story is known, its not hard to figure out from there.
DanBC 8y ago
He's a fucking idiot. Here's the letter May sent, which makes it sound like regular interviewing and discussions: https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1123635838523465729 https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1123635838523465729 (But, obviously, the security services aren't going to say "we know it was him"). This, from Buzzfeed, about him is telling: https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/britains-new-defence-secretary-has-stepped-out-of-the https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/britains-new-defence-se...
adwww 8y ago
Honestly leaks are such a common part of the current UK government he is probably just suprised that THIS TIME people are taking it seriously.

expressrunning 8y ago

Relevant discussion a day ago: Vodafone Found Hidden Backdoors in Huawei Equipment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19786102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19786102

gnode 8y ago
While this is being touted as a smoking gun, calling it a "backdoor" may be reaching: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/30/huawei_enterprise_router_backdoor_is_telnet/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/30/huawei_enterprise_r...
- sp332 8y ago
  I think this article is disingenuous. It's telnet on a nonstandard port with hardcoded credentials, that was added back in after being removed when it was spotted in previous security testing. Edit: this according to one of the sources in the Bloomberg article, who claims to have read internal Vodaphone documents https://twitter.com/raistolo/status/1123283199348621312 https://twitter.com/raistolo/status/1123283199348621312
  - strainer 8y ago
    A telnet service responds to a plain port scan. So it was categorically not hidden. Vodaphone explain this themselves in the linked register article: >It added the Telnet service was found during an audit, which means it can't have been that secret or hidden: "The issues were identified by independent security testing, initiated by Vodafone as part of our routine security measures, and fixed at the time by Huawei.
    - DelightOne 8y ago
      So a backdoor is okay incase it's not hidden?
      - strainer 8y ago

tamalesfan 8y ago

Eight days after the leak the guy is fired... The takeaway is; don't interfere with the PLA/Huawei.

13415 8y ago

In general, this is one of the news threads that I persistently don't understand. There is too much information missing. Why are European countries so keen on allowing Huawei to build some critical infrastructure? Do they face threats from China? If so, how are these made? And then there is the other side of the coin, that the US allegations look credible overall, but it is also known that the NSA and GCHQ built spying tools into existing European infrastructure. Is the US trying to do this again but this wouldn't work if Huawei was involved? Which companies can actually build these kind of networks? Couldn't e.g. France and Germany build them on their own? Or would that be too expensive? Questions over questions...

jonathankoren 8y ago
> Why are European countries so keen on allowing Huawei to build some critical infrastructure? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/technology/huawei-europe-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/technology/huawei-europe-...
gnode 8y ago
The desire to use Huawei is that they're a major player in the telecommunications infrastructure market. The governmental advice / requirements not to use Huawei equipment is because China is not trusted, and diplomatic relations with China are bad. There appears to be no hard evidence that Huawei have abused their trust, yet at the same time, that doesn't mean they couldn't. It's not possible to differentiate innocent security vulnerabilities with underhandedly engineered ones. Ultimately it doesn't matter whether Huawei are abusing their position of trust or not, but whether they could be used as a weapon by their host country, to which the answer is that they could be, as for any such company anywhere. So ultimately it's a diplomatic issue.
hacker_9 8y ago
It's cheap, and there is not enough conclusive evidence about the allegations. The US-led artificial trade war with China also gives pause when they are the accusers. If a credible EU country brought something up I'd expect it'd be taken much more seriously.
user5994461 8y ago

make3 8y ago

isn't the fact that she was trying to have Huawei participate to the infrastructure without people knowing it the actual scandal worth being sacked for? that's crazy

emilfihlman 8y ago

I wonder, if Huawei is really spying for China and May (and other politicians) know about this and endorse that, shouldn't that be treason?

lucozade 8y ago
Shouldn’t what be treason?
M2Ys4U 8y ago
I'm not sure it qualifies under the Treason Act 1351: > When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s Companion, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife of the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be probably attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition, and if a Man slea the Chancellor,Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, that ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King,and his Royal Majesty. or the Treason Felony Act 1848: > If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be transported beyond the seas for the term or his or her natural life

rb808 8y ago

The concern I dont understand. If all traffic is encrypted, what is the risk of Huawei equipment handling traffic? Are people worried about spying or being able to switch interrupt service?

CharlesColeman 8y ago
There's still metadata. Also I'd think that lawful-intercept features mean that telecom traffic is not end-to-end encrypted, so unencrypted streams might be accessible to telecom equipment like this unless the customer is using a nonstandard encrypted phone.
rwmj 8y ago
One worry is that in a war situation (cyber or shooting) the Chinese govt might be able to disable UK networks, for example by sending an obscure sequence of plaintext bytes which is understood by the routers.

stiffnovigrad 8y ago

I love that people are rationalizing for a dictatorship-lead China with concentration camps in the west (xinjiang), religious oppression in the south (tibet), democratic oppression in the east (hong kong), and aggression in the east (artificial islands in south china sea, nearly crashing into US battleships, massive buildup in warships), that is seeking to invade Europe with spy technologies from its state firm is: huawei doesn't have backdoors => the backdoors are (easily?) found by security audits. nothing to see here.

dang 8y ago
Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. It's not what this site is for. Please read the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19800040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19800040 and marked it off-topic.

supergirl 8y ago

maybe conspiracy but I have a feeling this is part of US strategy to kick Huawei out of Europe, from the last few countries that didn't already ban them, UK and Italy. I can't imagine any way for UK to allow Huawei to build 5G once US said it is forbidden

te_chris 8y ago

The same Gavin Williamson who threatened China with military action while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was there trying to hold trade talks? I’m shocked. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/16/gavin-williamson-china-warship-threat-philip-hammond https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/16/gavin-willi...