A few people have been asking about a 'leaked' document which purports to be a threat assessment from Australia's top "cyber police". It deals with the hacking collective, Anonymous, sports an Australian coat of arms and is labelled, "Restricted". It is hosted by hacking website, Cyberguerrilla.

The document makes claims about Anonymous' structure which seem either inspired or ridiculous with evidence favouring the latter. Certainly the claims have been ridiculed by the hacking community. Their sweeping, counter-intuitive nature, the amateurish writing and exaggerated threat level suggest that it's a fake document.

The ABC asked security researcher, Professor Matthew Warren of Deakin University what he thought of the document:

In my view, the CSOC assessment of Anonymous is a faked document. The reason why I think this is the case is the lack of structure you would expect in a risk assessment report, e.g. lack of formal risk / threat assessment, no assessment of actual damage caused through incidents. The assessment of the actual "virtual" campaigns is actually a chronological listing of activities. The overall lack of professionalism in terms of report structure, lack of correct use of terminology, use of informal language is also an indicator that this is not a genuine document.

From a security researchers perspective the document is of interest, as it shows that hacker groups (and their supporters) are developing "fake" documents. I can assume that the intention is one of deception and the hope that the media will report the document as being fact, and this would add creditability to the potential capability and threats that groups such as Anonymous would have or pose.

In the course of writing this article, a Department of Defence spokesperson told ABC News Online's Michael Collett:

"Defence is aware of the reported document. It is not a Defence document, it is a fake. Defence has referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police."

It's hard to say for certain whether the document is written by someone who supports Anonymous and is trying to create sympathy for the movement or whether it has been created by someone wanting to spread disinformation about the group to spite them. Quotes like the following suggest the latter:

Senior leadership of the organisation leave junior operatives vulnerable, considering them to be chumps and easily replaceable.

The contentious information describes how Anonymous is actually a front for a sinister, regimented organisation with a rigid, hierarchical leadership. It lists half-hearted dox (identity documents) about alleged leaders and links the wearing of Anonymous' favoured Guy Fawkes masks (pictured) with "Burqa laws".

Describing the realities of Anonymous goes beyond the realms of this article. You can read more about the group/idea/meme on Wikipedia, here.