FOI Request LEX3637

Date: 2023

Summary of FOI Documents: AEC Spear Phishing Campaign

This summary is based on documents released in response to an FOI request concerning a cyber incident at the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

Main Purpose of the FOI Request

The FOI request sought information regarding a specific cyber incident (designated INC11744) involving a "spear phishing" campaign that targeted the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP) mailboxes in November 2022. The request aimed to understand the nature of the attack, the AEC's response, and any internal discussions or assessments related to its implications, particularly in the context of the proposed referendum.

Documents from the FOI Request

The released documents primarily consist of:
* Internal AEC emails detailing the incident, its handling, and internal communications.
* Cyber security briefs and summaries related to INC11744.
* Agenda papers and talking points prepared for internal AEC committees (such as the Electoral Integrity Committee - EIC, and the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce - EIAT Board) and for discussions with other government agencies (like the National Indigenous Australians Agency - NIAA).
* Two documents related to communication with the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) were refused access. Most other documents were released in part due to exemptions (s22, s47E, s47F).

Main Content from the FOI Request Documents

The documents reveal the following key details regarding the cyber incident:

Incident Identification: On 14 November 2022, a "spear phishing" email campaign (Cyber Incident 11744) was launched targeting eight specific Indigenous AEC email accounts (IEPP mailboxes: indigenous@aec.gov.au, indigenous-sa@aec.gov.au, indigenous-wa@aec.gov.au, indigenous-vic@aec.gov.au, indigenous-tas@aec.gov.au, indigenous-qld@aec.gov.au, indigenous-nt@aec.gov.au, indigenous-nsw@aec.gov.au).
Attack Method: The emails were sent from a falsified address (support@aec.gov.au) with the subject line [recipient email address] have 12 Pending incoming emails. The campaign's objective was identified as an "account harvesting attempt," aiming to steal personal information.
Impact and Response: AEC systems were not compromised by the attack, and the incident was successfully contained internally. Staff promptly reported suspicious emails, which were then removed from the affected mailboxes. The Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) was engaged regarding the incident.
Analysis and Significance: The campaign was assessed as "very targeted" and "somewhat sophisticated." Internal AEC communications indicate that it was considered "possible it relates to the proposed referendum given the targeting of AEC’s Indigenous Electoral Participation Program mailboxes."
Internal and Inter-Agency Discussions: The incident was a significant topic for internal discussions within the AEC, including briefings to the Electoral Integrity Committee (EIC) and the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce (EIAT) Board. Talking points were developed for senior AEC leadership and for meetings with other government bodies, such as the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), to explain the attack's purpose, trends, overall risks, and the role of the EIAT in maintaining electoral integrity.
Cyber Threat Awareness: The incident reinforced the AEC's message that the "cyber threat environment for the proposed referendum is unlikely to be lower than for a federal election," emphasizing the need for continued vigilance.

AI Generated

The documents reveal insights into a targeted "spear phishing" cyber attack against the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in November 2022, specifically focusing on mailboxes associated with the Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP). From a politically left-leaning analytical perspective, this incident highlights critical issues related to social justice, civil liberties, and the government's role in upholding democratic integrity, particularly concerning First Nations communities.

Social Justice Implications:
The most prominent social justice concern is the precise and deliberate targeting of the AEC's Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP) email accounts across all states and territories. These mailboxes (e.g., indigenous@aec.gov.au, indigenous-sa@aec.gov.au, etc.) are crucial channels for engaging with and supporting Indigenous Australians in their democratic participation. The documents explicitly state that the phishing campaign was "very targeted" and "somewhat sophisticated," and "it is possible it relates to the proposed referendum given the targeting of AEC’s Indigenous Electoral Participation Program mailboxes." This strongly suggests an attempt to disrupt, undermine, or collect sensitive information related to Indigenous Australians' engagement with the upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum, a pivotal social justice initiative. Such targeting disproportionately affects an already marginalized group, potentially eroding trust and hindering their ability to exercise their democratic rights and self-determination.

Civil Liberties and Democratic Participation:
The phishing attempt, aimed at "account harvesting," poses a direct threat to the civil liberties of Indigenous Australians by attempting to compromise the security and integrity of their electoral engagement. While the AEC confirmed its systems were "not compromised in any way," the intent was clearly to gain unauthorized access to information or accounts related to Indigenous electoral participation. This directly impacts the civil liberty to participate in a free and fair democratic process, free from malicious interference. The incident underscores the broader cyber threat environment for the "proposed referendum," emphasizing the need to protect all citizens' access to accurate information and secure electoral channels, particularly for vulnerable communities.

Government Actions: Alignment and Deviation from Progressive Values:

Alignment with Progressive Values:
* Prompt and Targeted Response: The AEC's immediate identification and containment of the phishing attempt, including the removal of malicious emails, demonstrates a commendable commitment to protecting electoral integrity.
* Recognition of Specific Vulnerability: The internal communications explicitly acknowledge the highly targeted nature of the attack on IEPP mailboxes and its potential link to the Voice referendum. This recognition aligns with progressive values by demonstrating awareness of and responsiveness to the unique vulnerabilities faced by First Nations communities in the digital and political landscape.
* Inter-agency Collaboration: The swift communication and collaboration with the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce (EIAT) and the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) to share information and assess risks highlight a collective government effort to defend the democratic process, particularly where social justice issues are at stake. The NIAA’s proactive request for clarity on the attack's purpose and risks further underscores this commitment.
* Emphasis on Referendum Security: The consistent messaging about the high cyber threat environment for the proposed referendum, comparable to a federal election, indicates a commitment to robust security measures for a significant event concerning Indigenous recognition.

Potential Deviations/Areas for Further Scrutiny:
* Inherent Vulnerability: While the AEC's response was effective, the fact that IEPP mailboxes were perceived as a strategic target for such a "sophisticated" attack raises questions about potential pre-existing vulnerabilities or the level of proactive cyber protection in place for these critically important and sensitive communication channels. A progressive perspective might ask if enough preventative measures were in place to shield programs serving vulnerable populations.
* Transparency Limitations: The extensive redactions (s47E, s47F, s22) in the released documents, while common in FOI responses for national security and internal deliberative matters, limit full transparency. From a progressive standpoint, comprehensive public understanding of such incidents, especially those targeting specific communities and significant social reforms, is crucial for public trust and accountability. The extent of these redactions prevents a complete external audit of the threat landscape and the robustness of the response, potentially hindering public discourse on electoral security and civil liberties.

In conclusion, the documents reveal a concerning but contained cyber attack specifically targeting Indigenous electoral engagement channels ahead of a landmark referendum. The government's actions, through the AEC and its partners, largely align with progressive values of protecting democratic integrity and supporting Indigenous participation. However, the incident also underscores the ongoing need for vigilance, robust preventative measures, and greater transparency to safeguard the civil liberties and social justice aspirations of First Nations people in Australia's democratic processes.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents primarily detail a spear phishing cyber incident targeting the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP) mailboxes in late 2022. From a politically right-leaning analytical perspective, the documents reveal both positive alignments with and potential deviations from core conservative principles.

National Security & Economic Efficiency:
The documents demonstrate a commendable alignment with the principles of national security and economic efficiency. The AEC swiftly identified, contained, and internally managed a "targeted and somewhat sophisticated" cyberattack, which was an attempt at "account harvesting" or stealing personal information. This prompt action, initiated by staff reporting suspicious emails, prevented a system compromise, indicating effective cyber defenses and a proactive approach to protecting electoral infrastructure. Preventing a breach directly safeguards the integrity of the democratic process, a cornerstone of national security, and avoids the significant financial costs associated with recovering from a major cyber incident. The documents explicitly state, "AEC systems were not compromised in any way," signifying a fiscally responsible outcome by preventing large-scale data breaches or operational disruptions that would incur substantial taxpayer expense. The engagement with the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) and internal discussions reinforce a serious approach to potential threats to Australia's electoral integrity.

Individual Liberty:
The successful defense against this phishing attempt indirectly aligns with the principle of individual liberty. By protecting the integrity and security of the AEC's systems, particularly those related to voter engagement and participation (like the IEPP mailboxes), the government is upholding the freedom and security of citizens' participation in the electoral process. Preventing unauthorized access to government systems that may hold or process individual data is crucial for maintaining trust and protecting personal information, a vital component of individual liberty in the digital age.

Limited Government & Fiscal Responsibility (Potential Scrutiny):
While the immediate response to the cyber incident was efficient, a closer examination through a limited government and fiscal responsibility lens might raise questions about the broader bureaucratic framework. The extensive internal email chains, multiple levels of review, and numerous meetings (e.g., Electoral Integrity Committee, Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce, inter-departmental discussions with the National Indigenous Australians Agency) for a "contained" and "uncompromised" incident could be seen as an example of administrative overhead. While vigilance is necessary, the sheer volume of internal consultation for a non-breach event might suggest potential inefficiencies in bureaucratic processes. The documents indicate ongoing discussions about the "cyber threat environment for the proposed referendum," which, while a legitimate concern for electoral integrity, could also be viewed as an expansion of government focus into broader "mis/disinformation" monitoring, potentially bordering on areas that, if unchecked, might infringe upon free speech or individual information flows, deviating from a strictly limited government role. However, within the scope of cybersecurity, this appears to be a legitimate defensive measure. The consistent messaging that the "cyber threat environment... is unlikely to be lower than for a federal election" underscores the ongoing need for prudent, but not necessarily expansive, government expenditure in this critical area.

AI Generated

The released FOI documents, heavily redacted and selectively disclosed, paint a picture of a bureaucratic apparatus more concerned with narrative control and inter-departmental posturing than with transparently addressing security vulnerabilities. Despite government assurances that "AEC systems were not compromised in any way," the extensive redactions and outright refusals to release documents, citing a broad range of exemptions (s47E, s47F, s22, S7(2A)(a)(vii)), raise serious questions about the full extent of the "spear phishing" attack targeting sensitive "Indigenous Electoral Participation Program" mailboxes in November 2022.

Key findings include:

Controlled Narrative and Obfuscation: Internal communications reveal a deliberate effort to "strengthen the emphasis there was no compromise" and to "remove unnecessary detail about the AEC’s internal response" when informing other agencies like the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce (EIAT). This suggests an intentional strategy to downplay the incident and limit public or inter-agency scrutiny.
Bureaucratic Bloat and Inefficiency: The incident, a basic phishing attempt, generated numerous internal emails, required "talking points" for multiple internal and external meetings (EIAT Board, IDC), and involved multiple layers of approval for information sharing. The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) even had to ask for "clarity re the purpose of the attack, trends, and what the overall risks are" and to "understand what the EIAT is and whether a referendum specific one is needed," indicating a lack of clear understanding or operational efficiency within the government's own "integrity" framework.
Hidden Vulnerabilities: A revealing comment highlights that IPFS content (which may have been used in the phishing attack) is "difficult to take down," requiring "more effort than usual for cyberdefenders" to reach all gateways for removal. This points to unaddressed, fundamental cyber vulnerabilities that are not being transparently communicated or effectively managed, instead being obscured by claims of "systems not compromised."
Excessive Secrecy: The sheer volume of redacted information, particularly under sections like s47F (personal information), s47E (deliberative processes), and s22 (irrelevant information), prevents a comprehensive understanding of the incident, the internal discussions, and the full extent of the government's response. The outright refusal of access to two documents citing s7(2A)(a)(vii) ("information concerning the operations of an enforcement or protection agency") suggests a desire to shield specific operational details or potential failures from public view, rather than genuinely protecting national security.
Pre-emptive Justification for Future Incidents: Repeated warnings that the "cyber threat environment for the proposed referendum is unlikely to be lower than for a federal election" could be interpreted as an attempt to pre-emptively excuse future security lapses or justify increased cybersecurity budgets without a demonstrable track record of effective transparency or incident management.

In essence, these documents, despite their heavily censored nature, reveal a government apparatus that prioritizes reputation and control over genuine transparency, fostering an environment where critical information is withheld and bureaucratic processes appear to overshadow effective and accountable governance.

AI Generated

The recently released FOI documents detail a successful instance of the government's robust cybersecurity measures and effective incident response in action. In November 2022, a sophisticated "spear phishing" email campaign, attempting to harvest account credentials, targeted the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP) mailboxes.

This incident, while a challenge, clearly demonstrates the government's proactive and decisive approach to safeguarding critical digital infrastructure. Key takeaways include:

Rapid Detection and Containment: The threat was swiftly identified by vigilant AEC staff and immediately reported. Government cybersecurity teams initiated an investigation within hours, promptly confirming the malicious nature of the emails. Crucially, all targeted emails were removed from inboxes within a very short timeframe, preventing any potential compromise. The documents repeatedly confirm that AEC systems were not compromised in any way.
Robust Security Protocols: The seamless and effective handling of this incident is a testament to the government's commitment to and implementation of high-standard cybersecurity frameworks, such as the "Essential Eight" strategies mentioned in internal briefings. These necessary regulations and robust procedures ensured that a targeted attack was neutralized before any harm could occur.
Collaborative Governance and Public Good: The incident was promptly escalated and discussed across various government entities, including the Electoral Integrity Committee (EIC) and the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce (EIAT). Briefings were also provided to the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), demonstrating a coordinated, whole-of-government approach to address and learn from such challenges. This information sharing reinforces the government's commitment to transparency with relevant stakeholders and its proactive efforts to serve the public by enhancing collective security.
Forward-Looking Preparedness: The incident served as a valuable case study, informing ongoing cybersecurity awareness activities and preparedness for future national events, particularly the proposed referendum. It reinforced the understanding that the cyber threat environment remains dynamic, and continuous vigilance is essential for protecting democratic processes.

The partial release of these documents, with standard exemptions for internal deliberative processes and personal information, reflects a responsible balance between transparency and protecting sensitive operational details vital for maintaining national security and effective public service. This ensures that while the public is informed, the specific tactics and vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors remain secure. Overall, these documents highlight the government's unwavering dedication to effective governance, necessary regulations, and positive outcomes in the face of evolving cyber threats.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents expose a disturbing pattern of vulnerability, bureaucratic inertia, and a concerning lack of transparency within the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) following a targeted cyberattack on highly sensitive Indigenous mailboxes. Far from demonstrating competence, the records paint a picture of reactive, rather than proactive, security measures and a deliberate attempt to control the narrative around a serious breach attempt.

Initial Vulnerability and Delayed Detection:
On 14 November 2022, malicious actors launched a highly targeted spear phishing campaign directly at the AEC's eight Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP) mailboxes. These accounts, critical for engagement with Indigenous communities, were explicitly chosen targets. Shockingly, the AEC's vaunted cyber defences failed to prevent or even immediately detect this attack. Instead, the incident was first reported by a vigilant Victorian State Office staff member at 6:19 PM on 15 November, nearly 20 hours after the emails were sent. This reliance on human vigilance rather than automated, robust security systems is a damning indictment of the AEC's cybersecurity posture, especially on such critical and sensitive accounts.

Sluggish and Incompetent Response:
Even once alerted, the AEC's response was glacially slow. Initial investigations didn't commence until 8:15 AM on 16 November, over 14 hours after the staff member's report. The removal of the malicious emails from the compromised mailboxes wasn't completed until 9:50 AM on 16 November, almost 35 hours after the initial attack. This protracted response time for a "targeted and sophisticated" account harvesting attempt on high-profile mailboxes suggests significant procedural and technical incompetence, leaving sensitive channels vulnerable for an unacceptably long period. An internal email even reflects this inadequacy, stating, "I'll take this as a lesson for all of us who manage security systems," revealing a reactive 'lessons learned' approach rather than a foundation of pre-emptive strength.

Internal Disarray and Information Control:
The documents reveal a chaotic internal communication environment. Initial emails show basic 'FYI' sharing, with no clear, immediate chain of command or a sense of urgency befitting a targeted attack. Later communications indicate that information sharing with external, but relevant, bodies like the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce (EIAT) and the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) was delayed and heavily sanitized. The AEC explicitly "removed unnecessary detail about the AEC’s internal response" from information shared with EIAT, suggesting a deliberate effort to conceal operational failures. The NIAA had to actively pursue answers about the attack and the EIAT's role, indicating a lack of proactive transparency from the AEC. Furthermore, internal email chains reveal confusion and delays in simply preparing "talking points" for senior officials months after the incident, highlighting a profound bureaucratic inertia.

Obfuscation and Secrecy:
The sheer volume of redactions (s47E, s47F, s22) and outright refusal of access (s7(2A)(a)(vii)) to multiple documents related to this incident is a hallmark of an institution with something to hide. Details on "blocked emails" and deeper insights into the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) interaction have been withheld, raising suspicions that the full extent of the vulnerability or the criticisms from higher authorities are being deliberately suppressed. The AEC’s repeated assertion that "systems were not compromised in any way" clashes with the fact that malicious emails were actively residing in their inboxes for an extended period, requiring manual removal due to the difficulty of taking down "IPFS content." This suggests a fundamental weakness in email security and a disingenuous public narrative.

Damning Implications for the Referendum:
The most damning implication is the direct targeting of Indigenous mailboxes ahead of the Voice to Parliament referendum. The AEC itself acknowledges this possibility, stating, "It is possible it relates to the proposed referendum given the targeting of AEC’s Indigenous Electoral Participation Program mailboxes." Yet, the documents reveal a slow, manual, and reactive defence against an attack that could have severely impacted the integrity and perception of the referendum process among Indigenous communities. The entire incident exposes the AEC as an organization ill-equipped to handle sophisticated cyber threats, preferring to downplay failures and obscure details rather than demonstrating robust and transparent resilience. The public is left to wonder what other vulnerabilities remain unaddressed and what critical information is being withheld.

AI Generated

The documents detail a cyber incident involving a spear phishing campaign targeting the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in November 2022. Specifically, the attack focused on eight email accounts associated with the AEC’s Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP), identified by their generic "indigenous@aec.gov.au" format for various states. The emails, falsely purporting to be from AEC support, attempted to harvest account credentials by claiming "12 Pending incoming emails" and threatening access restriction.

Primacy of Individual Rights, Rational Self-Interest, and Productive Achievement:
The AEC's cybersecurity team demonstrated rational self-interest and productive achievement in their swift and competent response. Upon detection, they promptly identified the phishing attempt, removed the malicious emails, and confirmed that AEC systems were not compromised. This proactive defense of digital infrastructure is a commendable exercise of reason and productive effort, essential for maintaining the integrity of electoral processes—a legitimate, albeit minimal, function of a government dedicated to protecting individual rights, including the right to participate in governance. The team's diligence in mitigating the threat showcases their commitment to preserving the operational capacity and security of the electoral body, which is vital for any free society.

Dangers of Collectivism and Government Overreach:
While the cybersecurity response itself was an exercise in productive competence, the broader context and certain aspects of the reporting and organizational structure reveal unsettling trends of collectivism and bureaucratic overreach.

Group Identity Over Individualism: The repeated emphasis on "Indigenous" mailboxes and the existence of the "Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP)" itself points to a collectivist framing within government operations. From an Objectivist perspective, individuals are sovereign units, and their rights are inherent, universal, and non-divisible by group identity, such as race or ethnicity. Any government program that segregates citizens or allocates resources based on racial categories—even under the guise of "participation"—violates the principle of individual liberty and equal treatment under the law. The threat of a cyber attack, in principle, should be treated as an assault on the integrity of the system and the individuals whose data it holds, not as a special offense against a particular racial group. This highlights a dangerous erosion of individual rights in favor of collectivist group rights.
Bureaucratic Expansion and Interference: The documents reveal an extensive web of bureaucratic coordination involving the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce (EIAT), the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC), and other agencies (AGD, DoF, Infra & Comms, Home Affairs). While some inter-agency communication for security is necessary, the sheer scope and formalization of such a "Taskforce" and its "Board," particularly concerning a "proposed referendum" (widely understood to relate to "The Voice" for Indigenous Australians), hint at an overreaching state apparatus. The mandate of departments like the "Defending Democracy Unit" and discussions around "mis/disinformation" can easily expand beyond the legitimate protection of electoral processes into the realm of managing public discourse, suppressing dissenting viewpoints, or promoting specific government agendas. This represents a grave danger to individual liberty, free speech, and personal initiative by replacing rational debate with bureaucratically managed "integrity."
Lack of Transparency: The pervasive use of exemptions (s47E, s47F, s22, s7(2A)(a)(vii)) leading to "Release in part" or "Access refused" for numerous documents, even those seemingly related to technical cyber incidents, is concerning. This bureaucratic opacity hinders public scrutiny and accountability. A government that is truly dedicated to protecting individual rights and operating by reason must be transparent, allowing citizens to hold it accountable for its actions and prevent its encroachment on their liberties.

In conclusion, while the AEC's technical response to the cyber attack demonstrated competence in protecting its systems, the surrounding context reveals a governmental ecosystem increasingly structured around collectivist principles and expanding bureaucratic control, particularly under the guise of "integrity" and "defending democracy" in the context of a racially defined referendum. Such trends represent a profound violation of the Objectivist principles of individual liberty, rational self-interest, and laissez-faire capitalism, threatening to stifle personal initiative and replace it with bureaucratic interference and potentially forced ideological conformity.

AI Generated

AEC FOI Disclosure Log Archive

FOI Request LEX3637

Main Purpose of the FOI Request

Documents from the FOI Request

Main Content from the FOI Request Documents

FOI Request LEX3637, Schedule of Released Documents [PDF 183KB] (pdf)

LEX3637 documents [ZIP 9.4MB] (zip)

ZIP Contents

Document 1 - FW_ Cyber Incident 11744 - Phishing email targeting indigenous inboxes _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 10 - EIC cyber brief 18.11.22_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 11 - EIC Agenda Paper 4a_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 12 - 4a Paper - Cyber Security Essential Eight - Nov 22_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 13 - FOR ACTION_IDC Agenda_8_12 _SEC=OFFICIAL_Sensitive__Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 14 - FOR ACTION_ IDC Agenda_8_12 _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive_Attachment_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 15 -FW_ FOR ACTION_ IDC Agenda_8_12 _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive__Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 16 - FW_ FOR ACTION_ IDC Agenda_8_12 _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive_Attachment_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 17- FW_INC117744 summary - AEC spear phishing campaign _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive__Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 18 - MH TPs - EIAT Board Meeting - 7 December 2022 (A2336504)_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 19 - RE_ For awareness_ AEC spear phishing campaign _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive__Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 2 - FW_ Phishing email targeting indigenous inboxes _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive_(1)_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 20 - RE_ INC11744 summary - AEC spear phishing campaign _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive__Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 3 - FW_ Phishing email targeting indigenous inboxes _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive__Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 4 - RE_ INC11744 summary - AEC spear phishing campaign _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive_(1)_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 5 - RE_ INC11744 summary - AEC spear phishing campaign _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive__Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 6 - RE_ indigenous-tas@aec_gov_au have 12 Pending incoming emails _SEC_OFFICIAL_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

Document 7 - RE_ Phishing email targeting indigenous inboxes _SEC_OFFICIAL_Sensitive__Redacted.pdf (pdf)