CWE-1007 - Insufficient Visual Distinction of Homoglyphs Presented to User
- Abstraction:Base
- Structure:Simple
- Status:Incomplete
- Release Date:2017-11-08
- Latest Modification Date:2023-06-29
Weakness Name
Insufficient Visual Distinction of Homoglyphs Presented to User
Description
The product displays information or identifiers to a user, but the display mechanism does not make it easy for the user to distinguish between visually similar or identical glyphs (homoglyphs), which may cause the user to misinterpret a glyph and perform an unintended, insecure action.
Some glyphs, pictures, or icons can be semantically distinct to a program, while appearing very similar or identical to a human user. These are referred to as homoglyphs. For example, the lowercase "l" (ell) and uppercase "I" (eye) have different character codes, but these characters can be displayed in exactly the same way to a user, depending on the font. This can also occur between different character sets. For example, the Latin capital letter "A" and the Greek capital letter "Α" (Alpha) are treated as distinct by programs, but may be displayed in exactly the same way to a user. Accent marks may also cause letters to appear very similar, such as the Latin capital letter grave mark "À" and its equivalent "Á" with the acute accent. Adversaries can exploit this visual similarity for attacks such as phishing, e.g. by providing a link to an attacker-controlled hostname that looks like a hostname that the victim trusts. In a different use of homoglyphs, an adversary may create a back door username that is visually similar to the username of a regular user, which then makes it more difficult for a system administrator to detect the malicious username while reviewing logs.
Common Consequences
Scope: Integrity, Confidentiality
Impact: Other
Notes: An attacker may ultimately redirect a user to a malicious website, by deceiving the user into believing the URL they are accessing is a trusted domain. However, the attack can also be used to forge log entries by using homoglyphs in usernames. Homoglyph manipulations are often the first step towards executing advanced attacks such as stealing a user's credentials, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), or log forgery. If an attacker redirects a user to a malicious site, the attacker can mimic a trusted domain to steal account credentials and perform actions on behalf of the user, without the user's knowledge. Similarly, an attacker could create a username for a website that contains homoglyph characters, making it difficult for an admin to review logs and determine which users performed which actions.
Related Weaknesses
CWE-451User Interface (UI) Misrepresentation of Critical Information
Google Patches Quick Share Vulnerability Enabling Silent File Transfers Without Consent
Triada Malware Preloaded on Counterfeit Android Phones Infects 2,600+ Devices
Legacy Stripe API Exploited to Validate Stolen Payment Cards in Web Skimmer Campaign
Europol Dismantles Kidflix With 72,000 CSAM Videos Seized in Major Operation
Genetic data site openSNP to close and delete data over privacy concerns
Verizon Call Filter API flaw exposed customers' incoming call history
GitHub expands security tools after 39 million secrets leaked in 2024
Royal Mail investigates data leak claims, no impact on operations
CVE-2024-20439 Cisco Smart Licensing Utility Static Credential Vulnerability
CVE-2025-2783 Google Chromium Mojo Sandbox Escape Vulnerability
CVE-2019-9874 Sitecore CMS and Experience Platform (XP) Deserialization Vulnerability
CVE-2019-9875 Sitecore CMS and Experience Platform (XP) Deserialization Vulnerability
CVE-2025-30154 reviewdog/action-setup GitHub Action Embedded Malicious Code Vulnerability
CVE-2025-1316 Edimax IC-7100 IP Camera OS Command Injection Vulnerability
CVE-2024-48248 NAKIVO Backup and Replication Absolute Path Traversal Vulnerability
CVE-2017-12637 SAP NetWeaver Directory Traversal Vulnerability
CVE-2025-24472 Fortinet FortiOS and FortiProxy Authentication Bypass Vulnerability