An adversary registers a domain name containing a homoglyph, leading the registered domain to appear the same as a trusted domain. A homograph attack leverages the fact that different characters among various character sets look the same to the user. Homograph attacks must generally be combined with other attacks, such as phishing attacks, in order to direct Internet traffic to the adversary-controlled destinations.
Alternate Terms
Term: Homoglyph Attack
Likelihood Of Attack
Low
Typical Severity
Medium
Relationships
This table shows the other attack patterns and high level categories that are related to this attack pattern. These relationships are defined as ChildOf and ParentOf, and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as CanFollow, PeerOf, and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar attack patterns that the user may want to explore.
Nature
Type
ID
Name
ChildOf
Standard Attack Pattern - A standard level attack pattern in CAPEC is focused on a specific methodology or technique used in an attack. It is often seen as a singular piece of a fully executed attack. A standard attack pattern is meant to provide sufficient details to understand the specific technique and how it attempts to accomplish a desired goal. A standard level attack pattern is a specific type of a more abstract meta level attack pattern.
Standard Attack Pattern - A standard level attack pattern in CAPEC is focused on a specific methodology or technique used in an attack. It is often seen as a singular piece of a fully executed attack. A standard attack pattern is meant to provide sufficient details to understand the specific technique and how it attempts to accomplish a desired goal. A standard level attack pattern is a specific type of a more abstract meta level attack pattern.
Standard Attack Pattern - A standard level attack pattern in CAPEC is focused on a specific methodology or technique used in an attack. It is often seen as a singular piece of a fully executed attack. A standard attack pattern is meant to provide sufficient details to understand the specific technique and how it attempts to accomplish a desired goal. A standard level attack pattern is a specific type of a more abstract meta level attack pattern.
Detailed Attack Pattern - A detailed level attack pattern in CAPEC provides a low level of detail, typically leveraging a specific technique and targeting a specific technology, and expresses a complete execution flow. Detailed attack patterns are more specific than meta attack patterns and standard attack patterns and often require a specific protection mechanism to mitigate actual attacks. A detailed level attack pattern often will leverage a number of different standard level attack patterns chained together to accomplish a goal.
Determine target website: The adversary first determines which website to impersonate, generally one that is trusted and receives a consistent amount of traffic.
Techniques
Research popular or high traffic websites.
Experiment
Impersonate trusted domain: In order to impersonate the trusted domain, the adversary needs to register the URL containing the homoglpyh character(s).
Techniques
Register the Homograph domain.
Exploit
Deceive user into visiting domain: Finally, the adversary needs to deceive a user into visiting the Homograph domain.
Techniques
Execute a phishing attack and send a user an e-mail convincing the to click on a link leading the user to the malicious domain.
Prerequisites
An adversary requires knowledge of popular or high traffic domains, that could be used to deceive potential targets.
Skills Required
[Level: Low]
Adversaries must be able to register DNS hostnames/URL’s.
Consequences
This table specifies different individual consequences associated with the attack pattern. The Scope identifies the security property that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in their attack. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a pattern will be used to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.
Scope
Impact
Likelihood
Other
Other
Mitigations
Authenticate all servers and perform redundant checks when using DNS hostnames.
Utilize browsers that can warn users if URLs contain characters from different character sets.
Example Instances
An adversary sends an email, impersonating bankofamerica.com to a user stating that they have just received a new deposit and to click the given link to confirm the deposit.
However, the link the in email is bankofamerica.com, where the 'a' and 'e' characters are Cyrillic and not ASCII, instead of bankofamerica.com (all ASCII), which the user clicks after carefully reading the URL, making sure that typosquatting and soundsquatting attacks are not being leveraged against them.
The user is directed to the adversary's website, which appears as if it is the legitimate bankofamerica.com login page.
The user thinks they are logging into their account, but have actually just given their bankofamerica.com credentials to the adversary. The adversary can now use the user's legitimate bankofamerica.com credentials to log into the user's account and steal any money which may be in the account.
Homograph vulnerability allows an adversary to impersonate a trusted domain by leveraging homoglyphs and tricking a user into visiting the malicious website to steal user credentials.
A Related Weakness relationship associates a weakness with this attack pattern. Each association implies a weakness that must exist for a given attack to be successful. If multiple weaknesses are associated with the attack pattern, then any of the weaknesses (but not necessarily all) may be present for the attack to be successful. Each related weakness is identified by a CWE identifier.
Insufficient Visual Distinction of Homoglyphs Presented to User
Taxonomy Mappings
CAPEC mappings to ATT&CK techniques leverage an inheritance model to streamline and minimize direct CAPEC/ATT&CK mappings. Inheritance of a mapping is indicated by text stating that the parent CAPEC has relevant ATT&CK mappings. Note that the ATT&CK Enterprise Framework does not use an inheritance model as part of the mapping to CAPEC.
Relevant to the ATT&CK taxonomy mapping (see
parent
)
Content History
Submissions
Submission Date
Submitter
Organization
2015-11-09
(Version 2.7)
CAPEC Content Team
The MITRE Corporation
Modifications
Modification Date
Modifier
Organization
2018-07-31
(Version 2.12)
CAPEC Content Team
The MITRE Corporation
Updated Attack_Phases
2019-04-04
(Version 3.1)
CAPEC Content Team
The MITRE Corporation
Updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2020-12-17
(Version 3.4)
CAPEC Content Team
The MITRE Corporation
Updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2022-09-29
(Version 3.8)
CAPEC Content Team
The MITRE Corporation
Updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2023-01-24
(Version 3.9)
CAPEC Content Team
The MITRE Corporation
Updated Related_Weaknesses
More information is available — Please select a different filter.
Description
This table shows the other attack patterns and high level categories that are related to this attack pattern. These relationships are defined as ChildOf and ParentOf, and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as CanFollow, PeerOf, and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar attack patterns that the user may want to explore.
Content History
