The Geopolitics of Unicode: How Scripts, Fonts, and Character Sets Become Cybersecurity Issues

If you ever wanted proof that geopolitics is fundamentally absurd, look no further than Unicode, the global standard that decides which scribbles count as legitimate text in the digital world. You might assume this is the most boring standards committee on earth, some cardigan-wearing librarians quietly debating whether “🫠” (the melting face emoji) fully captures the collective despair of the human condition. But no. Unicode is where nation-states, intelligence agencies, cybercriminals, and occasionally extremely angry language preservationists all meet to wage a polite yet vicious war over scripts, symbols, and semiotics.

Because once you understand that text encoding determines what languages can be typed, read, stored, weaponised for misinformation, or smuggled through malware filters, you realise something profound: Unicode is geopolitics at the byte level.

This is the story of how fonts become foreign-policy instruments, how scripts become soft-power tools, and how the global competition for information dominance occasionally comes down to whether you can type your own name.

This is the world where cyber operations meet comparative linguistics, where hostile states use homoglyph attacks instead of tanks, and where infosec professionals start sweating when they see suspiciously well-formed Cyrillic.

Unicode: The Global Treaty Nobody Voted For

Let’s begin with the basics: Unicode is the standard that attempts to encode every writing system humanity has ever produced, from Latin and Arabic to Tangut, Linear B, and emoji depicting everything from dumplings to vampires.

Unicode currently includes more than 150 scripts and over 150,000 characters. It is the digital lingua mundi: the one agreement nearly every operating system, social network, and brooding hacktivist group reluctantly obeys.

But because text is fundamental to identity, sovereignty, propaganda, and cyber operations, Unicode ends up being a place where countries quietly throw elbows.

China wants to ensure its vast universe of characters, simplified, traditional, historical, and otherwise, gets encoded with rigorous accuracy. India lobbies to ensure its complex Brahmic scripts are handled correctly so government IDs don’t accidentally rename half the population. Turkey has spent decades dealing with the catastrophic consequences of not having a dotted “İ” in ASCII. Nations with minority or banned languages push to get their scripts recognised officially, which suddenly makes a keyboard layout a geopolitical statement.

For a technical standard meant to make computers agree on what text looks like, Unicode ends up functioning like a small diplomatic council, one that just happens to control whether dissidents can type in their own language or whether malware authors can hide exploits using sneaky Cyrillic characters that look like Latin ones.

And that brings us to the fun part.

Homoglyph Wars: How Look-Alike Characters Break the Internet

If you want to observe the slow collapse of civilisation in real time, don’t bother with geopolitical newsfeeds or cryptocurrency markets. Simply watch someone discover that the domain they’ve just wired £20,000 to wasn’t paypal.com but раураӏ.com. The difference? A sprinkling of Cyrillic characters masquerading as perfectly innocent Latin ones, like a linguistic confidence trick.

Homoglyph attacks exploit the fact that many characters across writing systems are, for all practical purposes, identical twins separated at birth. A Latin “a” and a Cyrillic “а” look so alike that even seasoned analysts squint at their screens, feeling the creeping dread of someone who realises the bomb squad manual they’ve been consulting is actually written in Serbian. These visual doppelgängers allow attackers to register domains indistinguishable from trusted brands, craft phishing emails that appear maddeningly legitimate, and slip malicious code past auditors who rely on eyesight more than tooling. It's the linguistic equivalent of putting on a fake moustache and immediately gaining access to the Ministry of Defence simply because no one has perfect recall of your upper lip.

In the early 2000s, the internet engineering crowd, those noble custodians of global sanity, recognised this was a problem. Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs) were supposed to be a triumph of multicultural inclusivity, finally allowing the world to type “будьмо” or “北京市” into a browser without the whole system collapsing like a bad soufflé. What they accidentally created instead was a linguistic arms race. Browsers attempted to detect “mixed script” domains and throw warnings, but attackers quickly learned the boundaries: just enough Cyrillic to trick the human eye, but not enough for Chrome’s ancient omen-detection rituals to trigger. Unicode, in its infinite generosity, provides thousands of characters that resemble each other across dozens of scripts. Attackers only need one.

The security industry responded with its usual measured restraint, which is to say, blind panic. Machine-learning detectors for homoglyphs sprouted overnight, researchers published breathless conference talks with names like “The Glyphening” or “Punycode Apocalypse,” and CERT teams quietly began keeping their own internal tables of suspicious character confusables like medieval monks cataloguing forbidden runes. Meanwhile, companies learned the hard way, often via legal threats, customer meltdowns, or inexplicable cryptocurrency losses, that they needed to register dozens of defensive IDN variants of their own names. Some firms now own more Unicode characters than the average linguistics department.

And then came the geopolitical angle, because of course there is one. States with advanced cyber capabilities quickly realised homoglyphs offered plausible deniability at scale. Misinformation campaigns using near-identical social-media handles proliferated, letting nation-state operators impersonate activists, journalists, or rival agencies using accounts visually indistinguishable from the originals. The result was a chaos so profound that even OSINT investigators resorted to copying suspicious usernames into hex-viewers like medieval inquisitors examining suspected witch-marks. In a world where a Cyrillic “е” can destabilise a parliamentary inquiry, homoglyph attacks are no longer quaint academic curiosities; they’re geopolitical tools.

Today, homoglyph attacks remain depressingly effective because they exploit the one vulnerability no patch can fully fix: the human eyeball. Our visual system simply isn’t calibrated for the 149 scripts and 143,000 symbols that Unicode cheerfully dumps into the digital commons. Attackers know this. They rely on it. They build entire industries on it. Your bank, email provider, energy grid operator, and favourite political conspiracy theorist on X all depend on systems where the letter “o” might be Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, or from a script you’ve never heard of.

Script Recognition as a Political Act

In theory, recognising a writing system should be a neutral task: linguists gather data, engineers assign code points, and digital life carries on unbothered. In practice, deciding which scripts exist, or deserve to exist, online has become a geopolitical performance art piece. When Unicode publishes a new block, it isn’t just documenting linguistic heritage; it’s determining who gets digital visibility, who gets cultural legitimacy, and who must beg for their diacritics. Script classification is rarely about shapes on a page; it’s about borders, identity, sovereignty, and the occasional diplomatic tantrum.

Take Tibetan. Its script is centuries old, yet every attempt to standardise or categorise it inevitably stumbles into the geopolitical chasm between Chinese control and Tibetan cultural autonomy. Technical debates about glyph variants become proxy battles for political recognition, with each punctuation mark quietly carrying the weight of contested history.

Uyghur provides an even sharper example. Historically written in multiple scripts, Arabic, Latin, Cyrillic, its modern digital representation becomes a minefield of political allegiances. Adopt the Arabic script and you align with religious and cultural tradition; use the Latin version and you evoke memories of short-lived linguistic reforms; depend on Chinese-approved standards and you risk signalling compliance with state policy. The simple act of typing a sentence in Uyghur can be interpreted as a political stance.

And then there’s Crimea, where script use has turned into a diagnostic tool for mapping loyalties. Russian-leaning communication defaults to Cyrillic, Ukrainian materials use Latin transliteration more frequently than before, and OSINT analysts pore over metadata and keyboard layouts as if they’re intercepting Cold War cipher traffic. When a social media post about “local events” emerges using the wrong script or keyboard setting, it becomes evidence, sometimes circumstantial, sometimes damning, about who controls the narrative on the ground.

In each case, recognising a script isn’t merely about encoding text; it’s about encoding identity. Unicode might pretend it’s a neutral library of characters, but the moment a script crosses into the digital sphere, it becomes an instrument of politics, whether those politics like it or not.

Character Encoding as Censorship

Authoritarian regimes don’t just censor words, they sometimes censor the very scripts in which those words are written.

Historically, some Chinese platforms failed to support Tibetan, Mongolian, and Uyghur scripts, not due to technical impossibility but due to political disinterest. The absence of fonts, renderers, and input methods effectively limited communication in those languages. Unicode fully supports all of them, but if a mobile OS never ships the fonts, the result is still silence.

Kurdish uses several writing systems, and Iranian platforms have periodically broken support for certain variants, hindering activist communication. Unicode isn’t the issue, the local implementation is. Technical negligence becomes political suppression.

The long-standing conflict between the non-standard Zawgyi encoding and Unicode Burmese created an environment where misinformation, state propaganda, and extremist content spread rapidly because search engines couldn’t index half the content. Facebook’s moderation failures in Myanmar were partly caused by this encoding chaos. Unicode’s proper Burmese encoding existed, but Zawgyi remained entrenched for political and cultural reasons.

Once again, encoding isn’t neutral. It determines who gets to speak, and who gets heard.

Unicode and OSINT: Attribution by Alphabet

Linguists dream of deciphering ancient tablets. OSINT investigators do much the same thing, except the tablets are Telegram forwards, hacked email dumps, and manifestos typed by someone who clearly hates the space bar.

Unicode, being the foundation of all digital text, ends up playing a quiet but essential role in attribution analysis.

Many languages have multiple keyboard layouts, and layout choice often correlates with geography, subculture, or generation. Analysts have used keystroke patterns, visible through Unicode artefacts, to identify whether a “Russian” troll farm employee was actually Serbian, or whether an Arabic-language propaganda post originated from Egypt, Morocco, or a Gulf state.

When extremist groups try to mask their origin by posting in English, tiny Unicode quirks give them away. For instance, Arabic-influenced writers often produce unusual apostrophes or commas due to Right-To-Left/Left-To-Right rendering quirks, while Russian speakers using English sometimes accidentally type with their Cyrillic layout still active, leaving behind tell-tale invisible control characters.

Chinese state-aligned actors have been caught using rare CJK (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) Extension characters not present on mainstream keyboards but common in certain PRC-only dictionaries. Meanwhile, Vietnamese cybercrime groups have been exposed due to the diacritics of specific Telex vs. VNI input systems.

Unicode encodes everything. And in encoding everything, it ends up encoding the habits of the people who use it.

Emoji: Diplomacy Through Cartoon Pictograms

No discussion of Unicode geopolitics is complete without addressing emoji, the only arena where Japan, Apple, Google, and the People’s Republic of China occasionally enter arm-wrestling contests over whether a dumpling should look steamed or fried.

Emoji proposals routinely ignite geopolitical arguments. Apple once rendered Taiwan’s flag emoji in mainland China as a blank square, sparking widespread confusion and quiet amusement. India lobbied, unsuccessfully, for a saree emoji years before it was approved, citing cultural underrepresentation. Countries have argued over whether certain food items should visually correspond to their national culinary tradition. And don’t forget the years-long debate over the skin-tone modifiers, which somehow managed to annoy every faction involved.

For something that looks like a children’s sticker book, emoji carry a surprising amount of national pride.

Cybersecurity Tools vs. Unicode: A Tragicomedy

Most cybersecurity tools were built by people who assumed text was made of nice, clean ASCII produced by nice, clean English-speaking hackers. This delusion lasted until about 2004, when real attackers started using real languages, and suddenly SIEM systems began screaming like children lost in a supermarket.

Take the humble SIEM (Security Information and Event Management system). Feed it logs containing mixed Arabic-Persian numerals, Cyrillic homoglyphs, and Right-To-Left Override characters, and it will panic like a Victorian aristocrat realising the servants have opinions. Dashboards break. Regex filters weep. Alerts fire for reasons that defy both physics and God. Meanwhile a threat actor quietly pivots through the network using a username that contains a character you can only type by chanting into a mirror under a full moon.

Password validators fare even worse. A surprising number still assume that characters outside ASCII must be “special characters,” leading to the delightful situation where a user can create a password using only Cyrillic letters and bypass nearly every corporate password rule. Meanwhile, the security team proudly reports a 100% compliance rate, blissfully unaware that half their workforce logs in using text the system literally cannot pronounce.

Incident response engineers have learned that when a threat actor really wants to waste their time, they don’t deploy advanced obfuscation, they switch to using N’Ko or Cherokee variable names.

And then there are firewalls, magnificent appliances that cost more than university tuition and still break when they encounter a domain name containing an emoji. Try blocking “🚀.ws” on a 2018-era enterprise firewall.

Unicode is not merely a complication for cybersecurity. It is a weaponisable chaos engine.

Unicode as a Geopolitical Force

Unicode was never meant to be political, but it couldn’t avoid becoming so. The digital world forces every system, from search engines to social networks to SCADA controllers, to take a stance on languages, scripts, territory, and cultural legitimacy. Every glyph encoded, every script classification, every decision about how characters render becomes a subtle act of recognition or erasure.

At the same time, Unicode is now a frontline cybersecurity concern. Homoglyph attacks, control-character exploits, domain spoofing, ambiguous usernames, and linguistic trickery shape everything from cybercrime to influence operations. Unicode’s promise of universal representation has enabled both extraordinary interoperability and a thriving ecosystem of digital chaos.

The intersection of linguistics, cybersecurity, and geopolitics is not merely academic, it shapes the future of digital identity, digital rights, and digital conflict. And it all depends on tiny, invisible numbers inside a global character set that most people have never heard of.

Unicode is not just the world’s unacknowledged treaty. It is its unintentional battlefield.

References:

Barth, A., Jackson, C., and Mitchell, J.C. (2008) 'Robust defenses for cross-site request forgery'. Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 75–88. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/1455770.1455782 (Accessed: 24 November 2025).

Zhu, Z., Thao, T.P., Nguyen-Son, H., Yamaguchi, R.S., and Nakata T. (2020) 'Enhancing A New Classification for IDN Homograph Attack Detection'. 2020 IEEE Intl Conf on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2020, pp. 507-514. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC-PICom-CBDCom-CyberSciTech49142.2020.00093 (Accessed: 24 November 2025).

Yazdani, R., Van der Toorn, O., and Sperotto, A. (2020) "A Case of Identity: Detection of Suspicious IDN Homograph Domains Using Active DNS Measurements," IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW), Genoa, Italy, pp. 559-564. Available at: https://doi-org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/10.1109/EuroSPW51379.2020.00082 (Accessed: 24 November 2025).

Borak, M. (2022) 'The Strange Death of the Uyghur Internet', Wired, 2 November. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/uyghur-internet-erased-china/ (Accessed: 24 November 2025).

Douzet, F., Pétiniaud, L., Salamatian, L., Limonier, K., Salamatian, K., and Alchus, T. (2020) 'Measuring the Fragmentation of the Internet: The Case of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) During the Ukrainian Crisis'. 12th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, Tallinn, Estonia. Available at: https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2020/05/CyCon_2020_9_Douzet_Petiniaud_Salamatian_Limonier_Salamatian_Alchus.pdf (Accessed: 24 November 2025).

Schissler, M. (2024) 'Beyond Hate Speech and Misinformation: Facebook and the Rohingya Genocide in Myanmar', Journal of Genocide Research, 27:3, 445-470. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2024.2375122 (Accessed: 24 November 2025).

Unicode, Inc. (2023). The Unicode Standard, Version 15.1. Available at: https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.1.0/ (Accessed: 24 November 2025).