A single bad Chinese DNS server queried 600 times about the same censored domain consistently returned a random address from the same pool of 8 IPs across all responses, confirming that the tampered behavior is deterministic and centrally coordinated rather than ISP-specific or probabilistic. The same 8-IP pool appeared uniformly across servers from China Telecom, China Unicom, and other carriers.

99.88% of 1,607 tested Chinese recursive DNS servers returned tampered responses for censored domains. Tampered responses drew from a pool of only 8 IP addresses, compared to 441–454 distinct IPs returned by U.S. control servers for the same query set — with 366 censored domains sharing exactly those 8 IPs.

§6.1, Table 1 detection

Because the GFW injects forged DNS responses rather than dropping the original query packet, the legitimate response from the upstream DNS server may still arrive after the injected forgery. The authors propose two circumvention strategies: querying on a non-standard port to bypass the port-53-only injection filter, or issuing standard-port queries and selectively discarding responses matching the known bad-IP pool to recover the authentic answer.

§6.4, §8 defense

TTL manipulation experiments demonstrated that the GFW injects forged DNS responses at the router level, not at the DNS server: responses to censored domain queries exhibited inconsistent IP ident fields and wildly varying TTL values — consistent with a stateless in-path router — while control (non-censored) responses to the same server showed monotonically increasing ident and stable TTL. The injection was observed exclusively on port 53; identical queries sent to port 80 received no injected responses.

§6.4, Table 3 detection

Nonsense domains with known-censored hostnames embedded as subdomains (e.g., www.epochtimes.com.pSyfA6srAZ0qCxU63.com) triggered the same tampered responses — returning the pool of 8 bad IPs — as direct queries for the censored domain. Control-subdomain nonsense domains (e.g., www.pSyfA6srAZ0qCxU63.com) did not trigger tampering, indicating the GFW performs substring keyword matching across the full DNS query label string.

§6.2 detection

The June 2025 Iran shutdown—carried out during the Iran-Israel war beginning ~June 19—did not use BGP route withdrawals as in 2019. Instead, authorities applied service-level restrictions at the national border: DNS poisoning of foreign destinations, protocol whitelisting permitting only pre-approved domestic services, and DPI to block circumvention-tool traffic. Iran's international traffic fell roughly 90% while the country's BGP routes remained advertised, making the shutdown invisible to BGP-based monitoring systems. OONI measurement volume, which totalled 121,333 in June 2025, collapsed to under 200 submissions on June 19-20.

2025-iran-shutdown-measurement Executive Summary / §2 dpidns-poisoningport-blockingip-blocking

Article 19 documents that Iran's National Information Network (NIN / SHOMA) was designed with explicit reference to China's Great Firewall as a model, with institutional mirroring: Iran's Supreme Council of Cyberspace parallels China's Cyberspace Administration of China, and both governments share a "cyber sovereignty" doctrine used to justify domestic content controls and cross-border technology transfer. The report frames Iran's filtering infrastructure as deliberately architected to replicate GFW capabilities, not as an independently developed system.

2026-article19-tightening-the-net §2, §3 dpisni-blockingdns-poisoningip-blockingbgp-hijackthrottling

Article 19 documents that Iran combines technical filtering with formal coercion of major foreign platforms (including Telegram, Instagram, and WhatsApp) to comply with content removal orders under threat of full blocking. The report notes that Iran's 2022 Women Life Freedom protests accelerated platform blocking when foreign operators refused compliance, demonstrating that the censorship system operates in two modes: coerce-and-allow for compliant platforms, block for non-compliant ones. Domain fronting via these platforms is therefore subject to sudden revocation if political conditions change.

2026-article19-tightening-the-net §6 ip-blockingdns-poisoningthrottling

Both Firefox and Chromium leak cleartext DNS before establishing encrypted DNS connections: they first send an unencrypted UDP DNS query to resolve the DoH server's domain (e.g., doh.opendns.com). An in-path censor can intercept and poison this initial query, making encrypted DNS in browsers completely ineffective without additional circumvention of the resolver-lookup step. Additionally, Chromium always includes the SNI extension in the encrypted DNS TLS handshake (e.g., "doh.opendns.com"), leaking the resolver identity even after the initial lookup. No resolver requires SNI to be present for certificate validation when the resolver's IP certificate is configured.

2026-lange-towards §2.4, §7, §10 dns-poisoningsni-blocking

DNS censorship of encrypted protocols is inconsistent in both China and Iran. In China, Yandex resolvers are censored only when the SNI extension is present; omitting SNI bypasses censorship for these resolvers. In Iran, DoH requires SNI omission for Quad9, Google, Adguard, CleanBrowsing, and NextDNS resolvers, but works with SNI for Yandex and Cisco resolvers. These inconsistencies suggest resolvers have been accidentally missed by censors, highlighting the value of automated tools that trial all resolver-mode combinations rather than hard-coding a single strategy. The support evaluation found 47 resolvers supporting DoH, 16 supporting DoH3, and only 8 supporting DoQ out of ~65 tested.

2026-lange-towards §6.2, Table 2 dns-poisoningsni-blockingip-blocking

DPYProxy-DNS tested 8 circumvention modes against DNS censorship from vantage points in Iran (AS201295, Mashhad) and China (AS4837, China Unicom). In Iran, DoQ was entirely uncensored even with the SNI extension present; DoH3 worked for all Cloudflare and NextDNS resolvers. Iran's censor operates in-path (not on-path like the GFW), making the "Last Response" mode (wait 3s for the last UDP reply) ineffective in Iran but highly effective in China. Auto-mode averaged 12.32s (median 8.28s) in Iran and 13.78s (median 12.90s) in China to discover a working combination.

2026-lange-towards §6.2, §6.3 dns-poisoningsni-blockingip-blocking