OONI observes that many interception devices deployed in the wild advertise their vendor and model information, making passive device identification feasible from probe-level observations alone. The framework is designed to locate interception devices and then apply probing techniques to fingerprint the specific vendor and product in use.

OONI pairs client-submitted test reports with data independently collected at the OONIB backend TestHelper, providing both connection endpoints' viewpoints in a single unified report. The backend is designed to be run by anyone and exposed both over HTTPS and as Tor Hidden Services to resist simplistic denial-of-service and reduce fingerprint-ability of the reporting infrastructure.

§5 Architecture evaluation

OONI's experiment-control methodology explicitly favors false positives over false negatives: it is preferable to generate more censorship candidate events for further investigation than to miss genuine interference. Mismatch between experiment and control data is not always a definitive signal of manipulation but is treated as sufficient cause for flagging, and data collection and analysis are treated as distinct phases.

§4 Methodology evaluation

OONI's threat model assumes an adversary capable of country-wide traffic manipulation who may actively fingerprint and identify measurement probes. Prior measurement tools (e.g., ONI's rTurtle) used easily fingerprinted centralized DNS and HTTPS traffic, which the authors flag as a pattern to avoid. The authors acknowledge that anti-fingerprinting measures will likely reduce measurement accuracy — a trade-off unresolved at publication.

§3 Threat Model; §10 Limits and future work detection

OONI's traffic manipulation test suite uses bidirectional traceroute comparison: asymmetry between inbound and outbound paths for specific source/destination port pairs is treated as an indicator that traffic is being diverted to an interception device. Additional per-flow indicators include timing differences in packets directed at specific ports and layer-7 header field manipulation detectable at the receiving endpoint.

§5.5 Traffic Manipulation detection

The GFI's HTTP and HTTPS filters are now stateful (requiring initial SYN packet with matching sequence numbers) and have been activated on all TCP ports—not only standard ports 80 and 443 as reported by prior studies. This is a significant departure from previous work that found stateless HTTP/HTTPS blocking limited to standard ports. The HTTP filter injects a 403 Forbidden blockpage (not RST packets as used by the GFW), while HTTPS injects a single RST+ACK packet. The GFI also exhibits TCP non-compliance (not requiring a full three-way handshake to trigger filtering), enabling outside-in measurement without in-country servers.

2025-tai-irblock §2.1, §3.2 dpirst-injectionpacket-injectionmiddlebox-interference

Censoring middleboxes respond to non-compliant TCP sequences because they must handle asymmetric routing and cannot rely on observing both sides of a connection. The hSYN; PSH+ACKi sequence elicited responses from 69.6% of 184 tested censoring middleboxes with a maximum amplification of 7,455×, while a lone PSH+ACK with no prior handshake elicited responses from 33.2% of middleboxes.

2021-bock-weaponizing §2, §3.3 middlebox-interferencedpipacket-injection

Iran's censorship of refraction-networking proxies (Conjure via Psiphon) is not monolithic: different ISPs independently deploy different techniques and timelines. Over 800 million logged Conjure connections from July 2023–February 2025 across 10+ Iranian ASes show TCI (AS58224, ~33% of traffic) uses packet injection, while MCCI/Hamrah-e Avval (AS197207, ~22%) applies IP-based blocking, and some ASes (Parsonline AS16322, Shatel AS31549) show no proxy blocking at all.

2025-alaraj-iran-refraction §4 rst-injectionip-blockingpacket-injectiondpi

Russian TSPU devices directly block ECH by dropping ClientHello messages that contain both an ECH extension and the outer SNI hostname "cloudflare-ech.com" — the static outer SNI Cloudflare advertises in all its ECH configurations. Blocking affects both TLS and QUIC. ECH connections to servers with Cloudflare ECH support but outside Cloudflare's official IP ranges are NOT blocked. TCP segmentation alone or TLS record fragmentation alone did NOT bypass TSPU ECH blocking, but combining both techniques did circumvent it. TSPU has also added TCP reassembly capabilities that defeat previously effective fragmentation-only bypasses.

2025-niere-encrypted §5, Figure 5 dpirst-injectionmiddlebox-interference

The GFI operates three distinct DNS/HTTP injectors with different fake IP addresses (10.10.34.34, 10.10.34.35, 10.10.34.36) and partially overlapping blocklists—mirroring the GFW's triplet-censor architecture. Injector 10.10.34.35 exhibits TTL reflection (injected response TTL = probe TTL − hop count), identical to the GFW. No IP exclusively receives injections from 10.10.34.34 (a smaller, selective component); the two primary injectors 10.10.34.35 and 10.10.34.36 handle the majority of censorship. Different injectors maintain distinct domain blocklists, meaning which domains a user sees as censored depends on routing through their AS.

2025-tai-irblock §5.4, Table 2 dns-poisoningpacket-injectiondpi

Since August 2023, Henan Province has operated its own TLS SNI-based and HTTP Host-based censorship middleboxes that inspect and block traffic exiting the province—a second filtering layer on top of the national GFW. The Henan Firewall is fingerprinted by a unique TCP RST+ACK injection carrying a fixed 10-byte payload (0x01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 00), IP ID 0x0001, and an observed TTL of 58. Unlike the GFW, it injects resets only toward the client, performs no residual censorship, and requires no TCP handshake to trigger. Longitudinal testing (Nov 2023–Mar 2025, Tranco top 1M daily + 227M CZDS domains weekly) found the Henan Firewall blocked a cumulative 4.2 million domains—more than five times the GFW's cumulative blocklist—and at peak blocked ten times more domains than the GFW.

2025-wu-regional-censorship §4.4 / §5 sni-blockingdpipacket-injection