Over 3295 active-probing scans observed across 17 days, 51% (1680) originated from a single IP address (202.108.181.70), while 98% of the remaining 1615 addresses were unique. All scanner IPs belong to three Chinese ASes: AS4837 (65.7%), AS4134 (30.5%), and AS17622 (3.8%). TTL analysis of 85 connections shows the scanner IPs are likely spoofed by the GFC—post-scan ping TTLs differed by +1 from during-scan TTLs.

A blocked Tor bridge becomes reachable again after approximately 12 hours if Chinese scanners are unable to reach it continuously. In the authors' experiment, one bridge (port 23941) whitelisted to their Chinese VPS via iptables was unblocked within 12 hours despite remaining actively used, while an unrestricted bridge (port 27418) stayed blocked indefinitely.

§4.2 detection

Of 2819 public Tor relays in the February 2012 consensus, only 47 (1.6%) were reachable via TCP from within China. After three days, only 1 of those 47 remained reachable. The GFC blocks relays by IP:port tuple rather than by IP to minimize collateral damage to co-hosted services.

§4.1, §4.3 detection

The GFC identifies Tor connections via a unique TLS ClientHello cipher list sent by the Tor client. Once DPI boxes detect this fingerprint on outbound traffic, active scanning is initiated within minutes: scanners connect to the suspected bridge, attempt to build a Tor circuit, and if successful the IP:port tuple is blocked. This two-stage pipeline (fingerprint → confirm → block) allows dynamic bridge blocking without pre-enumeration.

§2, §4.1 detection

Tor DPI fingerprinting by the GFC is applied exclusively to egress traffic (from inside China to the outside world). Simulated Tor connections between domestic Chinese nodes and between external nodes connecting inward to a Chinese VPS attracted zero active scans across multiple experimental runs, indicating the detection infrastructure is positioned on the border for outbound flows only.

§4.4 detection

Re-testing in 2025 on a Pixel 10 Pro XL running Android 16 with October 2025 security updates confirmed that blind in/on-path VPN inference attacks remain fully viable despite CVE-2019-9461, CVE-2019-14899, and CVE-2024-49734 having been formally closed. All three core attack primitives—VPN-assigned internal IP discovery, active connection inference, and TCP reset injection via sequence/acknowledgment window scanning—succeeded across OpenVPN, WireGuard, and NordLynx.

2026-tolley-architectural §5.1–5.3 traffic-shaperst-injectionactive-probing

Six widely deployed VPN and circumvention tools—OpenVPN, WireGuard/NordLynx, NordWhisper, Orbot (Tor on Android), Lantern, and Psiphon—all failed to block internal IP inference, connection-state detection, and TCP reset injection under identical adversarial conditions on fully patched Android 16. Application-layer obfuscation in Lantern and Psiphon did not prevent TCP-layer disruption; Orbot's VPN-style encapsulation of Tor traffic was bypassed via the same tunnel-level side channels.

2026-tolley-architectural §5.2, §5.4–5.5 traffic-shaperst-injectionactive-probing

The paper proposes an Internet Freedom vulnerability registry with five design principles: persistent cross-vendor tracking under shared identifiers (e.g., IF-ARCH-2025-001) as long as a risk remains reproducible; human-centered impact ratings anchored to harm potential for journalists and dissidents rather than CVSS-style exploitability scores; timestamped re-verification hooks with linked PCAPs and minimal reproduction scripts; a structured media interface to counter vendor narrative capture; and open public APIs for integration into risk dashboards so that users of tools like Orbot or Lantern can directly query their configuration's exposure to known metadata-based attacks.

2026-tolley-architectural §6.1–6.5 traffic-shaperst-injectionactive-probing

The September 2025 leak of ~600 GB from Geedge Networks and the MESA Lab (Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences) is the largest known document disclosure from the GFW vendor ecosystem. It establishes a direct lineage: MESA Lab (founded 2012 by Fang Binxing's team, annual contracted revenue >35M RMB by 2016) spun out Geedge Networks in 2018, with MESA alumni filling key engineering roles (e.g. Zheng Chao as CTO). The leak includes ~64 GB of MESA git repositories, ~35 GB of MESA internal documents, ~15 GB of Geedge internal documents, and a ~3 GB Jira export — providing direct access to source code, work logs, and internal communications behind GFW R&D.

2025-geedge-mesa-leak §4 dpiactive-probingml-classifiersni-blockingfully-encrypted-detect

Internal Geedge documents confirm active contracts to deploy GFW-derived censorship and surveillance infrastructure in Myanmar, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, and at least one additional unidentified country under the Belt and Road framework, in addition to domestic deployments in Xinjiang, Jiangsu, and Fujian. The exported product (the Tiangou Secure Gateway / TSG line) is not a stripped-down export variant — leaked TSG documentation shows DPI, active-probing, ML classifiers, and granular per-region traffic control rules that mirror the domestic GFW capability set.

2025-geedge-mesa-leak §5, §6 dpiactive-probingml-classifiersni-blockingdns-poisoningfully-encrypted-detecttraffic-shape

InterSecLab frames the Geedge/TSG export program as the commoditization of national firewall capability: rather than each censor state independently developing detection infrastructure, they contract Geedge for a turnkey system incorporating the cumulative R&D of MESA Lab (>10 years, National Science and Technology Progress Award winners). This structural shift means the marginal cost for an autocratic government to acquire GFW-grade censorship is now a procurement decision, not a multi-year engineering program. The report identifies that Geedge's relationship with the MESA Lab gives customer states indirect access to ongoing academic R&D improvements, not just a static product.

2025-interseclab-internet-coup §2, §6–§7 (InterSecLab report) dpiactive-probingml-classifier