Winter and Lindskog [157] (2012) documented that the GFW used TLS SNI inspection in combination with IP/port filtering and TCP disruption to block Tor, as recorded in the survey's Table 1. This is one of the earliest published accounts of the GFW applying SNI-based blocking specifically to a circumvention protocol, demonstrating that the GFW correlated multiple detection signals rather than relying on any single technique.

Table 1 of the survey documents that by 2013–2014 censors were deploying simultaneous blocking across BGP, DNS, IP/port filtering, TCP disruption, TLS, and application-layer keyword filtering. No single detection tool in the survey covers all six layers; the most comprehensive, OONI (2012), covers DNS, IP/port, TCP, TLS, keyword, and HTTP but notes only partial BGP coverage.

Table 1 detection

The survey identifies 'soft censorship' — including throttling, packet-loss injection, and quality-of-experience degradation — as detected by only 2 of 13 surveyed platforms (rTurtle and UBICA) as of 2015. The paper explicitly flags this as a measurement gap, noting that soft censorship symptoms are indistinguishable from ordinary network congestion without ground-truth probes placed outside the censor's network.

§3 / Table 2 detection

As of 2015, TLS tampering detection was implemented by only a small minority of surveyed censorship measurement tools: explicitly by Holz et al.'s Crossbear (2012) and OONI (2012), and partially by Soghoian and Stamm (2011) and UBICA (2013). The majority of the 13+ surveyed platforms detected DNS tampering and HTTP manipulation but lacked TLS coverage, creating a systematic blind spot in published censorship measurement.

Table 2 evaluation

The paper formally defines circumvention as either preventing the trigger from being seen by the surveillance device, or countering the effects of the censoring action. This two-path decomposition — hide the trigger vs. nullify the enforcement — provides a clean design framework: a circumvention tool can succeed by making traffic unrecognizable (no trigger fires) or by routing around the blocking device (action nullified).

§2.1 defense

DNEye detected DoTH (DoT and DoH) blocking across the largest number of ASes in China, with interference against Cloudflare, Quad9, AdGuard, and CleanBrowsing resolvers emerging in early March 2021. Blocking patterns varied per-AS rather than following a centralized GFW DNS-level policy, indicating individual ISP implementation. Saudi Arabia, by contrast, showed coordinated SNI-based blocking of the same DoH resolvers across different ASes, indicating centralized policy.

2022-hoang-measuring §4.2, Table 5 rst-injectionsni-blockingip-blocking

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

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

DPYProxy-DNS's automated probe-and-select mode identified a working DNS circumvention in an average of 13.78 seconds (median 12.90s) in China and 12.32 seconds (median 8.28s) in Iran across 100 runs each; best-case startup was 0.32s (China) and 0.47s (Iran) when the first-tried combination succeeded, while worst-case exceeded 30.72s in China and 58.16s in Iran due to the slow Last Response mode (3s fixed wait per attempt) being selected early in the randomized probe order.

2026-niere-dpyproxy-dns §6.3 dns-poisoningsni-blockingip-blocking