Real-world CDN HTTPS deployments leak the identity of visited websites through three distinct channels — TLS certificate contents (A2, B1, B2 deployments), the plaintext SNI field (B1), and dedicated IP address mappings (B2) — enabling censors to block CDNBrowsing connections via standard DPI or IP filtering without collateral damage to non-forbidden CDN content. Each leakage channel requires inspecting only a single packet from an HTTPS connection, making the attack low-cost and deployable on off-the-shelf censorship boxes.

CDNBrowsing of full-CDN content imposes near-zero operational cost on circumvention operators because all bandwidth is paid by the censored content publisher via their CDN contract; dynamic mirrors for partial-CDN sites impose negligible additional load compared to proxy-based systems — measured traffic relayed by CDNReaper dynamic mirrors versus the meek pluggable transport for sample sites was nearly negligible, while meek has cost Tor $26,536 total ($2,479/month at the time of measurement) despite a 1.5–3 MB/s per-user bandwidth cap and a discounted research grant rate.

§2.5, §5.2.2 evaluation

A survey of the top 10,000 Alexa websites found that only 6% (Class 1) are fully hosted on shared CDNs with HTTPS deployments that allow removal of destination leakage — the only class browsable with plausible unobservability against a competent DPI-equipped censor — while 64% are partial-CDN sites (Class 4) whose CDN-hosted content (images, videos) can still be reached via content wrappers or dynamic mirrors at negligible operational overhead.

§5.1 evaluation

A domain-based website fingerprinting attack against CDNBrowsing traffic — using the per-domain packet volume exchanged during a browsing session as a decision-tree feature vector — achieves 0.991 ± 0.002 accuracy against CacheBrowser on 100 China/Iran-blocked HTTPS pages, modestly outperforming the state-of-the-art k-NN classifier of Wang et al. (0.94 ± 0.002) while being two orders of magnitude faster: 0.60 CPU-seconds training and 10 µs classification versus 90 CPU-seconds and 0.05 CPU-seconds on an Intel Xeon 3.5 GHz processor.

§3.2 detection

CDNReaper's Scrambler defeats domain-based and Wang et al. k-NN fingerprinting by injecting decoy requests uniformly distributed across ndom popular domains and dropping ~24% of advertisement/analytics requests (which constitute on average 24% of top-1000 Alexa page requests); even at low traffic overheads, fingerprinting accuracy drops significantly from the 0.991/0.94 baseline, with dropping traffic providing more benefit at lower overhead budgets.

§4.4 defense

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

The GNL reveals that Geedge actively maintains dedicated VPN-infrastructure tracking datasets. The China-specific component includes 7,016 domains in a "vpn-finder-plugins" repository (mesalab_git/intelligence-learning-engine), 4,810 NordVPN server domains, and a Pakistan-specific file listing 68 Psiphon CDN domains (geedge_docs/TSGEN/.../Psiphon-CDN_20240430.json) dated April 2024. A Myanmar deployment file (M22-VPN List.html, 27 domains) further confirms country-specific VPN blocklists are operationally maintained. The "Appsketch" program reverse-engineers VPN apps to extract domains and IP addresses for blocking.

2026-sheffey-geedge §4.2, Table 3 dpisni-blockingip-blocking

Amnesty International's 102-page investigation identifies a multi-vendor surveillance stack deployed in Pakistan: Chinese DPI (Geedge/MESA-derived), Canadian social-media monitoring (Netsweeper), and Emirati commercial spyware (Pegasus and FinFisher). The system enables deep packet inspection, SNI-based filtering, and traffic-shape classification at national scale, including targeted interception of encrypted messaging apps and VPN traffic.

2025-amnesty-pakistan-shadows §3, §5 dpisni-blockingip-blockingtraffic-shapeml-classifier

InterSecLab's 76-page analysis of the Geedge/MESA leak (based on nine months of indexing and translating >100,000 documents) characterizes the Tiangou Secure Gateway (TSG) product line as a commercially deployable detection stack that combines deep packet inspection, real-time mobile subscriber monitoring, active probing, ML-based traffic classifiers, and granular per-region rule sets. TSG is not a research prototype — leaked documentation includes deployment timelines and client government interactions for Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Myanmar, and one unnamed country, with censorship rules explicitly tailored to each region.

2025-interseclab-internet-coup §3–§5 (InterSecLab report) dpiactive-probingml-classifiersni-blockingip-blockingtraffic-shapefully-encrypted-detect

Justice for Myanmar documents that Geedge Networks supplied Myanmar's military junta with GFW-derived surveillance and censorship infrastructure under Belt and Road frameworks following the February 2021 coup. The deployed system (Tiangou Secure Gateway / TSG) incorporates the same DPI, active-probing, and ML-classifier capabilities as the domestic Chinese GFW, giving Myanmar one of the most technically capable censorship systems in Southeast Asia.

2025-jfm-silk-road-surveillance §3, §5 dpisni-blockingip-blockingtraffic-shapeml-classifieractive-probing

GFWeb tested 1.02 billion domains against the GFW over 20 months and discovered 943,000 pay-level domains blocked by HTTP filters and 55,000 by HTTPS filters — the largest GFW blocklist dataset ever published. The HTTP-to-HTTPS ratio (17:1) confirms that the GFW's HTTPS keyword-based and SNI-based blocking covers far fewer domains than its HTTP host-header blocking, likely because HTTPS blocks carry higher collateral-damage risk.

2024-hoang-gfweb Abstract, §5.1 dpidns-poisoningip-blockingkeyword-filteringsni-blocking