Despite Russia's decentralized ISP ecosystem, 9 of 14 residential probes observed more than 90% of 98,098 tested blocklist domains blocked, and all 14 probes observed at least 49% blocked—demonstrating that coordinated nationwide censorship without centralized choke-points is achievable through legal mandates and commodity equipment alone.

Of 44,797 CDN-served domains on the April 2019 Roskomnadzor blocklist, 99.6% (44,615) were hosted on Cloudflare—attributable to Cloudflare's free tier with minimal vetting enabling rapid mirror-domain creation by blocked operators; the blocklist also contained 1,769 responsive circumvention-related domains, confirming that circumvention infrastructure is an active and documented blocklist target.

§V-B, Table III–IV deployment

Seven years of Roskomnadzor blocklist history (Nov 2012–April 2019) show the list grew to 132,798 unique domains and 324,695 unique IPs, with a dramatic spike in 2018 when Russia blocked Telegram by adding subnets covering approximately 16 million IP addresses—producing major collateral damage to co-hosted Google and Amazon services and illustrating that subnet-level blocking is the blunt instrument of last resort for CDN-hosted targets.

§VI-A, §II-B evaluation

Data center VPSes predominantly experienced TCP connection timeouts and resets—with the highest-blocking VPS censoring 96.8% of tested domains—while residential ISPs were substantially more likely to inject explicit blockpages citing Roskomnadzor's registry, confirming that blocking mechanism varies significantly by network tier even when blocking rates are similar.

§VI-B evaluation

Quack (which probes censorship on port 7/echo servers) detected substantially less blocking than Satellite (DNS-based): approximately 50% of Quack vantage points observed no blocking and ~90% observed only minor blocking, whereas Satellite observed major interference at most vantage points; the authors attribute this gap to Russian ISPs applying filtering predominantly on ports 80 and 443, leaving non-standard ports largely unfiltered.

§VI-B-3 evaluation

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

The largest measurement study of Turkmenistan censorship to date tested 15.5 million domains and found more than 122,000 domains censored using separate blocklists for DNS, HTTP, and HTTPS. Reverse-engineering the blocking rules revealed approximately 6,000 over-blocking rules that cause incidental filtering of more than 5.4 million additional domains — a 44x collateral damage ratio relative to intentionally blocked domains.

2023-nourin-measuring §Results dns-poisoningdpikeyword-filteringip-blocking

China's Internet censorship ecosystem is bilateral: the GFW handles technical blocking while separate government agencies (MIIT, TCA, MPS, MSS) handle non-technical regulation, and 'these two components do not operate synchronously.' Google Scholar is considered a legal service by Chinese regulators but is incidentally blocked as collateral damage because it falls under the google.com domain, blocked since 2010.

2017-lu-accessing §2 ip-blockingdns-poisoningdpikeyword-filtering

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.

2015-aceto-internet Table 1 bgp-hijackdns-poisoningport-blockingip-blockingrst-injectiontls-fingerprintkeyword-filteringdpi

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