All detected HTTP censorship events in BSNL and MTNL are attributable to infrastructure shared with or operated by Airtel and ACT, demonstrating that upstream ISP filtering creates collateral censorship visible to downstream networks. Isolated cross-ISP leakage was also observed: Vodafone's censorship notice appeared in 2 Jio tests, and Airtel's appeared in 2 Vodafone tests.

A proposed HTTP censorship detection algorithm combining status-code comparison, response-length Z-score, HTML TF-vector cosine similarity, and redirect-hostname matching achieves F1 scores of 0.83 (censored) and 0.77 (uncensored), outperforming OONI (0.80 / 0.70), length-difference methods (0.70 / 0.66), and HTML-similarity methods (0.52 / 0.34) on a manually annotated set of 3,000 responses across six Indian ISPs.

§4.3, Table 1 evaluation

Indian ISPs use heterogeneous and overlapping censorship mechanisms with no single technique common across all providers: DNS tampering (ACT, Airtel, BSNL, MTNL), HTTP header filtering (all six ISPs), and SNI inspection (Jio only). Individual ISPs such as ACT simultaneously apply DNS-only blocking to 233 sites, HTTP-only to 1,873 sites, and both to 1,615 sites.

§5.1, Table 2 evaluation

Across six ISPs covering 98.82% of Indian internet subscribers, only 1,115 out of 4,033 tested blocked websites (27.64%) are blocked by all six ISPs simultaneously. ACT blocks 3,721 websites while Airtel blocks only 1,892, and 215 websites are blocked by exactly one ISP with no apparent legal basis.

§5.2, Table 3 evaluation

Jio, India's largest ISP serving 49.7% of internet users, employs SNI inspection to block 2,951 out of 3,340 websites it censors — the first documented use of SNI-based blocking in India. No other of the six tested ISPs uses this technique.

§5.1.4 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.

2020-ramesh-decentralized §VI-B rst-injectionip-blockingpacket-injectionkeyword-filtering

An internet-wide scan of 500k IP addresses from an in-country VPS vantage point found TCP establishment-interception injections on 43,479 addresses (8.7% of scanned), with over 70% concentrated in two Akamai ASes (AS16625 and AS20940). The injection pattern — triggered by the first packet sent to these addresses — is consistent with targeted blocking of domain-fronting proxies hosted on Akamai CDN.

2025-alaraj-iran-refraction §4.1.2 packet-injectionrst-injectionip-blocking

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

TLS connections to blocked services (instagram.com, telegram.org) were terminated by TCP RST immediately after the client's ClientHello, before any certificate exchange, confirming SNI-based DPI that reads the plaintext SNI extension and aborts the handshake. HTTP filtering additionally matched Host headers and URL keywords case-sensitively, with injected HTTP 403 pages or TCP RST responses, and case-change evasions were sometimes effective.

2025-aryapour-stealth-blackout §4.2, §4.3 sni-blockingdpirst-injectionkeyword-filtering

Iran's DNS censor now injects two distinct block-page IPs: 10.10.34.36 (≈87% of 47,633 censored domains) and 10.10.34.34 (≈13%). Both originate from the same network node at Iran's border. Prior research (Aryan et al. 2013) described only 10.10.34.34. The IP injected correlates strongly with the HTTP censorship method applied: domains with 10.10.34.34 in DNS receive TCP RST via HTTP (86.8% of RST cases), while domains with 10.10.34.36 in DNS receive HTTP block pages (84.6% of block-page cases).

2025-lange-i-ra-nconsistencies §3.1, Table 2 dns-poisoningrst-injectionpacket-injection

Iran's HTTP censor exhibits several parsing inconsistencies exploitable for evasion: (1) it is case-sensitive and ignores lowercase method variant "gET"; (2) it does not censor the Host header for HTTP version strings "HTTP", "1.1", and "example" (suggests a version regex of HTTP/.*); (3) when the Host header is absent, the path is not censored for versions "HTTP" and "HTTP/1"; (4) the body is never analyzed regardless of version. All HTTP and DNS censorship occurs at the same last-hop border node, suggesting centralized architecture.

2025-lange-i-ra-nconsistencies §3.2, Table 1 dpikeyword-filteringrst-injection