After a censored connection, 50–75% of subsequent connections from the same client IP to the same server IP and port are blocked for 90 seconds even without censored keywords ("penalty box"). The penalty box is strictly scoped to the (client IP, server IP, server port) triple — other ports at the same server IP or other server IPs are unaffected. The GFW monitors HTTP keyword traffic on every TCP port, not just port 80.

Only 8% of keywords censored by Chinese chat clients (WeChat, Sina Weibo — ~63,200 total terms) are also censored by GFW packet inspection, demonstrating independently maintained blocklists. The GFW's packet-inspection chat-derived blocklist contains up to 1,221 distinct censored keywords for outbound traffic; just 68 keyword components account for all censored terms from Beijing, with 「六四」(June Fourth) alone responsible for more than half.

§4.2, §4.2.2, §4.3 evaluation

The GFW only inspects two locations within an HTTP request for censored keywords: the path component of the request line and the Host header, in UTF-8 and GB 18030 encodings (with %-decoding applied). Cookie headers, custom headers (e.g., X-Tension), and POST body fields are not monitored. Even in monitored positions, only approximately 75% of requests containing censored keywords actually trigger a TCP RST disconnection.

§4.4 detection

The GFW enforces SNI-based blocking on every TCP port (not just 443), triggering TCP RST injection and a penalty box for known-censored hostnames (e.g., facebook.com, zh.wikipedia.org) in the TLS ClientHello. The SNI blocklist is separate from the HTTP keyword blocklist — keyword-derived subdomains in the SNI did not trigger censorship. No evidence was found for indiscriminate HTTPS decryption or certificate substitution.

§4.6 detection

The GFW maintains two HTTP keyword sublists: 15 terms censored unconditionally, and approximately 60–63 additional terms censored only when the English word "search" also appears in the request URL. No other English word among the 10,000 most common, no Chinese search synonym (搜索, 查找, 关键词), and no common URL parameter abbreviation ("q", "kw", "s") replicates this expanded-censorship trigger.

§4.1, §4.2.1 detection

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

During the June 2025 shutdown, Iranian authorities blocked international One-Time Password (OTP) SMS delivery, preventing new sign-ins to foreign secure-messaging platforms and VPN services. This forced users toward government-approved domestic platforms that lack security and privacy protections. The blockade of OTPs effectively weaponized account-recovery flows as a secondary shutdown layer, disproportionately affecting users who needed to activate new circumvention tools during the crisis.

2025-iran-shutdown-measurement §Human Rights Implications port-blockingdpikeyword-filtering

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

The August 20, 2025 unconditional RST event revealed an asymmetry in the GFW's triggering mechanism: for traffic originating inside China, both the client SYN and the server SYN+ACK each independently triggered three injected RST+ACK packets (six total per connection). For traffic to China from outside, only the Chinese server's SYN+ACK triggered RSTs — the foreign client's SYN alone was insufficient. This asymmetry implies the responsible device observed the SYN+ACK from the Chinese server as the trigger condition, not a port-match rule on the SYN.

2025-gfw-port443-rst §2.1, §2.2 rst-injectionport-blockingdpi

On August 20, 2025 from approximately 00:34 to 01:48 Beijing Time (74 minutes), the GFW unconditionally injected TCP RST+ACK packets on all port 443 traffic, regardless of payload content, disrupting all TCP/443 connections between China and the rest of the world. The injected packets came in triples with incrementally increasing TTL and window size fields — a fingerprint that does not match any previously catalogued GFW device — indicating either a new device or a known device in a novel or misconfigured state. The blocking was port-443-specific: ports 22, 80, 8443, and others were unaffected during the same window.

2025-gfw-port443-rst §1, §2.3, §3 rst-injectionport-blocking

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