Chinese DNS censorship operates symmetrically — injecting forged responses for both inbound and outbound DNS packets regardless of whether any real service exists at the destination IP. This means any DNS response received for a probe sent to a closed-port IP inside China is unambiguously a censorship injection, not a legitimate resolver reply.

In a 75-domain, 492-destination experiment, domains that showed small-scale routing-induced censorship changes — where some (source IP, source port) combinations bypassed censorship while others did not — were exclusively domains first censored within the last 2 years, indicating inconsistent GFW censorship-node configuration during rollout.

§5.4 evaluation

Routing-induced censorship variation is persistent across time: packet retries do not resolve observed differences, and manual re-measurement days later yielded identical censorship outcomes for the same (source IP, source port, destination IP) tuples across 12 iterative experiment rounds, ruling out transient packet loss or short-term routing fluctuations.

§4.5, §5.2 evaluation

The lowest 3 bits of the source IP nearly double the number of destinations experiencing censorship measurement changes, consistent with routers XOR-ing low-order bits of source and destination IPs for load-balancing decisions. Varying source IPs produced a mean of 89 routing nodes and 134 distinct paths, versus 55 nodes and 110 paths when varying only source ports.

§5.3 evaluation

Across 10,000 destination IPs in China, 37% showed some change in censorship behavior depending on source IP and source port, spanning 56% of measured ASes. The dominant form of variation (95% of cases) was all-or-nothing: a given (source IP, source port) pair either experienced no censorship or 'expected' censorship, with no intermediate states.

§5.2 evaluation

Wallbleed was a buffer over-read in the GFW's DNS injection subsystem that caused middleboxes to append up to 125 bytes of their own process memory to forged DNS responses. The bug persisted for at least two years (confirmed from October 2021); the GFW issued an incorrect partial patch in November 2023 (Wallbleed v2 remained exploitable) and fully patched it in March 2024. Over 5.1 billion Wallbleed responses were collected during continuous measurement, and an IPv4-wide scan found 242 million IP addresses across 381 autonomous systems receiving Wallbleed-injected responses — including some traffic whose source and destination were both outside China, due to routing through China's network border.

2025-fan-wallbleed §1–§3, §7 dns-poisoningpacket-injection

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

Over 2.5 months (Nov 2024–Jan 15, 2025), IRBlock scanned all 11M Iranian IPv4 addresses daily, finding 6.8M IPs subject to DNS poisoning and HTTP blockpage injection, and 5.4M IPs subject to UDP-based traffic disruption. Testing over 700M FQDNs (500M apex domains) revealed 6M banned FQDNs from 3.3M censored apex domains. Of 537 active ASes in Iran, 485 (90.3%) exhibited blocking for at least 25% of assigned IPs. DNS and HTTP censorship overlapped at >99% of censored IPs; UDP blocking was a strict subset of DNS-censored IPs, affecting ~5M addresses.

2025-tai-irblock §5.1, §1 dns-poisoningpacket-injectionhttp3-quic-block

The GFI operates three distinct DNS/HTTP injectors with different fake IP addresses (10.10.34.34, 10.10.34.35, 10.10.34.36) and partially overlapping blocklists—mirroring the GFW's triplet-censor architecture. Injector 10.10.34.35 exhibits TTL reflection (injected response TTL = probe TTL − hop count), identical to the GFW. No IP exclusively receives injections from 10.10.34.34 (a smaller, selective component); the two primary injectors 10.10.34.35 and 10.10.34.36 handle the majority of censorship. Different injectors maintain distinct domain blocklists, meaning which domains a user sees as censored depends on routing through their AS.

2025-tai-irblock §5.4, Table 2 dns-poisoningpacket-injectiondpi

The GFW DNS injector vulnerability enabled reflective amplification attacks with a baseline factor of 4.04× (46-byte payload → 186-byte response). Combined with routing loops — approximately 1,000 destination IP addresses in China were found to loop packets across the GFW more than 30 times, with 159 persisting after two days and a maximum of 119 loop iterations per query — the effective amplification factor reached 481.17×, sufficient to generate 100 Gbps of attack traffic from just over 200 Mbps of source traffic.

2024-sakamoto-bleeding §5.2 Reflective Amplification Attack dns-poisoningpacket-injection

The GFW's DNS packet injector (Injector 3, identified by TTL mirroring and zero IP ID) contained an out-of-bounds read vulnerability: due to missing label-length and null-terminator validation, malformed DNS requests caused the injector to copy adjacent stack memory into forged responses. Over three days in October 2023, researchers collected over 1 TB of data containing over 13 billion leaks, ~87.43% with non-duplicate content, including live Internet traffic transiting China's backbone and stack frames of the GFW's packet-handling processes.

2024-sakamoto-bleeding §3 Vulnerability dns-poisoningpacket-injectiondpi