Only 1.5–2.25% of domains from TLD zone files have a valid ESNI key, with 15.4K of the top 100K and 143.3K of the top 1M popular domains supporting ESNI. All ESNI-supported domains are hosted by Cloudflare, making ESNI-enabled connections trivially distinguishable from the vast majority of TLS traffic and a low-collateral-damage blocking target for censors.

DNS manipulation is widespread across China (305 domains via local resolvers, 300 via public resolvers) and Russia (251 local, 205 public), but simply switching to a public DNS resolver already evades local-resolver-only filtering for many domains, reducing apparent censorship at the public-resolver layer. On-path filtering systems that poison queries to public resolvers represent a harder threat class requiring encrypted DNS.

§4.1, Table 2 evaluation

Using DoH plus ESNI, DNEye successfully unblocked 130/230 (56%) of DNS-filtered domains in China and 53/56 (95%) in Russia, but 0/49 (0%) in Iran. The primary failure mode in China (84 domains) and Iran (47 domains) was SNI-based filtering at the TLS layer for domains that do not support ESNI, which remains visible in the ClientHello.

§4.3, Table 3 evaluation

DNEye detected DoTH (DoT and DoH) blocking across the largest number of ASes in China, with interference against Cloudflare, Quad9, AdGuard, and CleanBrowsing resolvers emerging in early March 2021. Blocking patterns varied per-AS rather than following a centralized GFW DNS-level policy, indicating individual ISP implementation. Saudi Arabia, by contrast, showed coordinated SNI-based blocking of the same DoH resolvers across different ASes, indicating centralized policy.

§4.2, Table 5 detection

China's GFW blocks all ESNI traffic via RST packet injection following a TLS ClientHello with an encrypted SNI field, confirmed since July 2020. Russia blocks ESNI in a decentralized, ISP-level fashion across at least three identified ASes (AS28890, AS52207, AS41754), each injecting RST packets independently.

§4.2 detection

Of 640,694 TLS 1.3 servers in the Tranco Top 1M (Feb 2025), 51.28% parse ECH extensions but only 43% actually handshake ECH — and virtually all of those are Cloudflare servers (278,040). Only 6 non-Cloudflare servers successfully handshaked ECH. Cloudflare's own servers have a 44% non-advertisement rate: servers that can handshake ECH but do not publish their ECH configuration in DNS, typically because the operator manages their own DNS outside Cloudflare. The total number of advertised ECH configurations dropped from ~180,000 in November 2024 to ~150,000 by April 2025.

2025-niere-encrypted §4.1, §4.2, Figure 3, Figure 4 sni-blockingesni-eh-blocking

Chrome and Firefox send GREASE ECH extensions in every ClientHello message, meaning a censor that blocks all ECH-containing ClientHellos would block all Chrome and Firefox TLS traffic. Cloudflare's static outer SNI "cloudflare-ech.com" in all its ECH configurations makes real ECH connections trivially distinguishable from GREASE ECH — censors can block real ECH connections to Cloudflare without triggering GREASE collateral damage. Cloudflare rejects ECH handshakes with omitted or invalidated outer SNI values; non-Cloudflare ECH deployments accept missing and invalid outer SNIs.

2025-niere-encrypted §2.1, §4.1, §6 sni-blockingesni-eh-blocking

The paper identifies a fundamental architectural vulnerability in single-IP circumvention designs: a relay must generate new observable flows (via DNS or TLS SNI) to reach end services after receiving client connections, creating a detectable server-and-client behavioral contrast. A relay accessing user-facing domains (news, social media) scores high on a Relay Suspicion Score (w=0.9) versus infrastructure domains (w=0.1). The paper argues this host-level signal is censorship-invariant and cannot be concealed by link obfuscation.

2026-almutairi-server §2.4, §4 traffic-shapedpisni-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

The report maps specific Belt and Road Initiative Digital Silk Road projects through which Chinese technology vendors have transferred censorship and surveillance infrastructure to Iran, including fiber backbone investments, data-center co-location agreements, and equipment supply chains. Specific vendors named include Huawei and ZTE as network infrastructure providers, with the report noting that equipment exports include filtering-capable hardware that Iran's ISPs have deployed at network choke points.

2026-article19-tightening-the-net §4, §5 dpisni-blockingthrottling

Both Firefox and Chromium leak cleartext DNS before establishing encrypted DNS connections: they first send an unencrypted UDP DNS query to resolve the DoH server's domain (e.g., doh.opendns.com). An in-path censor can intercept and poison this initial query, making encrypted DNS in browsers completely ineffective without additional circumvention of the resolver-lookup step. Additionally, Chromium always includes the SNI extension in the encrypted DNS TLS handshake (e.g., "doh.opendns.com"), leaking the resolver identity even after the initial lookup. No resolver requires SNI to be present for certificate validation when the resolver's IP certificate is configured.

2026-lange-towards §2.4, §7, §10 dns-poisoningsni-blocking