27 of 80 tested VPN providers had servers within a single AS (AS 9009, M247 Ltd), and VPNalyzer identified 14 providers sharing 4 specific IP blocks within that AS; 2 additional providers shared an IP block in AS 60068 (Datacamp). Such infrastructure concentration enables censors to block multiple VPN products simultaneously with a single IP-range or AS-level rule.

VPNalyzer is the first study to measure DNS leaks during tunnel failure, discovering that 8 VPN providers — including TunnelBear and Private Internet Access — allow DNS queries to bypass their kill switch or firewall rules, exposing users' ISP IP addresses and queried domain names to their ISP and DNS resolvers outside the tunnel.

§VI-B evaluation

Only 11 of 80 tested VPN providers supported IPv6 connectivity; 5 providers — Astrill VPN, Norton Secure VPN, Turbo VPN, SurfEasy VPN, and a university VPN — failed to block IPv6 traffic when the VPN tunnel did not support it, silently leaking all IPv6 data directly to the user's ISP even when IPv4 was fully tunneled.

§VI-A evaluation

Among 80 tested VPN providers, 26 leaked user traffic during tunnel failure: 18 exhibited a missing or broken kill switch leaking all traffic types, and 8 additional providers leaked only DNS traffic. In a case study of 39 top providers with all security settings explicitly enabled ('custom secure mode'), 10 still leaked traffic, with 6 leaking even with the 'kill switch' feature activated.

§VI-B, §VI-H evaluation

29 of 80 VPN providers — including paid services — configure clients to resolve DNS through third-party public resolvers (Google Public DNS, Cloudflare, OpenDNS, Quad9) rather than provider-operated infrastructure. Three self-hosted solutions (Algo, Streisand, Outline) hardcode public DNS with no easy override, causing connection failures in regions where those services are blocked.

§VI (Fig. 5) evaluation

Brussee measures a systematic pattern of Chinese government websites actively blocking access from outside China (the "reverse Great Firewall"), publishing a CSV dataset of affected domains (available at zenodo.org/records/18172145). The paper frames this outbound geo-blocking as a cybersecurity-motivated practice — Chinese authorities classify foreign access to domestic government infrastructure as an attack surface — distinct from the inbound information control goal of the GFW.

2026-brussee-reverse-great-firewall §3, §5 ip-blockingasn-blackholing

Brussee develops a conceptual framework distinguishing two logics of government geo-blocking: (1) information control (blocking inbound foreign content from domestic users) and (2) data sovereignty / attack-surface reduction (blocking outbound access by foreign actors to domestic systems). Chinese government site blocking of external IPs is motivated primarily by the second logic, creating an asymmetric internet topology where CN citizens cannot reach the outside world, and outside actors cannot probe CN government infrastructure.

2026-brussee-reverse-great-firewall §2, §4 ip-blockingasn-blackholing

NetShuffle targets edge networks — small autonomous systems and entities that obtain IP address blocks from upstream providers — as a new class of support base for circumvention infrastructure. This class has received scant attention from prior work, which has focused on cloud providers and volunteer desktop machines. Edge networks represent a large pool of diverse IP space that is harder to block via ASN blackholing compared to a small number of major cloud providers.

2024-kon-netshuffle §1, §2 ip-blockingasn-blackholing

Documented Internet shutdown events grew from 75 in 2016 to 213 in 2019 across 33 countries, with individual shutdowns lasting from hours to 472 days (Chad). These shutdowns completely sever IP connectivity, rendering all existing circumvention tools (Tor, VPNs, Shadowsocks, etc.) non-functional since they require at least partial Internet access to operate.

2023-sharma-dolphin §1–2 asn-blackholingip-blocking

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.

2020-ramesh-decentralized §VI-A, §II-B ip-blockingasn-blackholing

Cloud-based onion routing confronts censors with a collateral-damage dilemma: blocking a cloud provider's IP prefixes requires blocking all co-hosted services (Amazon EC2 hosted over 1 million instances sharing common IP prefixes in 2010), while allowing the traffic means circumvention succeeds. Rotating IP addresses—by retiring and spinning up new VM instances or via DHCP/gratuitous ARPs—reduces the window a blocked address remains in service, forcing censors into a perpetual cat-and-mouse game across all major cloud providers simultaneously.

2011-jones-hiding §2.3 ip-blockingasn-blackholing