GFWeb tested 1.02 billion domains against the GFW over 20 months and discovered 943,000 pay-level domains blocked by HTTP filters and 55,000 by HTTPS filters — the largest GFW blocklist dataset ever published. The HTTP-to-HTTPS ratio (17:1) confirms that the GFW's HTTPS keyword-based and SNI-based blocking covers far fewer domains than its HTTP host-header blocking, likely because HTTPS blocks carry higher collateral-damage risk.

GFWeb discovered that the GFW's bidirectional blocking is not symmetric: certain domains trigger blocking only when probed from inside China, not from outside. This overturns the prior assumption that the GFW blocks the same domains symmetrically in both directions. The paper also documents that the GFW has been upgraded to fix previously-reported evasion techniques, including overblocking mitigation and improved fragmented-packet reassembly, indicating active engineering iteration on the censor side.

Abstract, §5.3, §6 detection

Longitudinal GFWeb data spanning 20 months shows the GFW actively patched previously-published evasion findings during the measurement period: overblocking bugs reported in academic papers were fixed, and fragmented-packet reassembly failures that researchers used to bypass blocking were corrected. This demonstrates that the GFW operator monitors published research and iterates on the system in response to disclosed vulnerabilities.

Abstract, §5.4, §6 detection

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 largest measurement study of Turkmenistan censorship to date tested 15.5 million domains and found more than 122,000 domains censored using separate blocklists for DNS, HTTP, and HTTPS. Reverse-engineering the blocking rules revealed approximately 6,000 over-blocking rules that cause incidental filtering of more than 5.4 million additional domains — a 44x collateral damage ratio relative to intentionally blocked domains.

2023-nourin-measuring §Results dns-poisoningdpikeyword-filteringip-blocking

Domain shadowing makes all three traffic indicators — connecting URL, SNI, and Host header — appear to belong to an allowed shadow domain while fetching content from a blocked back-end domain via CDN. Unlike domain fronting, it exploits a legitimate CDN feature (arbitrary back-end binding) rather than a SNI/Host mismatch quirk, so CDNs cannot disable it by enforcing header consistency without breaking legitimate use cases such as third-party service outsourcing via CNAME. The technique was demonstrated successfully accessing www.facebook.com from a heavily censored country.

2021-wei-domain §3.3, §6.2 sni-blockingdpiip-blockingdns-poisoning

Despite Russia's decentralized ISP ecosystem, 9 of 14 residential probes observed more than 90% of 98,098 tested blocklist domains blocked, and all 14 probes observed at least 49% blocked—demonstrating that coordinated nationwide censorship without centralized choke-points is achievable through legal mandates and commodity equipment alone.

2020-ramesh-decentralized §VI-B ip-blockingdns-poisoningkeyword-filteringdpi

China's Internet censorship ecosystem is bilateral: the GFW handles technical blocking while separate government agencies (MIIT, TCA, MPS, MSS) handle non-technical regulation, and 'these two components do not operate synchronously.' Google Scholar is considered a legal service by Chinese regulators but is incidentally blocked as collateral damage because it falls under the google.com domain, blocked since 2010.

2017-lu-accessing §2 ip-blockingdns-poisoningdpikeyword-filtering

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