Evasion attacks generated against one firewall-deployment combination do not transfer well to other settings: a deployment-agnostic approach (used by censorship circumvention tools) fails to generate effective attacks across diverse victim stacks and attacker capabilities. Pryde's deployment-aware, modular workflow finds successful attacks across configurations with and without insider threats, and against multiple attacker success criteria (data delivery vs. victim ACK vs. attacker receipt of ACK).

Stateful firewalls used as censorship middleboxes exhibit counter-intuitive implementation behaviors: FW-3 forwards ACK packets before a TCP handshake is initiated, and FW-1 actively spoofs RST packets in response to unsolicited traffic to thwart evasion attempts. These vendor-specific quirks create or close evasion opportunities that are invisible to rule-verification tools and not predictable from policy documentation alone.

§1 Introduction, Findings 3–4 detection

TCP-compliant packet alphabets are insufficient for modeling stateful firewall evasion. Including non-TCP-compliant traffic — specifically flipped-direction SYNs, out-of-window seq/ack numbers, and packets that form a parallel TCP connection in the reverse direction — is what unlocks discovery of deep attack paths. Prior model-inference work (Alembic) that restricted itself to compliant sequences produced models incapable of generating any of the 6,000+ attacks Pryde found.

§4.1–§4.2 detection

Pryde generates more than 6,000 successful and unique evasion attacks against 4 popular stateful firewalls, which is 2–3 orders of magnitude higher than censorship circumvention algorithms (e.g., Geneva) and black-box fuzzing. The gap arises because circumvention tools only uncover shallow evasion sequences and cannot systematically explore the full attack-state space.

§1 Introduction, Finding 1 evaluation

The RKS Global report documents a two-tier Russian censorship architecture: TSPU network-layer blocking (documented by Xue et al. 2024) at the ISP level, now supplemented by mandated app-layer VPN detection in the 30 most popular Russian Android apps. This layered approach means a circumvention tool that successfully bypasses TSPU at the network layer can still be detected and reported by the app layer, closing the gap that network-only circumvention leaves open.

2026-rks-russian-apps-vpn-detection §2, §7 tls-fingerprintml-classifiermiddlebox-interference

The server-side variant of the blind VPN inference attack—where an in/on-path adversary exploits predictable NAT assignment and tunnel routing semantics to inject spoofed packets indistinguishable from legitimate encrypted traffic—has remained unacknowledged and unmitigated across all tested platforms since its concurrent disclosure in 2019. Unlike the client-side variant, which received partial fixes from Google (CVE-2019-9461, CVE-2024-49734) and Apple (iOS 17.2.1), no vendor has proposed a viable remediation or claimed ownership of the server-side attack surface.

2026-tolley-architectural §2.1, §3.1, §3.4 traffic-shaperst-injectionmiddlebox-interference

Russian TSPU devices directly block ECH by dropping ClientHello messages that contain both an ECH extension and the outer SNI hostname "cloudflare-ech.com" — the static outer SNI Cloudflare advertises in all its ECH configurations. Blocking affects both TLS and QUIC. ECH connections to servers with Cloudflare ECH support but outside Cloudflare's official IP ranges are NOT blocked. TCP segmentation alone or TLS record fragmentation alone did NOT bypass TSPU ECH blocking, but combining both techniques did circumvent it. TSPU has also added TCP reassembly capabilities that defeat previously effective fragmentation-only bypasses.

2025-niere-encrypted §5, Figure 5 dpirst-injectionmiddlebox-interference

The GFI's HTTP and HTTPS filters are now stateful (requiring initial SYN packet with matching sequence numbers) and have been activated on all TCP ports—not only standard ports 80 and 443 as reported by prior studies. This is a significant departure from previous work that found stateless HTTP/HTTPS blocking limited to standard ports. The HTTP filter injects a 403 Forbidden blockpage (not RST packets as used by the GFW), while HTTPS injects a single RST+ACK packet. The GFI also exhibits TCP non-compliance (not requiring a full three-way handshake to trigger filtering), enabling outside-in measurement without in-country servers.

2025-tai-irblock §2.1, §3.2 dpirst-injectionpacket-injectionmiddlebox-interference

The Henan Firewall is stateless in two exploitable ways: (1) it requires the TCP header to be exactly 20 bytes—enabling any TCP option (e.g., TCP Timestamps, which Windows disables by default) to bypass it entirely; (2) it does not perform TCP reassembly, so splitting a TLS ClientHello across two TCP segments such that the SNI extension straddles the boundary bypasses the censor. Both bypasses require only client-side changes and have already been implemented in Xray, GoodbyeDPI, and Shadowrocket. TLS record fragmentation (splitting the ClientHello across multiple TLS records within one TCP segment) also defeats both the Henan Firewall and the GFW, since neither performs TLS reassembly.

2025-wu-regional-censorship §4.3 / §6 sni-blockingdpimiddlebox-interference

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.

2024-hoang-gfweb Abstract, §5.4, §6 dpimiddlebox-interference