All six browsers grant dangerous Android permissions (READ_PHONE_STATE, INTERNET, ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE) to third-party SDKs; built-in phone browsers grant significantly more such permissions than app-store browsers. Baidu Mobile Tongji Analytics SDK—present in all six via Baidu as default search engine—collects IMEI, UUID, CUID, GAID, device MAC, and Bluetooth MAC, creating a persistent cross-app device fingerprint that identifies users across VPN sessions and survives IP changes.

All six Chinese browsers (Baidu Searchbox, UC Browser, QQ Browser, OPPO, Redmi/Mi, VIVO) transmit the full URL of every page visited—including HTTPS pages—along with page titles and search terms out-of-band to vendor servers, entirely bypassing VPN tunnel protection. In five of six cases this data is transmitted with no cryptography or weak cryptography (purely symmetric AES with hardcoded keys, or textbook RSA with a 128-bit modulus factorable in under 3 seconds), making it readable by any on-path actor between the VPN egress and the vendor's servers.

§4.1 detection

Chinese browsers transmit GPS coordinates alongside persistent user IDs (IMEI, GAID, CUID) and client IPs to vendor servers with poor transport security; an attacker with access to this stream can trivially detect VPN use without any DPI—GPS coordinates placing a user inside China combined with a non-Chinese client IP is an unambiguous VPN-use signal. This correlation attack succeeds against VPNs with perfect traffic obfuscation because the detection side-channel is entirely outside the encrypted tunnel.

§5, §6 detection

Of the four Chinese browsers offering incognito mode (Baidu Searchbox, UC Browser, QQ Browser, Redmi/Mi), all four continue to leak PII and three continue to transmit full browsing activity including URLs; UC Browser specifically sends data during incognito sessions encrypted with hardcoded AES/CBC key "Ine34@32b#jeRs2h" and a zero initialization vector to crash-upload endpoints. Incognito mode in these browsers provides no protection against vendor-side or on-path surveillance and creates false privacy expectations for circumvention tool users.

§4.2 evaluation

PWA-based circumvention tools that display their name or any identifying string in the browser URL bar or page title expose that identifier to all six Chinese browser vendors' telemetry servers, since all six browsers collect page titles and full URLs. Browser SDKs with READ_PHONE_STATE and elevated permissions can monitor PWA activity at the OS level in ways not possible with standard browsers, making browser selection as security-critical as the circumvention tool itself for the Tor Browser threat model.

§5, §6 defense

During the June 2025 shutdown, Iranian authorities blocked international One-Time Password (OTP) SMS delivery, preventing new sign-ins to foreign secure-messaging platforms and VPN services. This forced users toward government-approved domestic platforms that lack security and privacy protections. The blockade of OTPs effectively weaponized account-recovery flows as a secondary shutdown layer, disproportionately affecting users who needed to activate new circumvention tools during the crisis.

2025-iran-shutdown-measurement §Human Rights Implications port-blockingdpikeyword-filtering

Input blocking in Chinese LLM services (DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, Doubao) is overwhelmingly consistent: all four services persistently block the exact same queries across all 5 measurement samples in both Simplified and Traditional Chinese. Output blocking is far less consistent, with only 29 out of 349 output-blocked queries blocked across all 5 samples. Baidu-Chat is exceptional: it performs almost no input blocking but instead relies heavily on post-search and output blocking (78.6% of blocks are output-phase).

2026-ablove-characterizing §VI-B keyword-filteringdpi

TLS connections to blocked services (instagram.com, telegram.org) were terminated by TCP RST immediately after the client's ClientHello, before any certificate exchange, confirming SNI-based DPI that reads the plaintext SNI extension and aborts the handshake. HTTP filtering additionally matched Host headers and URL keywords case-sensitively, with injected HTTP 403 pages or TCP RST responses, and case-change evasions were sometimes effective.

2025-aryapour-stealth-blackout §4.2, §4.3 sni-blockingdpirst-injectionkeyword-filtering

Iran's HTTP censor exhibits several parsing inconsistencies exploitable for evasion: (1) it is case-sensitive and ignores lowercase method variant "gET"; (2) it does not censor the Host header for HTTP version strings "HTTP", "1.1", and "example" (suggests a version regex of HTTP/.*); (3) when the Host header is absent, the path is not censored for versions "HTTP" and "HTTP/1"; (4) the body is never analyzed regardless of version. All HTTP and DNS censorship occurs at the same last-hop border node, suggesting centralized architecture.

2025-lange-i-ra-nconsistencies §3.2, Table 1 dpikeyword-filteringrst-injection

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.

2024-hoang-gfweb Abstract, §5.3, §6 dpikeyword-filteringsni-blocking

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.

2024-hoang-gfweb Abstract, §5.1 dpidns-poisoningip-blockingkeyword-filteringsni-blocking