Augur: Internet-Wide Detection of Connectivity Disruptions

Aggregate measurements across nearly 180 countries over 17 days found that 60% of reflectors experienced some degree of connectivity disruption; the bias of detected blocks toward Citizen Lab Block List sites held for both inbound and outbound filtering, and temporal variability corroborated documented censorship events around political timelines.

§VI-B evaluation measurement-platformip-blocking generic

Of 2,134 tested sites, 229 (10.7%) were invalid for inbound blocking detection due to ingress filtering or network-origin discrimination; 431 additional sites were invalid for outbound blocking detection, of which 75% were Cloudflare-hosted and 7% Fastly-hosted because anycast topology prevents RST packets from returning to the originating anycast node.

§V-E evaluation measurement-platformmiddlebox-interference generic

Validation against the Citizen Lab Block List (CLBL) showed that for 99% of reflectors, more than 56.7% of detected inbound-blocked sites were CLBL-listed (vs. 56.7% CLBL composition of the input dataset); 95% of reflectors showed the same directional bias for outbound filtering, confirming the method detects real censorship rather than measurement noise.

§VI-A, Figure 5 evaluation measurement-platformip-blocking generic

Augur's Internet-wide ZMap scan found 22.7 million hosts (of 140 million reachable) using shared monotonically-increasing IP ID counters across 234 countries (median 1,667 reflectors per country); filtering to ethical infrastructure via CAIDA Ark reduced this to 53,130 reflectors in 179 countries (median 15 per country), representing 4,214 ASes.

§V-B, Table I evaluation measurement-platform generic

Using sequential hypothesis testing (SHT) with false positive and false negative rates both set to 10^-5, more than 90% of reflectors required 40 or fewer experiment trials to reach a blocking decision; over 17 days the system collected 207.6 million runs across 47 trials spanning 2,134 sites and 2,050 reflectors.

§IV-C, §V-D, Figure 4 evaluation measurement-platform generic