TECHNIQUES
port-blocking Port-based blocking
5 papers on file
- 2025-iran-shutdown-measurement Characterizing Iran's Phased National Internet Shutdown in 2025: A Progressive and Distributed Action
- 2025-aryapour-stealth-blackout Iran's Stealth Internet Blackout: A New Model of Censorship
- 2025-gfw-port443-rst Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025
- 2025-piotrowska-nym-iran-blackout Nym Report on Iran's Recent Internet Blackouts (June 2025): What it Means for Censorship Resistance and NymVPN
- 2025-tai-irblock IRBlock: A Large-Scale Measurement Study of the Great Firewall of Iran
50 findings tagged here
-
The June 2025 Iran shutdown—carried out during the Iran-Israel war beginning ~June 19—did not use BGP route withdrawals as in 2019. Instead, authorities applied service-level restrictions at the national border: DNS poisoning of foreign destinations, protocol whitelisting permitting only pre-approved domestic services, and DPI to block circumvention-tool traffic. Iran's international traffic fell roughly 90% while the country's BGP routes remained advertised, making the shutdown invisible to BGP-based monitoring systems. OONI measurement volume, which totalled 121,333 in June 2025, collapsed to under 200 submissions on June 19-20.
-
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.
-
Russia's Roskomnadzor confirmed in February 2026 that it had blocked 469 VPN services used to bypass censorship. Starting December 2025, Russia began blocking the three most commonly used VPN protocols, and from 2025 onward began imposing penalties for promoting VPN services.
-
China Telecom Group reportedly issued directives to Guangdong Telecom in April 2026 requiring comprehensive rectification of cross-border leased-line (IEPL/专线) businesses used for circumvention, with Guangzhou leading enforcement and other Guangdong cities expected to follow sequentially. The targeting is infrastructure-class-specific (IEPL lines as a category) rather than generalized protocol blocking. Providers using Guangdong Telecom as their domestic ingress therefore faced widespread IEPL line interruption.
-
The January 2026 Iranian shutdown encompassed not only global internet connectivity but also domestic inter-network connectivity and PSTN telephony — even domestic phone calls were reported impossible during the blackout period. This represents a broader telecommunications blockade beyond IP-layer isolation.
-
Russia's TSPU devices began dropping all international QUIC traffic on approximately February 26, 2022, coinciding with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The filter identified QUIC flows by requiring the first UDP packet destined to port 443 to be at least 1001 bytes and contain the 4-byte QUIC version 1 header (0x00000001); QUIC traffic from Russia to Cloudflare dropped 46% within days. The TSPU maintained 420-second state on the 4-tuple and applied residual censorship to all subsequent packets.
-
Iranian DPI exhibits stateful connection tracking with 'cooling-off' enforcement periods on flagged flows and is synchronized across multiple ISPs, suggesting centralized or coordinated blocking infrastructure. Port 443 receives particularly aggressive inspection, and the DPI performs behavioral analysis of upload/download traffic ratios to identify proxy usage, enabling SSH-based proxy server IPs to be fully blocked within 8 hours.
-
During full Iranian blackouts, WebRTC and all UDP/QUIC traffic were completely blocked. DNS-over-QUIC (DoQ) could complete a handshake but the censor severed the connection after a single post-handshake data packet, rendering it unusable for tunneling.
-
A co-tenant attacker sharing the same VPN server can launch a port-exhaustion DoS in an average of 4 seconds with over 90% success rate, inject forged HTTP responses in 64.11 seconds at a 66.7% success rate, and hijack DNS responses at success rates of 20% to 70%.
-
VPN search demand in Iran spiked approximately 707% during the June 2025 stealth blackout, as measured by Top10VPN analytics, making it one of the highest-documented circumvention-demand spikes associated with a single shutdown event. Despite this demand, many VPN connections failed because the protocol whitelist eliminated non-HTTPS tunneling methods and HTTP-level filters could detect known VPN signatures on port 443.
-
Iran's June 2025 shutdown enforced a strict national protocol whitelist: only DNS (UDP/53), HTTP (port 80), and HTTPS (port 443) traffic from Iranian networks to external servers was forwarded; all other protocols—including OpenVPN (UDP/1194), SSH (port 22), and arbitrary TCP/UDP ports—were silently dropped without response by DPI at the border.
-
The August 20, 2025 unconditional RST event revealed an asymmetry in the GFW's triggering mechanism: for traffic originating inside China, both the client SYN and the server SYN+ACK each independently triggered three injected RST+ACK packets (six total per connection). For traffic to China from outside, only the Chinese server's SYN+ACK triggered RSTs — the foreign client's SYN alone was insufficient. This asymmetry implies the responsible device observed the SYN+ACK from the Chinese server as the trigger condition, not a port-match rule on the SYN.
-
On August 20, 2025 from approximately 00:34 to 01:48 Beijing Time (74 minutes), the GFW unconditionally injected TCP RST+ACK packets on all port 443 traffic, regardless of payload content, disrupting all TCP/443 connections between China and the rest of the world. The injected packets came in triples with incrementally increasing TTL and window size fields — a fingerprint that does not match any previously catalogued GFW device — indicating either a new device or a known device in a novel or misconfigured state. The blocking was port-443-specific: ports 22, 80, 8443, and others were unaffected during the same window.
-
The June 2025 Iran shutdown achieved approximately 90% reduction in international traffic without BGP withdrawal by combining DNS poisoning, protocol whitelisting, and DPI at the national border — maintaining an outward appearance of normal connectivity for traditional monitoring tools while severing the population's access to the global Internet. Unlike the 2019 shutdown, which was implemented per-provider over 24+ hours, the 2025 operation was centralized and covert.
-
The Iranian government blocked international One-Time Passwords (OTPs) during the June 2025 shutdown, forcing citizens to abandon secure international platforms and migrate to government-approved domestic services with known security and privacy vulnerabilities — using authentication infrastructure as a deliberate chokepoint to coerce adoption of surveilled platforms at scale.
-
Between 21–25 June 2025, Iranian fixed-line networks partially restored access via TCP-based protocols (SSH, WebSockets) while mobile networks and UDP-based protocols remained heavily restricted, indicating deliberate asymmetric enforcement to restore domestic data-center operation without re-enabling VPN circumvention.
-
During the June 2025 blackout, virtually all UDP-based protocols were blocked across major Iranian networks — WireGuard, AmneziaWG, QUIC, WebRTC, and OpenVPN — with the sole deliberate exception of UDP port 53 (DNS), preserved to avoid cascading failures in internal infrastructure.
-
NymVPN experienced a 387% increase in demand during the June 2025 Iran blackout but was itself caught by protocol-level UDP restrictions and could not function as a reliable circumvention tool because TCP fallback and other censorship-resistance countermeasures had not yet shipped.
-
During Iran's June 2025 shutdown, early reports indicated TCP connections were broadly blocked while UDP-based proxies (Telegram MTProto over UDP) could still establish sessions, suggesting the initial blocking rule targeted TCP at the transport layer rather than applying protocol-agnostic packet filtering.
-
IP and port blocking dropped from 30% of countries historically to only 9% during the study period (six countries), with the decline attributed to difficulty maintaining ephemeral blocklists, CDN collateral damage, and IPv6 expansion. Iran is a significant exception: it has implemented port allowlisting — permitting only ports 80, 443, and 53 — on multiple occasions, blocking all other ports entirely.
-
Starting October 3, 2022, more than 100 users reported simultaneous blocking of TLS-based circumvention servers running Trojan, Xray, V2Ray TLS+WebSocket, VLESS, and gRPC. Blocking was port-specific initially (mainly port 443, but also non-443 ports), then escalated to full IP blocking when users switched ports. Domain names were not added to DNS or SNI blocklists. naiveproxy was notably not affected. The blocking was dynamic in at least some cases (browsers could still reach the port, but circumvention tools could not), strongly indicating protocol-level identification rather than blind port blocking.
-
In Iran (AS62442), HTTPS connections fail at 34.4% (mostly TLS-hs-to, consistent with SNI filtering), while HTTP/3 over QUIC fails at only 16.2%. SNI spoofing reduces TCP failure from 60.1% to 10.2% but has zero effect on QUIC (20.1% both with real and spoofed SNI), indicating Iranian censors apply separate UDP endpoint blocking to QUIC rather than SNI-based identification.
-
After a censored connection, 50–75% of subsequent connections from the same client IP to the same server IP and port are blocked for 90 seconds even without censored keywords ("penalty box"). The penalty box is strictly scoped to the (client IP, server IP, server port) triple — other ports at the same server IP or other server IPs are unaffected. The GFW monitors HTTP keyword traffic on every TCP port, not just port 80.
-
Camoufler's blocking-resistance relies on collateral-damage economics: IM platforms had ~2.5 billion active users as of January 2019 (projected >3 billion by 2022) and are embedded in essential business and commercial operations (airline e-tickets, professional collaboration tools). Blocking all IM to disrupt Camoufler would require the censor to harm its own economy; the threat model requires only that the censor permits at least one IM platform, in which case Camoufler remains operational.
-
Protozoa uses the economic and social indispensability of popular WebRTC conferencing services as a censorship deterrent: blocking all WebRTC traffic imposes prohibitive collateral damage on legitimate commerce and communication. This 'parasitism' strategy means the circumvention tool inherits the blocking immunity of the carrier without requiring any protocol mimicry at the network level. Protozoa requires only one reachable WebRTC service to function, and Table 3 confirms at least five services remained unblocked in China during testing.
-
Iran's protocol filter monitors only the first two data-carrying packets of a TCP connection on ports 53, 80, and 443, permitting only DNS, HTTP, and HTTPS. Once tripped, it drops all subsequent client-side packets for 60 seconds, with the timer resetting on each TCP retransmit. The filter is unidirectional (client-inside-Iran only), cannot reassemble TCP segments, and does not verify checksums.
-
Quack (which probes censorship on port 7/echo servers) detected substantially less blocking than Satellite (DNS-based): approximately 50% of Quack vantage points observed no blocking and ~90% observed only minor blocking, whereas Satellite observed major interference at most vantage points; the authors attribute this gap to Russian ISPs applying filtering predominantly on ports 80 and 443, leaving non-standard ports largely unfiltered.
-
Of 229 Thai Internet users surveyed, 63% (n=144) had attempted to circumvent censorship, and of those, roughly 90% (n=132) reported success using VPNs (32.64%), proxies (32.64%), or Tor (23.61%). Failures were isolated to proxies (n=2), VPNs (n=2), and alternative searches (n=3), indicating that existing circumvention tools were technically adequate but that availability and comprehensibility—not raw capability—were the binding constraints on user success.
-
All 76 filters inspected only TCP traffic: sending the identical HTTP request over UDP bypassed censorship 100% of the time. Additionally, 17 of the 49 filters that censored requests to EC2 servers only inspected traffic on port 80 and passed through the same requests sent to port 9900 without modification. No filter triggered on URI query strings, so appending query parameters to any censored URL bypassed every tested filter.
-
Iran's censor and AT&T's Stream Saver restrict DPI inspection strictly to port 80; traffic on any other TCP port escapes classification entirely. Iran additionally inspects the full flow (not just initial packets), unlike T-Mobile and the testbed device which only inspect the first few packets, making packet-count-based evasion insufficient against Iran on port 80.
-
GFW blocking was keyed on both IP address and port number, not IP address alone. Bridges with port 22 (SSH) open had that port remain reachable even as other ports on the same IP were blocked, confirming per-(IP, port) tuple granularity in the GFW blocklist.
-
A single undergraduate ported Castle to two closed-source commercial RTS games (each with >8.5 million copies sold, from different studios) in under 6 hours per game using a ~500-LOC Python/AutoHotkey codebase; 17 of the Top 20 best-selling RTS games share the unit-command structure Castle requires, and 11 have community-decoded replay formats, enabling rapid adaptation to new titles.
-
Winter and Lindskog [157] (2012) documented that the GFW used TLS SNI inspection in combination with IP/port filtering and TCP disruption to block Tor, as recorded in the survey's Table 1. This is one of the earliest published accounts of the GFW applying SNI-based blocking specifically to a circumvention protocol, demonstrating that the GFW correlated multiple detection signals rather than relying on any single technique.
-
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.
-
In Italy, gambling and betting sites were censored primarily via DNS hijacking toward explicit blockpages with ISP-level plausible-DNS-resolution rates as low as 4.5% (NGI), 31.2% (Wind), and 46.1% (Telecom Italia), while the academic GARR network showed no censorship. File-sharing sites (thepiratebay.sx) faced a more aggressive multi-layer response: 2 of 4 ISPs showed less than 50% TCP reachability (versus near 100% for betting sites), and control DNS resolvers were also affected, indicating coordinated infrastructure-wide blocking rather than ISP-level DNS hijacking alone.
-
The GFW blocks Tor primarily by dropping SYN/ACK segments entering China from blacklisted IP/port pairs, not by dropping SYN segments leaving China. Of 142,802 CN→Tor-Relay measurements, 81.52% were Server-to-client-dropped versus only 0.55% Client-to-server-dropped. Blocking Tor directory authorities also showed substantial Client-to-server drops (19.61%), suggesting authorities may be treated differently.
-
Routing is the dominant structural factor in GFW failures. CERNET (the Chinese Educational and Research Network) accounted for 503 of 135 destination IPs' failures — by far the most of any network — and packets transiting CERNET→CERNET links reached Tor destinations at an r=0.9896 ratio, near 1.0. Within CHINANET and CNC Group backbones, the Tor-to-non-Tor traversal ratio dropped to 0.403 and 0.272 respectively (Table 4), indicating heavy intra-ISP filtering.
-
Port 9001 (Tor) ranked third among all blocked ports in Syria, behind only ports 80 and 443. Proxy SG-48 was responsible for a disproportionate share of Tor censorship — blocking Tor traffic for multiple consecutive days — while other proxies in the same deployment did not, indicating per-proxy policy specialization or traffic steering of suspected circumvention flows to dedicated blocking infrastructure.
-
The GFW blocks Tor primarily via stateless SYN/ACK dropping based on the server's source IP address and port (server-to-client direction, 73.04% of CN,Tor-dir cases). Two specific Tor directory authorities account for 98.8% of client-to-server (null-routed) blocks and 72.7% of error cases, indicating selective deeper blocking of specific IP addresses beyond the common return-path filter.
-
By deploying covert channels inside legitimate high-traffic web services (e.g., OpenSearch sites), Facade raises the censor's cost of blocking to unacceptable collateral damage: blocking Facade requires blocking the legitimate web service, which harms local businesses and normal users. Facade explicitly assumes censors are unwilling to block major platforms such as AWS or popular search services.
-
If a communication protocol is regularly used for business and commerce, blocking it may be too politically and economically costly for a censor. The paper posits that censorship resistance achieved as a side-effect of widespread general adoption is harder to defeat than a niche protocol designed solely to circumvent censorship.
-
Obfsproxy (predecessor to obfs4) listens on randomized ports as an explicit defense against discovery by comprehensive Internet-wide scanning, because an adversary must scan all 65,535 ports to locate bridges rather than a single known port — multiplying scan cost by roughly 65,000× relative to a single-port sweep.
-
Because FreeWave is VoIP-provider-agnostic, blocking it requires censors to block all VoIP services simultaneously — a politically and economically costly action given that approximately one-third of U.S. businesses used VoIP by 2011 and penetration was forecast to reach 79% by 2013. The authors argue this collateral-damage cost makes wholesale VoIP blocking infeasible for most censors.
-
Of 2819 public Tor relays in the February 2012 consensus, only 47 (1.6%) were reachable via TCP from within China. After three days, only 1 of those 47 remained reachable. The GFC blocks relays by IP:port tuple rather than by IP to minimize collateral damage to co-hosted services.
-
If clients probe the top 1,000 Alexa-ranked sites to discover a deflecting router, a censor would have to block more than 95% of those 1,000 sites to prevent any client from joining Cirripede. Clients aware of failed probes can continue cycling through additional popular sites, further raising the blocking cost.
-
SkyF2F tunnels censored traffic through Skype's encrypted overlay network, forcing the censor into an all-or-nothing dilemma: blocking SkyF2F requires blocking Skype entirely, which causes actual economic damage to businesses and users who depend on it. Because Skype users are identified by pseudonym and all messages are routed to overlay addresses rather than Internet addresses, IP-based blocking, DNS filtering, port blocking, and keyword filtering are all rendered ineffective.
-
TTL manipulation experiments demonstrated that the GFW injects forged DNS responses at the router level, not at the DNS server: responses to censored domain queries exhibited inconsistent IP ident fields and wildly varying TTL values — consistent with a stateless in-path router — while control (non-censored) responses to the same server showed monotonically increasing ident and stable TTL. The injection was observed exclusively on port 53; identical queries sent to port 80 received no injected responses.
-
Post-trigger blocking persisted for an average of ~20 minutes (observed range: a few minutes to nearly an hour) per source-IP/destination-IP pair, but was scoped to the 128 TCP port numbers sharing the same 7 most-significant bits as the triggering connection's ephemeral port. On pseudo-random ephemeral-port systems such as OpenBSD, the probability of a subsequent connection falling in the blocked port range is only ~1 in 500; on sequential-port systems such as Windows, an average of 64 further connections are blocked.
-
The paper presents a systematic taxonomy of blocking criteria across ISO/OSI layers: circumstance-based (addresses including sender/receiver/kind/physical location; timing including send time, receive time, duration, frequency; data-transfer properties; services including protocols, names, addresses) and content-based (file type/MIME, statistical detection of encrypted or compressed data, pattern matching for keywords or phrases, and website fingerprinting via request-count/byte-volume signatures).
-
NAT and firewalls make volunteer forwarders (JAPR) unreachable for inbound connections by default, removing the incentive for volunteers to reconfigure their systems for no personal benefit. The design response is to reverse the connection direction — JAPR initiates contact with JAPB — shifting the NAT/firewall configuration burden to the motivated blockee who gains direct benefit from solving it.