OK, AWS again, I know it not only complies with Beijing but also Russia and many other dictatorships. Banned domain fronting and recently enforced S3 bucket-based subdomains for government to better inspect.
So using DNS hosted outside won’t matter, because the destination Chinese IP will get blocked. Or if using outside hosting, it won’t matter, because anyone in China trying to access it will get blocked. Or anyone trying to publish anything to it the CCP doesn’t like. Presumably also with some follow up in-person ‘check-ins’.
The GFW is a pretty massive and actually impressively effective piece of technology, even if we don’t agree with it’s purpose.
If you allow connections to random websites outside of your jurisdiction then you're de facto allowing everything, because people can proxy arbitrary traffic that way. If you don't, you're effectively disconnecting your country from the global internet, which is not an impressive technological feat. Anybody with a backhoe can do a fiber cut.
It really isn’t dumb at all, and is quite difficult to get past.
It also auto detects ‘problematic’ content in near realtime for a huge swath of things. It does deep packet and content inspection, including of a bunch of encrypted traffic that it really shouldn’t be able to.
At massive (national) level scale.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s evil. But it’s an impressive bit of evil kit.
They made a list of tunnel systems that don't attempt to disguise themselves and then blocked them. That's not really that hard, and it meanwhile causes lots of innocuous things to be blocked. There are uses for a tunnel other than bypassing censorship.
The hard thing is to block the ones that actively attempt to look like something they're not, and release updates to change their profile whenever the authors notice it being blocked, while still allowing the thing they're attempting to look like.
> It also auto detects ‘problematic’ content in near realtime for a huge swath of things. It does deep packet and content inspection, including of a bunch of encrypted traffic that it really shouldn’t be able to.
All of this is assuming the content is being distributed unencrypted or is otherwise leaking its contents through e.g. having a specific data length, none of which an encapsulation method is required to expose.
The GFW is run by the definition of a Nation State Actor/NPT. They’re not perfect, or omniscient, but they aren’t fools or incompetent either.
And knowing all the people taking the ‘totally secret’ backdoor is not even a complex trick.
Folks like the NSA in the US have to stay in the shadows, and have a tiny budget and population to draw experts from. What do you think happens when they get to be direct, obnoxious, AND somewhat public in a national pride kind of way?
You're describing something that seems like an urban legend/coincidence. What technical means are you suggesting they're using to determine the contents of a voice chat over an encrypted connection?
> And knowing all the people taking the ‘totally secret’ backdoor is not even a complex trick.
That's assuming it can be distinguished from ordinary traffic.
If your device goes direct when you want to read the Wikipedia article on the Streisand Effect but you also have a browser that proxies traffic through a random AWS VPS in Virginia when you want to read about something they don't want you to know, how are they supposed to tell that the latter is that and not just a regular arbitrary third party webserver?
> Folks like the NSA in the US have to stay in the shadows, and have a tiny budget and population to draw experts from. What do you think happens when they get to be direct, obnoxious, AND somewhat public in a national pride kind of way?
It becomes easier to find way to thwart what they're doing because any random device can be used to determine if or how something is being blocked instead of only the devices of high-risk people who can't afford to test the fences.