Stealth signals are bypassing Iran’s internet blackout | Hacker News Reader

Stealth signals are bypassing Iran’s internet blackout

spectrum.ieee.org

123 pointsWaitWaitWha61 comments

None of the people I know inside Iran actually use this Toosheh[1] thing. And I mean zero, nada, none. Not one. Most are unaware of its existence. This sounds something that sounded cool pre-Starlink era that received funds and favors from western governments and NGOs and did not result in anything useful (not surprising that they get international press too despite being a total failure.) Realistically, a download-only solution does not solve a problem. Persian video content that people watch are delivered via DVB Satellite TV video channels. With Internet, what people want is to communicate and therefore need realtime access and data upload capability to contact others and use web services, not download a new offline copy of Wikipedia everyday! In practice, Iranians inside Iran end up mostly using VPNs and tunnels of various sorts. Often some variant of shadowsocks with SNI spoofing, which stop working in a full blackout. What will be left during a full blackout is people who have government-sanctioned SIM cards with full Internet access (known as "white SIMs") to propagandize on social networks in favor of the reigme when everyone else is disconnected and, a tiny set of people who have acquired Starlink terminals.

The same set of people behind that project were supposedly given additional resources to smuggle Starlinks inside, and in the Persian community on Twitter, there's an ongoing meme mocking where those Starlinks actually went and given to whom, never to get an answer...

[1]: TLDR: data archive within DVB-S video stream

>What will be left during a full blackout is people who have government-sanctioned SIM cards with full Internet access (known as "white SIMs") to propagandize on social networks in favor of the reigme when everyone else is disconnected and a tiny set of people who have Starlink.

One would think this is exactly the sort of circumstances under which store-and-forward/delay-tolerant routing would be useful. Years before Jack Dorsey thought of bitchat[0] I had the same idea, but never pursued it because I live in a western country but not in a "tech city", in other words, nobody around here is interested in being an early adopter of an app primarily of use only to preppers or people living under repressive authoritarian regimes.

Anyways, it's a great idea in theory, as the techno-anarchist preppers that LARP with off-the-shelf lilygo LoRa tranceivers will be happy to tell you. But in practice nobody who actually could benefit from these seems to adopt these things. Or at least I never hear about it, if they indeed do. Perhaps today's internet blackouts are too transient for a 2026 version of samizdat to develop?

Do the people you know inside Iran plan to just wait it out, or do they have some other solution ready for a total blackout?

[0] https://bitchat.free/

To be clear while the annoying firewall has been a forever thing, and even grandmas know how to use VPNs day-to-day to access Instagram, a full, long-term blackout, has been a relatively new thing, so I don't think there's enough prep for that. Bitchat was certainly something that was spoken about after the January protests and before the war broke out. There was even a thief who cloned and renamed it something Persian without attribution and with shady security and the Bitchat guy got upset about it just a few weeks ago.

There are some government-sanctioned messengers that apparently keep working but some people would not use it as they are completely insecure and watched by big brother, of course. The biggest issue is getting data out of the country not internal comms (e.g. video evidence of massacre, for example, so that some poeple like in this very thread don't get the ammo to whitewash the regime, intentionally or accidentally.)

>The biggest issue is getting data out of the country not internal comms

No doubt. Unless there's somebody friendly just across the border in Azerbaijan or Basrah or something, I don't see how they'd do it. Maybe point a dish and establish a point to point link, but you'd need to pre-arrange that.

I think what you are suggesting is more practical today than before, since there are at least a few people who have some sort of access. The real catch is really the prep, or lack thereof. The anecdotes around me is they are hoping (perhaps wishfully) for a total regime collapse and internet freedom relatively soon.

> Or at least I never hear about it, if they indeed do

Too busy surviving to blog.

> in the Persian community on Twitter, there's an ongoing meme mocking where those Starlinks actually went and given to whom, never to get an answer

Of course not. From the article:

Because the technology is banned by the government, access remains limited and carries risk; Iranian authorities have recently arrested Starlink users and sellers.

Huh, but that's not news? What is not explained is where the Starlinks for which funds were raised went, and to whom. There are other shady details that would bore HN audience who is not deeply educated into the layers of regime operatives within "opposition," but in summary, their entire operation seems to be grift after grift.

I also wonder: if roles were reversed and (say for example) the US government was blocking parts of the internet to stop rampant CCP propaganda during a war with China - would "NetFreedom Pioneers" be advocating for ways for Americans to get around the block so they could continue to consume CCP propaganda because "muh freedom".

I expect not to be honest.

Not saying the cause is wrong necessarily but let's just call a spade a spade - this is aimed to help one side and one side only, "freedom" has nothing to do with it

It appears they do receive funds from US government so while I cannot directly answer your hypothetical question, I imagine they would lose at least some of their fundings. The author of the IEEE article is receiving compensation as Executive Director.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/455...

That said, I'm sure CCP is spending more than enough to make sure Americans get its propaganda, so I wouldn't be too worried if I were in your shoes.

Yes, I should be able to consume content from anywhere to build a more accurate picture of reality regardless of military conflicts. Because of “muh freedom.”

Truth is the first casualty of war, yet truth is required to operate a democracy effectively. Responsible citizens will do their best to see through the fog of war by aggregating multiple perspectives.

I acknowledge governments do not see things the same way.

"Freedom" as used by American politicians has always been a euphemism for "the interests of the American ruling class".

> Satellite TV uses a file system called an MPEG transport stream that allows multiple audio, video, or data layers to be packaged into a single stream file.

Interesting read but that part really made me question my own sanity. It’s probably just lost in translation.

I wouldn't describe Transport Stream as a "file system" but most people probably aren't familiar with the term multiplexing. It's true if you record a TS (e.g. to a .ts file) you can later split out the different Program Streams which can hold pretty much anything.

Pedantry alert: you're generally extracting Elementary Streams from a given TS. A Program Stream is basically a variant of a TS that's meant more for files at rest - say, on a DVD, or a PS2 game (which did use MPEG-2 PS extensively in the PSS file format, except storing the audio as XA ADPCM in a data stream) - while a TS is a bit more robust for transmission

that's how it works. point a free-to-air dish at the right place in the sky, demodulate the DVB-S2 signal, and it's often IP traffic moving through mpeg transport streams.

it’s the claim of it being a file system that’s throwing me. obviously nbd but maybe my mental models broken again.

File system is the wrong word. What they should have used is file format.

It is not wrong that you can have a file (bits and bytes encoded in the shape described by a file format) on some remote point. If you have an index of those files where you can programmatically choose between multiple files that could even pass as a crude "file system". But I doubt this is what they meant to refer to.

It is likelier they wrongly assumed a file system is the system in which a file is organized, where in fact they meant file format.

I think they were going for a reasonable analogy, especially when a stream is saved to disk to have its contents extracted: each channel contained in the stream can then be thought of as a separate file, not unlike files in a zipped directory.

I'd almost call it an "interleaved archive format" for a layman, but even archive isn't quite the right word here.

The word for this in media is container file format

That's probably better, but also that's not much different on a conceptual level from a "filesystem". Both contain multiple files, and describe where in the overall image those files are. The difference is exactly in the interleaving - a multiplexed media container is somewhat constrained to a packet-based scenario, where individual packets of the constituent files are separated so that video, audio, and ancillary data all reach the decoder at roughly the same time. A pure filesystem is not constrained as such and can put the files anywhere within the container.

A filesystem stored in a monolithic file is not so constrained. I work with Harmonix games as a modder, and they use a bespoke format called "ARK", which is a two-part format. There exists one or more "ARK parts", which in implementation are virtually concatenated, and then the HDR lists a binary offset from the beginning of the first ARK part to tell the games where the individual files are. This could also be called a "container" conceptually. But none of such files are interleaved in any way except for the audio files, which use encrypted multichannel Ogg Vorbis streams plus a bespoke header to aid in seeking.

Plus, the context was explaining it to laypeople, where the specific jargon is less important than imparting knowledge and understanding.

The difference between a file system and a container format is mostly a matter of perspective - indeed OSX literally uses "disk images" as their container format. Is .zip a filesystem? You probably wouldn't want to use it natively on a disk, but for a lot of purposes it's the same kind of thing.

Many SSDs (I first learnt about the concept from those notorious SandForce SSDs [1]) also utilise compression at controller level to reduce wear.

So yeah, many SSDs are just huge, non-solid archives.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SandForce#Technology

http://tom7.org/harder/

Maybe they meant "a file-based system" because they all run Plan 9.

So its just embeding some files in a satalite tv broadcast stream?

I dont think that helps that much. If you have satalite tv going in, you already have video coming in, are arbitrary files really that much more useful?

The thing people really want internet communication for is 2 way coms. Getting info on the situation on the ground out and allowing different groups inside Iran to coordinate. I fail to see how this helps with that.

> So its just embeding some files in a satalite tv broadcast stream?

Which is neither new nor novel.

PlayCable was doing this to download console games over analog cable systems <checks notes> 46 years ago.

TeleText says hello.

> I dont think that helps that much.

Teletext [1] was extremely popular in Europe before the Internet was widely available for private households. Also piggybacked on TV.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletext

The claim of 30,000 dead in the crackdown is dubious. It originates from a doctor turned fashion blogger turned independent journalist called Deepa Parent[1] and doesn't have any other evidence to support it. (The Dresden fire bombing required tons of munitions and the toll was 25,000).[2]

Now having said that, given the nature of the Iranian theocracy, they are quite capable of such acts. Remember that they have hanged homosexuals from cranes,[3] and executed rape victims.[4] But 30,000 in two days [5] is an extraordinary claim which requires more evidence, certainly more than circular references tracing back to just one source.

[1] https://thegrayzone.com/2026/02/01/guardian-iranian-death-to...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhon...

[4] https://www.timesnownews.com/lifestyle/people/crime-against-...

[5] https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601255198

Edit: added [5]

>> But 30,000 in a day

The number was given over two days, not one.

The protests were in over 200 cities with 5 million+ participants, WE KNOW they fired live rounds this is undeniable if you only had 200 deaths per city you would reach a death toll north of 40k already. Yes it's not verified yes there isnt a video of exactly 30000 identifiable bodies side by side. But the number really isnt as unachievable as people make it out to be.

From another article: The 30,000 figure is also far beyond tallies being compiled by activists methodically assigning names to the dead. As of Saturday, the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency said it had confirmed 5,459 deaths and is investigating 17,031 more.

https://www.aol.com/articles/iran-protest-death-toll-could-1...

The mass murdering of 5,400 people is nothing to scoff at, on any level, even over two days.

We also "know" Mossad had agents provocateurs there and was supplying weapons to dissidents. And since the war on Iran started it seems pretty obvious those "peaceful protests" were part of their regime change operation.

Yeah exactly! That’s why islamic regime maintains free flow of information for citizens and invites independent third party investors to find out what really happened!

> The number was given over two days, not one.

Was it? I can’t find that in the linked article. The source for the ~7,000 deaths linked near the only instance of “30,000” says it was over the first fifty days.

It's not in this article but in others. I'm skeptical because the original source is that fashion blogger.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601255198

It’s unclear where the 30,000 comes from because the article doesn’t cite a source for that number. You’re drawing an unsubstantiated connection between two (or more?) articles so you can invoke and then discredit a specific reporter.

At this point I’m not sure what you are even talking about but you seem to have an agenda.

Read the references which I carefully included to avoid "Source?" comments.

What reporter is being discredited? The fashion blogger? She was thoroughly discredited by The Grayzone.

At this point I'm not sure what else to add help you overcome your reading comprehension issues.

You're right: two days.

If you really want to get informed about the protests in January and the death toll start looking at Amnesty’s report and you’ll see the 30000 is not dubious. Cherry picking who reported on a piece of news doesn’t invalidate the content of it.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2026/01/what-hap...

I could not find the 30000 figure in the link, while it does mention "thousands", what is contested here is the fact that 30000 is an order of magnitude larger number.

The fact that your account is only used to comment about Iran is also weird.

Here’s what you missed from the article:

> noting that according to information she received from medical sources, the death toll might be as high as 20,000 . Due to the ongoing internet shutdown, the scale of mass killings that took place and Iranian authorities’ well-documented pattern of carrying out reprisals against families of victims who speak out, the true number of those killed is likely higher.

I don’t see how this is hard to understand. As I mentioned, the 30000 figure is not dubious, according to UN special rapporteur.

What’s so sad about the whole situation in Iran, apart from what happened, is people trying to “haggle” the number of death. It should be obvious that even one death is too many!

"30000"... every time the numbers are these rounded (if funnily its always 30K. No 40K or 25K. 30K) it just... questionable.

Look it up: victims or algerian war, victims of iran's own crackdown in 1980s, argentina's 1980s dictatorship victims... always nice rounded 30K.

I don't question the dimension of the atrocities, but the true motivations of those who perpetuate these propagandistic numbers

> The Dresden fire bombing required tons of munitions and the toll was 25,000

For clarity 3,900 tons over four raids and 1,500 planes.

I’m not sure how to translate that into modern munitions but I’m also uncertain why a strategic bombing death toll should tell us anything about Iranian protester deaths. Iran isn’t doing strategic bombing of their citizens, they’re using small arms across hundreds of locations.

The linked article cites a source [1] with detailed methodology for their actual claim of 7,000 deaths and mentions that other unmentioned sources claim it could go as high as 30,000. I don’t see any claim of that being in a single day.

Given the timeframe and widespread nature of these protests it doesn’t seem implausible.

[1]: https://www.en-hrana.org/the-crimson-winter-a-50-day-record-...

A better comparison would be, say, the 1944 Oradour-sur-Glane massacre. 642 French civilians were killed in one afternoon by approximately 150 SS infrantrymen.

Or the Babi Yar massacre, where 33,771 Jews were murdered over the course of two days, by approximately 300 to 500 SS and German policemen.

Not everyone's up in their WW2 history: Just as a reminder: "In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 772 heavy bombers of the Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the German city of Dresden." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden.

Would satellite dishes still be allowed when push comes to shove and the Internet is completely locked down?

Receive-only DVB dishes are very common (although technically illegal and occassionally subject to house raids and removal). They often try to jam the signal from time to time by inducing noise on the broadcast frequency (locally referred to as parasite). They have been cracking down on Starlinks though (most likely from the supply chain, which is very likely to be a compromised regime asset). In any case, as I wrote in another comment, it does not solve a real problem and no one uses this. You can simply watch news/video content live (or DVR'd) on your TV.

What a shithole the world has become, and will become even worse... Yes, the world, not just parts of it. Everyone still lulled by notions of democracy, constitution and human rights today is asleep at the wheel.

>NFP’s solution was to add redundancy, similar in principle to a data-storage technique called RAID (redundant array of independent disks). Instead of sending each piece of data once, we send extra information that allows missing or corrupted packets to be reconstructed.

A bit disappointing TBH if that is their solution. Seems like everything is trying to pigeon hole everyone into the proof of work scenario. If we have more power/energy then we will beat you in everything security, coding and censorship circumvention.

It's a sound solution. They are describing forward error correction with a variable code rate. Reducing the code rate increases the amount of redundancy, allowing the signal to be retrieved when the signal-to-noise ratio is lower. It's a standard part of communications theory and has a strong theoretical basis. A low enough code rate will overcome almost any level of jamming at the cost of reduced data rate, provided the receiver does not saturate.

I think they're just doing forward error correction (FEC). Not sure what that has to do with proof-of-work?

FEC and Reed-Solomon and other various methods have existed for decades, and are common and non-crypto related.

What other method do you propose to deal with data loss?

Excepts the internet blackout has nothing to do with censorship at all. This is just Iran protecting itself from cyber attacks, if they had kept Internet running, they would have been completely pwned.

Come now, let's not be naïve. If protestors or dissenters are organizing over social media, or app-based Internet communications, shutting down the Internet is a great way to keep them in the dark and prevent the majority of them from either keeping up with local demonstrations or exfiltrating recordings of civil unrest.

It is true that shutting off your Internet prevents cyber-attacks, but imagine if it happened in the USA: it would effectively shut down much of our commerce and everyday living activities. In the West, Internet access is becoming more of an essential utility than the icing on the cake, or a recreational forum for malcontents and ne'er-do-wells. Or perhaps it's both at once.

There is no naivety on my part, the USA has publicly admitted that it orchestrated and even armed the protests [1]

[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/6/has-trump-confirmed-...

Perhaps you are, instead, disingenuous, because the article you linked says nothing about the effects of an Internet blackout nor its motivations and now you're blathering about orchestration and arming, which likewise have nothing to do with an Internet blackout.

You’re correct, the article doesn’t say anything about that, I’m using my own judgement given the facts that I have.

All I know is, if I was at war with the USA, I would definitely cut the internet in my country. Not doing it is like being at war with a big maritime power, and not protecting your coastline.

> if they had kept Internet running, they would have been completely pwned.

Can you elaborate how such thing plays out?

Like this: https://archive.is/2026.03.03-070033/https://www.nytimes.com...

But this article is about cyber attacks, radar interference, etc. on military and strategic targets. The US/Israel can still do these even with total internet blackout. We saw this in the war! Israel/US still bombed who and whatever they wanted! What does this have to do with internet censorship?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com