2026-lange-towards
findings extracted from this paper
-
All major browsers (Firefox, Chromium) issue an unencrypted DNS-over-UDP query to resolve their configured DoH resolver's domain before initiating any encrypted DNS session. In Iran, nearly all tested DoH resolver domains are directly censored at the DNS layer (returning block-page IPs), which renders browser-native encrypted DNS ineffective regardless of whether the underlying encrypted protocol would otherwise succeed. Additionally, browsers always include the SNI extension in TLS handshakes with DNS resolvers even though no tested resolver requires it. The bootstrap query resolves the DoH server's own domain (for example doh.opendns.com) in cleartext, so an in-path censor can poison it before any encrypted session exists.
-
DPYProxy-DNS's automated probe-and-select mode identified a working DNS circumvention in an average of 13.78 seconds (median 12.90s) in China and 12.32 seconds (median 8.28s) in Iran across 100 runs each; best-case startup was 0.32s (China) and 0.47s (Iran) when the first-tried combination succeeded, while worst-case exceeded 30.72s in China and 58.16s in Iran due to the slow Last Response mode (3s fixed wait per attempt) being selected early in the randomized probe order.
-
The GFW operates as an on-path censor that injects forged DNS responses faster than the real resolver but cannot suppress the legitimate response from also arriving. Waiting approximately 3 seconds and accepting the last-received UDP response circumvented GFW DNS injection for 40 of 41 tested public resolvers in China; the single exception (Cloudflare 1.1.1.1) was IP-blocked via packet dropping rather than injection racing.
-
DNS censorship of encrypted protocols is inconsistent in both China and Iran. In China, Yandex resolvers are censored only when the SNI extension is present; omitting SNI bypasses censorship for these resolvers. In Iran, DoH requires SNI omission for Quad9, Google, Adguard, CleanBrowsing, and NextDNS resolvers, but works with SNI for Yandex and Cisco resolvers. These inconsistencies suggest resolvers have been accidentally missed by censors, highlighting the value of automated tools that trial all resolver-mode combinations rather than hard-coding a single strategy. The support evaluation found 47 resolvers supporting DoH, 16 supporting DoH3, and only 8 supporting DoQ out of ~65 tested.
-
DPYProxy-DNS tested 8 circumvention modes against DNS censorship from vantage points in Iran (AS201295, Mashhad) and China (AS4837, China Unicom). In Iran, DoQ was entirely uncensored even with the SNI extension present; DoH3 worked for all Cloudflare and NextDNS resolvers. Iran's censor operates in-path (not on-path like the GFW), making the "Last Response" mode (wait 3s for the last UDP reply) ineffective in Iran but highly effective in China. Auto-mode averaged 12.32s (median 8.28s) in Iran and 13.78s (median 12.90s) in China to discover a working combination. Most DoT and DoH resolvers also work once the SNI extension is omitted. Because Iran's censor is in-path rather than on-path, the GFW-style last-response technique fails entirely there: the original query never reaches the real resolver.
-
TCP segmentation (splitting a DNS message into 20-byte TCP fragments) successfully circumvented DNS censorship in China for nearly all resolvers that support TCP. In Iran, TCP segmentation was only partially effective due to the censor's ability to reassemble TCP fragments when system load permits—some runs succeeded completely, others failed entirely across all resolvers. The "Last Response" mode (wait 3 seconds for the final UDP reply) was highly effective against China's on-path GFW injector for all resolvers except the fully IP-blocked Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 resolver. In China the technique worked for 40 of 41 tested resolvers.