Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

gfw.report

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 195 posts

Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

#111

Post by wkat4242 »

dbetteridge wrote: post #21
wkat4242 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah if I'd sneak off to work from another place I'd pick somewhere really nice. Not China.

Have you ever been to China? Because they have some of the most beautiful scenery and buildings I've seen and I've been to dozens of countries. Personally I wouldn't go there for remote work, because the internet interference is a pain but a holiday definitely.

No I have not. And I never will unless their government gives up its autocratic tendencies. I would never submit to that. Because of that it doesn't matter how beautiful it is, for me it will not be a nice place to be.

Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

#112

Post by aaron695 »

eastbound wrote: post #10
kotri wrote: post #2

Terrible, this is Internet curfew. It's not uncommon to imagine they'd shutdown Internet across border during any war (like against Taiwan).

In fact, it’s a common tactic to do something unusual, in a recurrent way, so people aren’t alerted when it happens for real. (When the Mossad stole 7 boats from a French port (that they had fully paid), they prepared a few months in advance by having the pilots start the engines every night at 23:00, pretending they needed it against the cold temperatures. When they day came, they started the engines and left, no-on…

[dead]

Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

#113

Post by Hizonner »

outworlder wrote: post #51
kotri wrote: post #2

Terrible, this is Internet curfew. It's not uncommon to imagine they'd shutdown Internet across border during any war (like against Taiwan).

> Terrible, this is Internet curfew. If you think this is bad... You can't even have a blog in China without authorization. It doesn't matter if you pay "AWS" for a machine. It won't open port 80 or 443 until you get an ICP recordal. Which you can only do if you are in China, and get the approval. It should also be displayed in the site, like a license plate. The reason "AWS" is in quotes is because it isn't AWS, the…

> You can only point to IPs in China from DNS servers in China - if you try to use, say, Route53 in the US and add an A record there, you'll get a nasty email (fail to comply, and your ports get blocked again, possibly for good).

Wait what? So I can DoS any Web site in China by creating a rogue DNS record that points to its IP address, even under a completely unrelated domain? How would they even find those records?

Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

#114

Post by hunter2_ »

Hizonner wrote: post #113
outworlder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Terrible, this is Internet curfew. If you think this is bad... You can't even have a blog in China without authorization. It doesn't matter if you pay "AWS" for a machine. It won't open port 80 or 443 until you get an ICP recordal. Which you can only do if you are in China, and get the approval. It should also be displayed in the site, like a license plate. The reason "AWS" is in quotes is because it isn't AWS, the…

> You can only point to IPs in China from DNS servers in China - if you try to use, say, Route53 in the US and add an A record there, you'll get a nasty email (fail to comply, and your ports get blocked again, possibly for good). Wait what? So I can DoS any Web site in China by creating a rogue DNS record that points to its IP address, even under a completely unrelated domain? How would they even find those records?

I guess they would find it the moment someone in China using a Chinese resolver tries to resolve your rogue record, since that would recurse to one of the root mirrors in China, which presumably feeds this mechanism.

Seems like a very minor speed bump in your plan, though: presumably something like https://www.chinafirewalltest.com would achieve that, or send a few emails for folks to click.

Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

#115

Post by Hizonner »

hunter2_ wrote: post #114
Hizonner wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can only point to IPs in China from DNS servers in China - if you try to use, say, Route53 in the US and add an A record there, you'll get a nasty email (fail to comply, and your ports get blocked again, possibly for good). Wait what? So I can DoS any Web site in China by creating a rogue DNS record that points to its IP address, even under a completely unrelated domain? How would they even find those records?

I guess they would find it the moment someone in China using a Chinese resolver tries to resolve your rogue record, since that would recurse to one of the root mirrors in China, which presumably feeds this mechanism. Seems like a very minor speed bump in your plan, though: presumably something like https://www.chinafirewalltest.com would achieve that, or send a few emails for folks to click.

I swear to use this power only for lulz.

Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

#116

Post by physicles »

jart wrote: post #63
est wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

outage would mean a connection timeout in this case, the connection works fine, some extra RST+ACK packets were delivered to your network on purpose

Which could easily be explained by a buggy rollout to their great firewall. What does China gain from intentionally blocking SSL for one hour?

Data on the impact that such measures would have, should they decide to implement them in the future.

Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

#118

Post by johnisgood »

const_cast wrote: post #109
johnisgood wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not say "unambiguously" when it comes to natural languages. And no, "America" may have referred to the US when I was a kid and here in Central Europe we had Back to the Future type of shoes with the American flag, yeah, and I would not say unambiguously so. If someone says "America" to refer to a place, they really ought to specify if they want you to understand them.

But America isn't a place. There's the America s , as in plural, referring to the continents of North America and South America. So America is unassigned, hence why we assigned it to the USA colloquially.

I keep getting down-voted, but I have never been against being specific, in fact, I was advocating to be specific[1], i.e. North American, Latin American, South America, etc.

[1] "If someone says "America" to refer to a place, they really ought to specify if they want you to understand them.".

Additionally, natural languages are inherently ambiguous.

So ugh, I do not think we disagree.

Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

#119

Post by chickenzzzzu »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #72
chickenzzzzu wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that because you don't hold a Chinese or Indian passport. Now think of those who do, who have family obligations, food preferences, local bank accounts.

> You say that because you don't hold a Chinese or Indian passport. Not really. People like it in China, regardless of whether they're Chinese. I took an English teaching certification course in Shanghai. The teachers for that course were used to rotating around the world as the company held courses in various random locations. One day the teachers asked what was apparently a standard question for them, "are you plan…

We are agreeing with each other

Re: Analysis of the GFW's Unconditional Port 443 Block on August 20, 2025

#120

Post by chickenzzzzu »

Shank wrote: post #84
chickenzzzzu wrote: post #4

Think of how many people who have remote jobs with American companies couldn't connect to their meetings while they "work from home" while secretly being in China! Normally they have to fight VPN issues anyway, but having a sovereign state inject your packets is certainly a fun new one.

Anyone operating in/around China who needs a real VPN has a service they pay for and use that isn't mainstream that isn't blocked (using V2ray or similar). There's a reason why Shadowrocket is the number 1 app on the app store. I'm sure there are a lot of cases of people using e.g., off-the-shelf VPN apps and have trouble, but power users in China are always running a VPN, usually to Japan, that doesn't have this pro…

How do you propose users in China will magically get around a nation state injecting packets?
Post reply on HN