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

51–60 of 195 posts

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

#51

Post by outworlder »

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, they got kicked out. In Beijing, it is actually Sinnet, in Nginxia it's NWCD

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).

In a nutshell, they not only can shutdown cross border traffic (and that can happen randomly if the Great Firewall gets annoyed at your packets, and it also gets overloaded during China business hours), but they can easily shutdown any website they want.

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

#52

Post by cyberax »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #37
Zacharias030 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how though?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi... Every major power has polluted near Earth space as a show of power.

One missile for one satellite? This gets expensive really fast.

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

#54

Post by therein »

cyberax wrote: post #52
4gotunameagain wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi... Every major power has polluted near Earth space as a show of power.

One missile for one satellite? This gets expensive really fast.

They follow well defined orbits and propellant limited. You could easily cover their trajectory with some shrapnel and attack it one lane at a time.

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

#55

Post by audunw »

progbits wrote: post #34
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If war breaks out, it'll likely be enabled.

No it won't but if it did would take just few hours for china to shoot a bunch of them down and with how tightly packed their orbits are the debree would take care of the rest.

I’m not so sure debris would help take down other satellites in that orbit. The orbit is very low so much of the debris that ends up with a deviation in its orbit will fall down. Even if it doesn’t there’s still air resistance up there which may cause more of the debris to deorbit before jt has time to hit other satellites.

And I doubt China would want to make LEO impossible to move through anyway. It’d affect China badly as well

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

#56

Post by preisschild »

wkat4242 wrote: post #11
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).

Could you bring something like a starlink mini for backup i wonder? Id imagine this would be very worrying being stuck there as a foreigner in such a situation.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/10/23397301/elon-musk-starl...

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

#57

Post by UltraSane »

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…

AWS in China also doesn't have the Key Management Service, which leads to me to conclude it must be pretty secure.

I added an A record for subdomain and pointed it at Chinese IP addresses. I wonder if I will get that angry email?

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

#60

Post by perihelions »

therein wrote: post #54
cyberax wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One missile for one satellite? This gets expensive really fast.

They follow well defined orbits and propellant limited. You could easily cover their trajectory with some shrapnel and attack it one lane at a time.

Not feasible. That would entail putting shrapnel into orbit (unlike extant anti-sat weapons which are short-range suborbital), which would mean a full orbital launch for every satellite target orbit. There's hundreds[0] of Starlink orbital groups already, so that'd require hundreds of independent orbital launches in a short timescale—far beyond China's launch capabilities today.

[0] https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/planes.html

(On general principles, you could argue you'd need 1:1 launch vehicle parity (number, not payload) to defeat a satellite constellation this way. For each satellite launch, you'd need one corresponding anti-satellite launch into that same, newly-defined orbit).

Post reply on HN