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

71–80 of 195 posts

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

#71

Post by Faaak »

UltraSane wrote: post #57
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…

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?

Actually, they wouldn't really know unless this domain is used. I guess they check the `Host` header to get the domain that targeted this IP and then check where the MX are hosted.

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

#72

Post by thaumasiotes »

chickenzzzzu wrote: post #17
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.

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 planning to stay here after you get the certification?"

And they were flabbergasted when everyone answered yes. Apparently in most of the locations that offer CELTA courses, the majority of people come for the course and get out as soon as they can.

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

#73

Post by spauldo »

flohofwoe wrote: post #46
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine what people would say about Cloudflare if they had an hour long outage That Cloudflare had an outage. Not America.

> That Cloudflare had an outage. Not America. You probably mean the USA? After all, it was China and not Asia which was responsible for the incident ;)

In English, there is no continent named "America." It's unambiguously used to refer to the United States.

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

#74

Post by gorgoiler »

How is traffic controlled inside PRC? Is GFW a central hub for all traffic between all hosts? Or between residential ASNs and commercial ones only? In the UK and Iran a lot of censorship was implemented by leaning on ISPs at IP level (eg BT Cleanfeed) and with DNS blocks but I haven’t kept up to date with how networks might handle residential hosting. Maybe internal traffic is just all banned?

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

#75

Post by est »

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?

Hanlon's razor

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

#76

Post by perihelions »

ceejayoz wrote: post #68
perihelions wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very expensive to take down 10-100k at once. No one today has that many antisat-capable missiles stockpiled. Relevant, Chinese domestic media reporting on China's own perspective: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3178939/chin... ( "China military must be able to destroy Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites if they threaten national security: scientists" (2022)) > "Researchers call for development of anti-sa…

EMP?

If you're talking about nuclear weapons, their major effect on satellites (Starfish Prime as the reference point) isn't EMP effects, but ionizing radiation—creating a persistent radiation belt of MeV electrons. (A physical process that took months to disable some satellites). Beyond that I don't know much.

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

#77

Post by baq »

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.

space is huge and the orbit is low. I'm not so sure debris would be as effective as on higher orbits.

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

#78

Post by Tuna-Fish »

mryall wrote: post #50
wkat4242 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Starlink connects you to the internet via a ground station in the country where you are registered, and the antenna will also only operate in an approved zone (depending on your country and account type). You cannot use it in China.

> Starlink connects you to the internet via a ground station in the country where you are registered

Not true anymore.

> and the antenna will also only operate in an approved zone (depending on your country and account type). You cannot use it in China.

This is still correct.

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

#79

Post by mschuster91 »

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…

It was five boats [1], an good story nonetheless. Think whatever you want about Mossad, it can not be denied that these guys have balls.

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

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

#80

Post by johnisgood »

spauldo wrote: post #73
flohofwoe wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That Cloudflare had an outage. Not America. You probably mean the USA? After all, it was China and not Asia which was responsible for the incident ;)

In English, there is no continent named "America." It's unambiguously used to refer to the United States.

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.

Post reply on HN