this post was submitted on 09 May 2026
244 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

84569 readers
3844 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@lemmy.today 38 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (8 children)

However, such efforts are technically flawed because the only reliable method for identifying VPN protocol signatures is deep packet inspection at the network level, which the EPRS paper doesn’t mention.

I mean, you can tunnel whatever over whatever. You can tunnel a VPN over anything else that's encrypted, so unless you also want to ban SSH and HTTPS connections and suchlike (well, okay, for UDP-based VPNs, you'd probably prefer something UDP-based, but I think that the point stands), you're going to have trouble, say, blocking OpenVPN connections.

Tor exists for the explicit purpose of not being blocked.

Maybe you could try to characterize VPN traffic and do traffic analysis without being able to look inside the encrypted payload, say "VPN traffic tends to look like this", but again, it's not that hard to add noise to the signal.

And you don't even mostly need a full-on VPN for most of this, since it's mostly just people trying to access Web services.

Get yourself any Linux system in some less-restrictive location (which I'll call server) running OpenSSH. SSH into it from client like so:

[tal@client ~] $ ssh server -N -D127.0.0.1:1080

On the client, install the Proxy Toggle Firefox plugin. Set it to use localhost, port 1080 as a SOCKS5 proxy. Click the toolbar button to toggle on proxy use. Now all your browser traffic is coming from that remote server. All a network provider can see is an SSH connection. Click again, and you're back to normal mode.

But tal, that's complicated. Some people won't know how to use SSH.

So is virtually everything that a computer does. Raytracing. Image composition. Decoding discrete cosine transformation encodings. Rendering real-time video game worlds. If there's a need, someone goes out and writes software that makes it easy for the end user. And if you create a situation where there is an unlimited quantity of stuff that a lot of end users want access to behind a wall which someone can make a one-click program to bypass, it's probably a reasonably safe bet that that those one-click programs are going to show up.

There is no loophole that can be trivially closed here. It's a fundamental limitation


if users are going to be able to send traffic that you cannot inspect the inside of


and avoiding that would mean encryption spanning your borders being disallowed, which you probably do not want


then they can appear to be coming from wherever in the outside world they want.

And plenty of people pointed out that this was a problem before age-verification stuff was put into force. This isn't a situation where one just does the thing and there are a few lingering minor issues to iron out. It's fundamental to the concept of doing age verification.

But voters don't want their kids seeing porn.

Well, frankly, if said kids have Internet access and they want to see porn, they probably are going to be able to see porn or otherwise enjoy use of the least-restrictive set of rules out there. That's part of having a world-spanning network where people can communicate with each other. There is going to be blasphemy and pornography and political extremism and stuff saying that Santa Claus doesn't exist out there. Some of that is going to be material that doesn't conform to the set of social norms where you live and will conform to social norms elsewhere in the world. I don't personally see that as all that catastrophic.

[–] alakey@piefed.social 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Theoretically - yes there will be some loophole to do some stuff online. Something tells me people don't exactly want to pay for gigabit connections and then be forced to tunnel through kilobit loopholes. Look at north korea to see the end goal, look at iran to see phase 3, look at russia to see phase 2, you are currently in phase 1 of the plan to isolate the internet.

Tor also has been banned in authoritarian shitholes for ages. New bridge IPs pop up and get banned daily. Good luck getting a working bridge in the first place, too.

[–] belsedar@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 days ago

Just gonna say that the Tor situation in such places is actually not as bad as you say. Look at what the Tor project did in Russia when it tightened internet control: it brought new tech out of beta, implemented a couple of changes, and restored connectivity to any decently techy person. The only thing that authoritarian states have shown us is that there will always be a loophole, hell, even when that loophole is considered illegal, its still there and is still used. The only way to truly control the internet is to kill it, otherwise there will always be someone smart enough and motivated enough to beat whatever restrictions are put in place.

load more comments (6 replies)