Leaderboard

The implementation tunnels WireGuard UDP traffic through HTTP/3 using the QUIC protocol, making encrypted VPN traffic look identical to regular web browsing.SQUIC started as Google's project to accelerate web traffic and became HTTP/3 in June 2022. The protocol uses UDP instead of TCP, eliminating handshake delays. Mullvad exploits the MASQUE tunneling spec (RFC 9298) to proxy UDP through HTTP servers. State censors (China etc.) see HTTPS web traffic while the VPN tunnel hides inside that envelopetate censors see HTTPS web traffic while the VPN tunnel hides inside that envelope. Can we get this? taken from:

Your grumpy response is amusing, but perhaps not quite the spirit of helpfulness I am seeking. But I shall persist, Alex; you and I probably share a vision of an internet that is nudged into being VPN-friendly. We don't also need to be warring with each other on top of that. When I asked whether AirVPN could do something about it, what I actually meant was that AirVPN should do something about it. Specifically, if there are shared blocklists†, as I suspect, they could work with abuse teams to remove the blacklisting. I used to do some spam-fighting many years ago, with honeypots and the like, and that's exactly the kind of arms race that we had there. Reporters would report spam using the SMTP headers, it would influence various interconnected blocklists in subtle ways, and good service providers would be thus encouraged to terminate abusive accounts. I just contacted the admins of a large site, and I've mentioned their infra is emitting a high number of 429 responses, starting in the last few months, even though I've used them for many years. I've given them an example IP; I'm hopeful they'll come back to me with a concrete reason for their site's behaviour. Interestingly it makes no odds whether I am signed in, so I wonder if there could be some kind of WAF in the way. † Or they could be sharing the same large edge provider e.g. Cloudflare.

According to this definition there is no censorship at all anywhere enforced by governments, not in North Korea, not in France, not in China... Please note that your definition is pure fantasy, if not insulting. Censorship is exactly suppression of speech, public communication, or other information subversive of the "common good", or against a given narrative, by law or other means of enforcement. The fact that censorship is enforced by law or by a government body does not make it less censorship. Furthermore, historically censorship was an exclusive matter of some central authority (the first well documented case is maybe the censorship rules to preserve the Athenian youth, infringed by Socrates, for which he was put to death, although the etymology comes from the Roman Office of Censor which had the duty to regulate on citizens' moral practices) and today censorship by governments is predominant. Even In modern times censorship through laws has been and is predominant and pervasive according to Britannica and many academic researches. Then you can discuss ad nauseam whether censorship by law is "right" or "wrong", whether France's censorship is "better" than China's censorship, but you can't change the definition of censorship, otherwise this discussion will become delirious. Kind regards