101
It must look ridiculous to the ISP to see on average 2TB of scrambled, outgoing UDP packets/month... (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)
submitted 18 hours ago by to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

...versus the 1-2GB of incoming traffic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 0 points 10 hours ago (6 children)

What does frequency mean in this context?

In any case, they could also run an AI and do pattern recognition to identify exactly what is being transferred. Too bad my VPN doesn't yet provide DAITA as a separate package that can be installed on a router...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 7 hours ago* (5 children)

    Size and timing of packets. Protocols generally have consistent patterns, so say always 6 packets with the last 3/4ths filled. Then some keepalive at regular intervals (i.e. tracker updates), establising new peer connections, ...
    Luckily this deep inspection is illegal for isps in the eu.

    Russia, China, and Iran are using the patterns to effectively block all normal VPN and proxy protocols. There, people need special tools that send fake packets, randomize timing, and split and group packets into different sizes. All of course decreasing speed and increasing latency.
    For UDP you'd also usually reencode packets as http3 warp ones so it looks like a video call.
    Then the other end needs the same tooling to restore the normal packets.

    Obfuscating it would be possible if necessary, but it's better when you aren't forced to maintain such an obfuscation stack.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

    Luckily this deep inspection is illegal for isps in the eu.

    Luckily one of the most populated police states in Europe didn't trick idiots into voting to leave the EU or anything...oh wait.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 hours ago (1 child)

    Obfuscating it would be possible if necessary, but it’s better when you aren’t forced to maintain such an obfuscation stack.

    I'd be delighted if my VPN provider provided even an obfuscation layer that I could use on my routers, but alas...

    For UDP you’d also usually reencode packets as http3 warp ones so it looks like a video call. Then the other end needs the same tooling to restore the normal packets.

    Is this similar to when you mask it as webrtc?

    Luckily this deep inspection is illegal for isps in the eu.

    As per the GDPR or something else?

    There, people need special tools that send fake packets, randomize timing, and split and group packets into different sizes. All of course decreasing speed and increasing latency.

    Something other than DAITA?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •