Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

DNS blocking

DNS blocking is a technique that restricts access to specific domain names or addresses—and the content or services associated with them—by interfering with the (DNS) resolution process, which translates human-readable domain names into numerical addresses used by computers to locate online resources. This interference typically occurs at the DNS resolver level, where queries for blocked domains are manipulated to return errors (such as NXDOMAIN responses indicating the domain does not exist), redirected to innocuous addresses, or sinkholed to null routes, effectively denying users the correct information needed to reach the target site. The practice is pervasively employed by service providers, enterprises, and network operators to enhance by blocking domains linked to , , or botnets, thereby protecting users from cyber threats before connections are established. Governments also mandate DNS blocking for public safety objectives, such as restricting access to sites hosting material or terrorist propaganda, though these implementations often extend to broader content controls. Despite its utility in threat mitigation, DNS blocking remains controversial due to its frequent use in state-sponsored , where it enables rapid, low-cost domain-level restrictions but suffers from technical limitations including widespread overblocking of legitimate subdomains or shared resources, and easy circumvention via alternative resolvers, encrypted DNS protocols like , or VPNs that tunnel traffic beyond the block. Such deployments can fragment the global by creating national or regional silos, undermining the DNS's foundational role in a unified, interoperable while raising causal concerns about unintended escalations in digital controls that prioritize policy enforcement over resilient, .

Technical Fundamentals

Definition and Mechanism

DNS blocking, also referred to as DNS filtering, is a network control technique that restricts user access to specific domains or websites by manipulating responses from the (DNS), the 's distributed directory service that translates human-readable domain names into machine-readable addresses. This method operates at the DNS resolution layer rather than blocking traffic at the IP or application level, making it a lightweight form of censorship or content filtering often implemented by internet service providers (ISPs), governments, or enterprises. The core mechanism begins when a client device, such as a , initiates a DNS query for a target domain (e.g., ) by sending a or packet to a configured DNS resolver, typically the ISP's recursive resolver or a public one like 8.8.8.8. The resolver iteratively queries root servers, (TLD) servers, and authoritative name servers to retrieve the associated A (IPv4) or (IPv6) record containing the destination . In a blocking scenario, the intervening DNS authority—often a modified recursive resolver or proxy—intercepts this query and consults predefined blocklists or policies derived from categories like , , or prohibited content. If the domain matches a block criterion, the resolver forges a response: common tactics include returning an NXDOMAIN error (indicating the domain does not exist), a SERVFAIL ( ), a status, or an pointing to a local "block page" displaying an access-denied message, thereby preventing the client from establishing a connection to the actual site. This interception can occur via , where responses are altered in transit (e.g., through man-in-the-middle attacks or router-level redirection), or through cooperative authoritative servers that withhold records for targeted domains. Unlike deeper packet inspection, DNS blocking scales efficiently for broad enforcement but is inherently circumventable by switching to alternative resolvers, using encrypted DNS protocols like (DoH) or (DoT), or accessing sites via IP addresses directly. Empirical tests, such as those measuring resolution latency, show blocking adds minimal overhead—often under 100ms—while achieving near-total prevention for compliant clients.

Types of DNS Interference

DNS interference refers to deliberate manipulations of the (DNS) process to disrupt, alter, or control the resolution of domain names to addresses, often employed for blocking, filtering, or . These techniques typically occur at recursive resolvers, authoritative nameservers, or boundaries, where queries are intercepted and responses are modified to prevent legitimate access. One primary type involves response forgery at the recursive resolver level, such as returning an NXDOMAIN code, which signals that the queried domain does not exist, thereby blocking resolution without revealing the actual . This method is lightweight and commonly used by public DNS resolvers like for filtering malicious domains, as it avoids directing traffic to any endpoint. Alternatively, resolvers may return a null IP address like , a non-routable address that causes connection failures without consuming network resources, as implemented by services such as for efficient blocking. Redirection or sinkholing constitutes another form, where the resolver substitutes the legitimate with an pointing to a controlled , often displaying a block notification page or logging queries for monitoring. This approach, used by providers like Cisco Umbrella with dedicated ranges (e.g., 146.112.61.106), allows for user on the restriction while enabling further of blocked . In some cases, internal gateways or (127.0.0.1) IPs are returned for localized blocking, integrating with tools to provide transparent explanations via extensions. Query dropping or refusal represents a passive variant, where the resolver ignores or discards requests entirely, resulting in timeouts that render the service unreliable for targeted domains. More explicitly, a response may be issued, potentially augmented with Extended DNS Error Code 16 ("Censored") as standardized in RFC 8914 (published October 23, 2020), to indicate intentional external blocking and facilitate circumvention or appeals, as adopted by on September 3, 2024. At the authoritative level, interference can involve domain suspension by registries or registrars, which removes entries from zone files via status flags like ServerHold or ClientHold, preventing global resolution; this affects thousands of malicious domains daily for reasons such as mitigation. Active techniques, including on-wire query filtering or DNS injection, forge responses near network boundaries to enforce blocks, as seen in state-sponsored where sensitive keywords trigger synthetic replies. Such methods, while effective for rapid enforcement, risk over-blocking, as evidenced by Italy's Piracy Shield initiative on October 19, 2024, which inadvertently restricted access to due to domain mislisting.

Historical Evolution

Origins and Early Adoption (Pre-2000)

The technique of DNS blocking, involving the manipulation or querying of Domain Name System records to prevent access to specified resources, originated in the context of anti-spam efforts during the mid-1990s internet expansion. Prior to widespread DNS-based methods, network administrators relied on static IP address lists, firewall rules, or manual hosts file edits to restrict unwanted traffic, which proved inefficient as email volumes surged with commercial internet adoption around 1994-1995. These limitations prompted innovators to leverage DNS's distributed query-response mechanism for scalable, real-time checks against abuse lists. In October 1997, and Dave Rand, as part of the Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS), launched the Real-time Blackhole List (RBL), the first Domain Name System-based Blackhole List (DNSBL). This system allowed mail to perform a DNS lookup on a reversed of an incoming connection (e.g., querying 1.2.3.4.bl.example.org for IP 4.3.2.1); a matching record returned the originating blacklist domain, signaling rejection of the as or from open relays abused for unsolicited bulk mail. Initially distributed via feeds before shifting to DNS queries, the RBL rapidly gained adoption among ISPs and enterprises, with thousands of integrating it by 1998 to filter incoming SMTP traffic and educate providers on abuse mitigation. Early adoption extended beyond to rudimentary controls in environments, though web-focused DNS blocking remained nascent pre-2000 due to the web's relative immaturity and reliance on proxy-based or IP-level filters. Corporate and educational s began configuring local DNS resolvers to return null or erroneous responses for s hosting or unauthorized content, building on RBL principles for outgoing query validation. By 1999, variants like the Multi-Purpose Anti-Abuse List emerged, expanding DNSBLs to cover dial-up abuse and spam sources, demonstrating the method's versatility for threat mitigation without . These implementations highlighted DNS blocking's efficiency in resource-constrained infrastructure, where bandwidth and processing limits favored lightweight tampering over content analysis.

Proliferation in the Digital Age (2000-2019)

During the early 2000s, China's Great Firewall expanded its use of DNS injection and as a primary mechanism for censoring foreign websites, with initial reports of spoofed DNS responses emerging in 2002 to redirect or block queries for prohibited domains. This technique, part of the broader initiated in the late 1990s but scaled significantly by 2006, targeted political dissent, pornography, and foreign media, affecting millions of users as China's penetration grew from under 10% in 2000 to over 20% by 2009. By 2010, the system enforced blocks on major platforms like , which refused government-mandated filtering, compelling users to rely on state-approved alternatives or circumvention tools. The adoption of DNS blocking proliferated beyond as internet access surged globally, reaching approximately 1 billion users by 2005 and prompting both authoritarian and democratic governments to implement it for content control. In authoritarian contexts, regimes like Iran's employed DNS tampering during the 2009 Green Movement protests to suppress information flow, while Russia's early 2010s regulations laid groundwork for DNS-based restrictions on opposition sites, though full-scale sovereign internet controls emerged later. Even in Western democracies, DNS blocking gained traction for targeted enforcement; the 's in 2012 mandated major ISPs, including Sky and , to block via DNS resolution failures to combat under the Digital Economy Act, affecting over one-third of UK broadband users and setting a precedent later extended to proxy sites. By the mid-2010s, DNS blocking's simplicity—requiring only server-level modifications without —facilitated its spread to over 30 countries for purposes ranging from protection to political suppression, though its efficacy waned due to easy circumvention via public DNS services like . exemplified escalation in 2014, initially tampering with DNS to block amid corruption investigations, only to extend blocks to alternative resolvers like Google DNS when users bypassed restrictions, impacting tens of millions and highlighting the method's role in short-term crisis response. Similar implementations in countries like ( block in 2012) and (intermittent site blocks during communal tensions) underscored DNS blocking's appeal for rapid, low-cost intervention, despite collateral effects like overblocking legitimate content shared on the same infrastructure. This period marked a shift from ad-hoc filters to institutionalized systems, driven by rising online threats but often criticized for enabling broader surveillance without robust oversight.

Contemporary Developments (2020-Present)

In response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, intensified DNS-based blocking of foreign news sites and platforms, with ordering ISPs to block access to domains like Facebook.com and Instagram.com by March 2022, affecting millions of users and contributing to broader internet isolation. This escalation built on prior mechanisms, incorporating DNS resolution interference alongside to enforce wartime information controls, as documented in assessments highlighting systemic throttling and domain-level restrictions. Italy implemented the "Piracy Shield" system between 2024 and 2025, mandating ISPs, DNS resolvers, and VPN providers to block domains associated with unauthorized streaming and sites within hours of judicial orders, targeting over 500 domains in initial enforcement waves to combat violations. Similar measures expanded in the , with , , and issuing dynamic blocking injunctions for pirate sites via courts or agencies, resolving thousands of domain blocks annually by mid-2025 to protect content industries. Cybersecurity applications of DNS blocking surged, with global DNS traffic blocks reaching nearly 4% in Q2 2025, driven by defenses against AI-enhanced threats like malicious adtech and fast-flux botnets, as reported in industry analyses emphasizing domain sinkholing and resolver-level filtering. U.S. agencies, including CISA, recommended non-routable DNS responses to block fast-flux domains exploited in threats by April 2025, reflecting DNS blocking's integration into standard threat mitigation protocols despite risks of overblocking legitimate traffic. ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee revisited DNS blocking in May 2025, outlining its mechanisms—from TLD-wide blocks to specific interference—and warning of unintended consequences like resolver fragmentation and circumvention via encrypted DNS protocols such as . Concurrent reports highlighted growing infrastructure abuse, with DNS blocking contributing to internet balkanization in over 50 countries by mid-2025, undermining global through mandatory national resolvers and IP filtering. These developments sparked debates on balancing enforcement with access, as DNS blocking's ease of deployment masked collateral impacts on and user rights.

Implementation Methods

ISP and Network-Level Blocking

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) implement DNS blocking primarily through modifications to their recursive DNS resolvers, which users are directed to use via DHCP configurations or network policies. These resolvers can alter responses to queries for targeted domains by returning error codes such as NXDOMAIN (indicating the domain does not exist), SERVFAIL, or , thereby preventing resolution and subsequent access. Alternatively, resolvers may redirect queries to an hosting a notification page or remediation server, or simply drop queries without response. At the network level, operators employ deeper interference techniques, including on-path injection of forged DNS responses via (DPI) to override legitimate resolutions with incorrect IPs or denials. This can involve DNS tampering, such as cache poisoning where intermediate resolvers are fed false data, or mangling queries to return erroneous results. To enforce reliance on controlled resolvers, networks may block outbound DNS traffic on port 53 or hijack requests, redirecting them to ISP servers even if users configure alternative resolvers like 8.8.8.8. Such methods allow granular blocking of specific domains while affecting all users within the ISP's scope, though they risk overbroad impacts on subdomains or shared infrastructure. Examples include Italy's 2024 Piracy Shield initiative, where ISP-level DNS blocks on piracy-related domains inadvertently disrupted access to and services due to shared hosting. In Turkey's 2014 restrictions on and , ISPs hijacked DNS queries to and Level 3 resolvers, injecting false responses to enforce blocks. Brazil's 2024 court-ordered ban on X (formerly ) saw inconsistent ISP implementations, with some relying on DNS resolution failures rather than uniform network filtering. These approaches, while effective for compliance with legal mandates or security policies, often lead to unintended collateral blocking and can be circumvented via encrypted DNS protocols like (DoH) or alternative resolvers.

Governmental and Regulatory Approaches

Governments worldwide mandate DNS blocking primarily through legislation, regulatory orders, or court injunctions requiring internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent resolution of targeted domain names, often to enforce content restrictions, combat piracy, or mitigate threats. This approach leverages DNS as a low-cost, network-level control mechanism, where authorities compile blocklists of domains associated with prohibited material, directing ISPs to return null or erroneous responses to queries for those domains. Such mandates typically bypass direct infrastructure alteration by outsourcing enforcement to private ISPs, though implementation varies by jurisdiction, with some establishing national DNS resolvers for centralized control. In authoritarian regimes, DNS blocking forms part of comprehensive censorship systems. China's Great Firewall, operational since the late 1990s, employs DNS poisoning—injecting false responses or blocking lookups for foreign sites deemed sensitive, affecting an estimated 311,000 domains as of recent measurements and extending pollution to global resolvers via cached erroneous data. Russia's , the federal communications regulator, issues binding orders under laws like the 2012 Federal Law on Information to block sites for "" or non-compliance, frequently using DNS-level restrictions on ISPs, as seen in the 2018 Telegram blockade and ongoing VPN targeting. In , Section 69A of the empowers the government to direct DNS blocking for or public order, with over 10,000 URLs blocked annually via ISP mandates, predominantly through DNS interference rather than IP-level measures. Democratic nations integrate DNS blocking into targeted regulatory frameworks, often tied to specific harms like or . Australia's Copyright Act 1968, amended in 2015, enables federal court injunctions compelling ISPs to block piracy sites via DNS, resulting in over 100 orders by 2025, including dynamic blocking of streaming domains. The United Kingdom's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) promotes Protective DNS (PDNS) for public sector use, mandating blocks on malicious domains through deny lists to counter and , while Ofcom-enforced site blocking under the Digital Economy Act 2010 has targeted violators. In the , member states apply dynamic blocking injunctions under national implementations of the Directive (EU) 2019/790, allowing courts to order DNS blocks for pirate sites, with at least 20 countries operationalizing such regimes by 2025; the EU's DNS4EU initiative further supports protective resolution services compliant with GDPR for threat mitigation. Regulatory bodies often oversee compliance via audits or fines, but approaches differ in transparency and appeal mechanisms. At least 50 countries maintain legal frameworks explicitly enabling DNS blocking for , per industry analyses, though enforcement relies on ISP cooperation and faces circumvention via alternative resolvers. ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee notes that while government-mandated DNS blocking provides rapid deployment, it risks overblocking and , as evidenced by Italy's 2024 Piracy Shield erroneously restricting access.

Private Sector Applications

Private sector entities, including corporations, service providers (ISPs), and specialized vendors, implement DNS blocking to filter network traffic for , productivity, and compliance purposes. These applications typically involve redirecting DNS queries for prohibited domains to null responses, IPs, or block pages, often through commercial DNS services or custom resolvers integrated into enterprise networks. Unlike governmental mandates, private implementations are driven by voluntary policies, contractual agreements, or court orders targeting specific threats like domains. Commercial DNS filtering providers enable businesses to enforce granular controls by categorizing domains into lists for blocking, such as those associated with , , or non-work-related content. For instance, services like Cisco Umbrella and Gateway allow organizations to subscribe to real-time threat intelligence feeds, blocking millions of malicious domains daily based on and curated blocklists. In enterprise settings, DNS blocking integrates with secure web gateways to prevent risks, where employees might access unauthorized applications; providers report blocking access to risky apps in compliance with regulations like GDPR or HIPAA. ISPs in the occasionally deploy DNS blocking under voluntary industry codes or litigation-driven injunctions, particularly for enforcement against sites. In the United States, courts have ordered major ISPs to implement DNS resolution failures or redirects for domains hosting infringing content, as seen in a 2022 ruling affecting streaming operations. Such measures, while initiated by private rights holders, rely on ISP infrastructure to alter DNS responses without broader network disruption. Additionally, consumer-oriented services like NordLayer offer DNS category blocking for small businesses or households, restricting access to categories such as content or to enhance productivity or parental oversight. These private applications often leverage encrypted DNS protocols like (DoH) for privacy-preserving blocking, though this can complicate ISP-level enforcement if users bypass default resolvers. Vendors emphasize customizable policies, with examples including NordLayer's blocking of niche categories like sites for focused content governance in corporate environments. Overall, private DNS blocking prioritizes targeted threat mitigation over universal censorship, supported by analytics showing reduced exposure to attempts by up to 90% in filtered networks.

Beneficial Uses

Cybersecurity and Threat Mitigation

DNS blocking serves as a foundational mechanism in cybersecurity by preventing the resolution of domain names associated with known threats, thereby denying users access to malicious servers before any harmful payload can be downloaded or executed. This approach targets threats such as malware distribution sites, phishing domains, and command-and-control (C&C) infrastructure for botnets, acting as an early-stage filter in the kill chain. For instance, protective DNS services maintain blocklists of verified malicious domains, blocking queries in real-time to mitigate risks like ransomware and viruses that rely on initial domain resolution for infection vectors. A prominent application is DNS sinkholing, where authoritative responses redirect traffic from compromised domains to controlled servers operated by defenders, disrupting communications without altering user endpoints. This technique proved effective in the 2012 takedown of the , which had infected over 5 million devices worldwide; by sinkholing the malware's domains starting in November 2012, authorities severed C&C links, enabling widespread remediation and preventing further financial fraud estimated at $14 million annually. Similarly, a 2013 CERT Polska initiative used sinkholing to neutralize activity by intercepting and analyzing malicious traffic, demonstrating how such blocks can infections network-wide while gathering intelligence on compromised hosts. Enterprises and ISPs leverage response policy zones (RPZ) in DNS servers to enforce these blocks, often integrating threat intelligence feeds for dynamic updates, which has been validated as a viable defense against multiple lifecycle stages. Beyond reactive blocking, DNS-based protections enhance threat mitigation by monitoring query patterns to detect anomalies, such as amplification attacks or tunneling attempts, and preemptively denying resolution to suspicious domains. The Security and Stability Advisory Committee has affirmed DNS blocking's role as a proven tool for user protection, particularly in filtering attempts that comprise a significant portion of cyber incidents. While not impervious to evasion via alternative resolvers, its low overhead and scalability make it integral to layered defenses, with studies showing it reduces successful connections by intercepting them at the DNS layer.

Protection of Minors and Public Morality

DNS blocking has been employed to restrict access to material (CSAM) and other harmful content targeting minors, operating by preventing resolution for flagged sites at the network level. In the , the (IWF), established in 1996, maintains a block list of verified CSAM URLs, which ISPs implement via DNS filtering to deny UK users access; by 2023, this system blocked over 275,000 webpages annually, reducing visibility of such content without removing it from hosting servers. Similarly, the European Union's 2011 evaluation of voluntary blocking measures concluded that DNS-based filtering served as an essential interim tool for preventing access to CSAM, complementing criminal investigations, though it emphasized that blocking alone does not eradicate source material. These mechanisms rely on collaborative reporting from hotlines and , with ISPs required to update block lists dynamically to maintain efficacy. Private sector solutions extend this protection to households and schools through family-oriented DNS resolvers that filter adult content and enforce safe search. FamilyShield, launched in 2011 and updated as of 2025, uses predefined categories to block , , and across all network devices by default, configurable via router settings without per-device software. Cloudflare's for Families, introduced in April 2020, offers modes that block both and adult content, processing over 300 billion DNS requests daily and reporting a significant reduction in exposure to inappropriate sites for opted-in users. CleanBrowsing provides tiered filters, including a free family option that blocks explicit sites and enforces restricted mode, proven effective in home networks by redirecting queries to safe alternatives before content loads. Such tools prioritize preemptive denial of access, though their success depends on users adhering to the configured DNS servers, as circumvention via alternative resolvers remains possible. For broader public morality concerns, DNS blocking enforces restrictions on obscene or indecent material deemed contrary to societal standards, particularly in jurisdictions balancing free expression with harm prevention. Japan's 2010 guidelines mandated ISPs to block domains identified by police, expanding to non-visual by 2011, resulting in voluntary filtering that prevented circulation without mandatory legislation. In educational settings, DNS filtering in U.S. schools complies with the (CIPA) of 2000, blocking obscene content to safeguard minors during federally funded use; a 2025 analysis noted that such filters reduced exposure to harmful sites by up to 90% in controlled environments. However, ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) in SAC 127 (May 2025) assessed DNS blocking's limitations, stating it is only effective against users dependent on the blocking infrastructure and does little to deter determined actors or address content hosted on IP-direct accessed servers. Empirical data from reports underscores that while DNS measures mitigate casual access, comprehensive strategies targeting content production and distribution yield superior long-term results over filtering alone.

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights

DNS blocking is utilized to enforce intellectual property rights through judicial injunctions that direct internet service providers (ISPs) to configure their DNS resolvers to withhold IP addresses for domains linked to copyright-infringing content, such as unauthorized streaming or torrent distribution sites. This approach targets the domain resolution process to disrupt access without altering underlying internet routing, primarily applied in jurisdictions where courts deem it a proportionate remedy under copyright law. Over 50 countries permit such blocking measures, with 39 actively implementing them against piracy sites as of 2025. In the , the pioneered widespread DNS blocking for enforcement with its April 30, 2012, order mandating major ISPs, including , , and TalkTalk, to block , identified as a primary facilitator of illegal file-sharing. This was followed by expanded s; by mid-2024, UK ISPs had enforced blocks on more than 7,000 piracy domains and subdomains pursuant to court orders from rights holders like the and . On October 24, 2025, the issued a further at the request of the Publishers Association, requiring ISPs to block sites distributing pirated books and academic journals, extending the mechanism to literary works. Comparable court-ordered DNS blocks occur across the , often under national implementations of the EU Copyright Directive. In , a 2018 judicial decision authorized DNS-level restrictions on multiple infringing sites to curb unauthorized content dissemination. 's Intellectual Property Court, in September 2024, mandated to block a domain and over 500 subdomains associated with IP violations. In , a 2021 regional court ruling compelled the Swiss DNS resolver to block access to a site at Music's behest, though enforcement faced resistance over jurisdictional reach, highlighting tensions in applying blocks to non-local resolvers. Empirical assessments indicate these measures reduce traffic to blocked sites by 70% or more in the UK, with one study documenting a 74% decline following initial orders, alongside proxy site usage drops. Broader analyses report legal content consumption rising 3.1% to 12% post-blocking, as users shift from infringing platforms. However, blocks primarily deter casual infringement, as technically adept users circumvent them via alternative DNS servers or VPNs, prompting "dynamic" injunctions in places like the UK and Canada to target emerging mirrors. Rights holders argue this complements dehosting and payment disruptions, forming a multi-layered enforcement strategy, though long-term efficacy depends on consistent judicial oversight to address site migrations.

National Security Measures

DNS blocking serves as a tool by preventing users within a from resolving domains linked to terrorist propaganda, recruitment platforms, or command-and-control () servers operated by adversarial entities. This approach disrupts operational capabilities without requiring physical takedowns, which often prove challenging for content hosted on foreign servers. Governments justify such blocks on the grounds that unrestricted access facilitates , financing, and coordination of attacks, from disrupted plots linking online exposure to real-world actions. In the , the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU), launched in 2010 under the Association of Chief Police Officers, coordinates with internet service providers to enforce DNS-level blocks on domains hosting terrorist material. By 2018, public referrals had supported investigations leading to the assessment of thousands of extremist content pieces, many resulting in ISP-mandated DNS restrictions to curb dissemination. This mechanism targets groups proscribed under UK law, such as affiliates, limiting their online reach amid evidence that such sites have driven lone-actor incidents. The employs protective DNS services to counter state-sponsored threats, exemplified by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's (CISA) Protective DNS Resolver, which filters federal traffic to block malicious resolutions. Operational since prior years, the service intercepted over 1 billion threat attempts by mid-2024, including domains tied to and campaigns. Complementing this, a joint CISA-NSA advisory on April 3, 2025, identified fast flux DNS techniques—rapid IP rotations enabling resilient malicious networks—as a risk exploited by nation-state actors, recommending DNS blocking or sinkholing to deny access and degrade adversary persistence. These applications prioritize rapid response to verified threats, with agencies like CISA integrating threat intelligence feeds to dynamically update blocklists, thereby reducing attack surfaces for . While effectiveness hinges on accurate attribution and minimal overblocking, data from implemented systems indicate substantial mitigation of inbound cyber operations originating from sanctioned entities.

Problematic Applications

Political and Ideological Censorship

DNS blocking serves as a tool for by governments seeking to deny citizens access to websites disseminating opposition views, historical critiques, or ideological alternatives, often through DNS poisoning or resolution failures that return erroneous or no responses for targeted domains. In authoritarian contexts, this method enables rapid, low-cost suppression without altering underlying , though it is technically circumventable via alternative resolvers. Empirical measurements from network probes indicate widespread deployment in countries with centralized controls, where blocks correlate with surges in domestic unrest or international criticism. China's Great Firewall exemplifies systematic DNS-based ideological censorship, blocking resolution for domains hosting content on events like the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests or critiques of the , affecting an estimated 311,000 domains as of recent analyses. State-controlled ISPs inject false DNS responses at border autonomous systems, typically two to three hops into the network, preventing users from reaching foreign sites such as those operated by organizations or . This mechanism, active since the early 2000s, enforces ideological conformity by rendering "sensitive" queries—keywords related to or independence—unresolvable, with blocks expanding during anniversaries of political incidents. In , has utilized DNS blocking to target opposition outlets, ordering ISPs to blacklist domains of sites like Navalny's or those reporting on , with over 20,000 webpages blocked between February 2022 and August 2024 for alleged dissemination of "false information" about the conflict. During 2022 tests of the Sovereign Internet law, authorities throttled encrypted DNS protocols from providers like and , disrupting access to blocked opposition mirrors and foreign news aggregators. Network data from probes show these interventions peaked amid protests, such as those following Alexei Navalny's 2021 poisoning, where DNS failures affected millions of users reliant on default resolvers. Iran employs DNS censorship during periods of ideological challenge, as seen in the 2022 , where authorities intensified blocks on encrypted DNS-over-HTTPS () services from September 20 onward to hinder circumvention of social media restrictions on platforms like and , which hosted protest coordination and regime critiques. Government-controlled ISPs tampered with DNS to isolate domestic traffic, blocking over 70% of global internet content including dissident sites, with disruptions measured via global routing data showing near-total domestic isolation while preserving outward appearances. Similar tactics occurred in prior unrest, such as 2019 fuel protests, where DNS failures prevented access to foreign-hosted opposition forums. Turkey has applied DNS blocking for political suppression, notably in March 2014 amid corruption scandals linked to then-Prime Minister Erdoğan, when authorities ordered ISPs to poison DNS responses for , affecting 90% of users and prompting widespread adoption of VPNs; this followed Gezi Park protest coverage on the platform. The Telecommunications Directorate () extended blocks to alternative DNS servers like , surveilling traffic rerouted through them, as confirmed by network analyses showing manipulated resolutions across major providers. Such measures, enacted under 2013-2014 internet laws, targeted ideological opponents including Gülen movement affiliates, with blocks lifting only after court rulings but recurring during electoral tensions. These applications demonstrate DNS blocking's utility in maintaining regime stability by fragmenting information flows, though effectiveness wanes against technically savvy users; in contrast, democratic states like members have imposed sanctions on Russian state media post-February 2022 invasion, relying more on prohibitions than widespread DNS interventions, with audits revealing inconsistent enforcement and persistent site accessibility via mirrors.

Suppression of Legitimate Dissent

DNS blocking has facilitated the suppression of legitimate by enabling governments to deny citizens access to factual , encyclopedic , and critical analysis that contradicts official positions, without necessarily involving illegal or . In such instances, authorities invoke or public order pretexts to justify domain resolutions failures at the ISP level, effectively isolating populations from diverse viewpoints. This tactic disproportionately affects and knowledge repositories, undermining public discourse on failures or policy critiques grounded in verifiable events. A prominent case occurred in from April 29, 2017, to January 15, 2020, when the entire platform was blocked nationwide after it refused to remove or alter articles alleging Turkish involvement in supporting extremist groups and intelligence operations. The ban, enforced via DNS resolution interference by the telecommunications authority under a 2014 law permitting site blocks for , affected all versions and prevented access to over 40 million articles, including neutral historical and political entries unrelated to the disputed content. Turkey's constitutional court ruled the measure violated free expression rights in December 2019, highlighting its overreach, yet the block persisted until complied with content adjustments. This action suppressed access to documented critiques of state policies, such as alleged ties to militant organizations, which independent analyses deemed fact-based rather than fabricated . In , DNS-based blocking by has targeted independent media outlets since at least 2014, intensifying after the 2022 to restrict reporting on actions and domestic opposition. Over 279 domains of foreign and local sites were confirmed blocked by December 2024, including those providing eyewitness accounts and data-driven analyses of or casualties, often justified as "" under expansive anti-extremism laws. These measures, implemented via mandated ISP DNS filtering, have isolated users from sources like and , which rely on journalistic standards and primary evidence rather than state narratives, thereby stifling factual dissent on policy efficacy and abuses. documented this as part of broader isolation tactics, noting blocks extend to unlisted sites via opaque technical protocols, evading public accountability. Similar patterns emerged in , where DNS manipulation under the Smart Filtering system has recurrently blocked platforms disseminating protest footage and policy critiques during events like the 2019-2020 fuel protests and 2022 unrest. Authorities targeted domains hosting and reports, labeling them threats to stability despite their basis in empirical video evidence and casualty counts from non-state actors. This selective resolution blocking, affecting millions, curtailed dissemination of legitimate grievances over economic mismanagement and security force conduct, as verified by network interference monitors.

Effectiveness and Countermeasures

Measured Impacts and Success Metrics

Empirical assessments of DNS blocking for demonstrate measurable reductions in direct access to targeted sites. In , court-ordered DNS blocks implemented since 2015 led to an average 44% decrease in traffic from Danish IP addresses to blocked domains, with dynamic blocking of new mirror sites enhancing this effect. A evaluating batch DNS filtering of infringing websites in revealed significant drops in overall and visits to blocked domains, serving as proxies for curtailed activity, though reductions were less pronounced in households with individuals under 18 due to higher circumvention propensity. For combating child sexual abuse material, UK Internet Service Providers employing DNS blocks based on Internet Watch Foundation lists thwarted 8.8 million access attempts in a single month during 2023, indicating short-term denial of known hosted content. However, broader evaluations conclude limited efficacy against distribution volumes, as offenders shift to peer-to-peer networks, encrypted channels, or unhosted storage, with blocking circumvented via simple DNS changes or proxies; no substantial aggregate decline in confirmed abuse imagery has been attributed solely to DNS measures. In state-imposed regimes, such as China's Great Firewall, DNS poisoning achieves over 99.9% resolution interference for targeted domains, censoring approximately 311,000 unique domains between April and December 2020, including via injected forged responses. This yields high immediate blocking fidelity within national borders but entails overblocking of 41,000 non-targeted domains through regex mismatches and collateral pollution of 77,000 global public DNS records, potentially degrading resolution accuracy for international users querying censored authoritative servers. Across applications, success metrics emphasize proxy indicators like traffic denial rates (20-90% reductions to specific sites in various IP cases) over holistic behavioral change, as activity often displaces to VPNs, Tor, or encrypted DNS protocols like DoH, eroding long-term impacts; studies consistently note underestimation of effectiveness when measuring only compliant users versus total circumvention. Unintended consequences include erroneous blocks of legitimate infrastructure (e.g., shared IPs) and heightened network latency from resolver manipulations, with scant evidence of net reductions in underlying threats like malware command-and-control persistence beyond initial disruptions.

Common Bypass Methods and Their Limitations

One prevalent method involves reconfiguring devices or routers to use alternative public DNS resolvers, such as Google's 8.8.8.8 or Cloudflare's , which often lack the same blocking policies as ISP-provided servers. This approach resolves domain names without relying on censored local infrastructure, enabling access to blocked sites in scenarios like regional content restrictions. However, its effectiveness diminishes when ISPs intercept and redirect DNS queries via rules or enforce their resolvers regardless of user settings, as observed in various network environments. Additionally, privacy risks arise since the alternative provider gains visibility into query patterns, potentially logging data unless encrypted protocols are employed. To counter interception, encrypted DNS protocols like (DoH) or (DoT) tunnel queries through secure channels, preventing tampering by network operators; for instance, and modern operating systems support DoH to providers like . These methods have proven viable against basic DNS poisoning but face blocks on known resolver endpoints, as documented in Iran's restrictions starting in 2022, where authorities targeted DoH traffic. Limitations include dependency on unblocked ports (e.g., 443 for DoH) and potential performance overhead from encryption, alongside the fact that they do not obfuscate overall traffic patterns, allowing deeper packet inspection to infer and disrupt usage. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) offer a more robust bypass by encrypting all traffic and routing it through remote servers that perform uncensored DNS resolution, effectively evading both DNS and IP-level blocks imposed by ISPs or governments. Providers with obfuscation features, such as those masking VPN traffic as regular HTTPS, enhance reliability in high-censorship contexts like China. Nonetheless, VPNs introduce latency and bandwidth throttling due to tunneling overhead, and authoritarian regimes actively detect and prohibit them through deep packet inspection or legal penalties, rendering free or poorly configured services ineffective. Provider trustworthiness is critical, as logging policies could expose user activity to subpoenas or breaches. The Tor network circumvents DNS blocks by directing traffic through a series of volunteer-operated relays, resolving domains internally without exposing queries to local networks and providing layered encryption for anonymity. Its design resists widespread blocking, making it suitable for accessing censored content, though entry node detection can prompt adversaries to restrict known Tor IPs, necessitating pluggable transports or bridges for evasion. Key limitations include significant speed reductions—often 2-10 times slower than direct connections due to multi-hop routing—and vulnerability at exit nodes, where unencrypted traffic may be monitored, though this does not typically reveal the origin in censorship scenarios. Tor's resource intensity also limits its use for high-bandwidth activities like streaming. Proxy servers, including web-based or variants, can redirect specific traffic to avoid DNS resolution at the local level, but they generally fail against sophisticated blocks that target proxy IPs or require . While simpler than VPNs, proxies lack comprehensive , exposing metadata and content to intermediaries, and many public options are unreliable or compromised, underscoring their role as a last-resort with high detection risks. Overall, no single method guarantees perpetual evasion, as censors adapt via and protocol fingerprinting, often prompting users to chain tools like VPN-over-Tor for layered defense, albeit at compounded performance costs.

Legal and Policy Landscape

Key Legislation and Court Rulings

In the , no federal statute explicitly mandates DNS blocking, though courts have issued injunctions requiring internet service providers (ISPs) to implement it against sites; for instance, on May 3, 2022, a federal judge in the Southern District of ordered all U.S. ISPs to block access to three unauthorized streaming services operated by unidentified defendants, redirecting DNS queries to a plaintiff-specified warning page. Legislative efforts, such as the (SOPA) proposed in 2011, sought to enable DNS blocking for foreign infringing sites but failed amid concerns over internet fragmentation and overreach. More recently, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act, introduced on January 29, 2025, proposes court-supervised blocking orders for verified foreign pirate sites, emphasizing and evidence of infringement. In the , the Digital Economy Act 2010, as amended in 2017, empowers the Secretary of State, following a , to direct ISPs to block access to websites facilitating , often via DNS manipulation or IP blocking; has overseen implementation, with blocking notices issued for sites like since 2012. Courts have upheld such orders, as in the 2014 British Phonographic Industry v. British Telecommunications case, where the mandated dynamic blocking of and mirror sites, balancing enforcement against proportionality under the Regulations. Across the , Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive) authorizes member state courts to issue injunctions against intermediaries, including DNS blocking for copyright violations, implemented variably; for example, in , courts have ordered ISPs to block infringing domains under national copyright law, but the Regional Court of rejected extending such orders to public DNS resolvers like Cloudflare's on December 5, 2023, citing insufficient jurisdiction over global services and risks of overblocking. The 2019 Directive on Copyright in the (2019/790) reinforces intermediary liability but focuses more on platform filtering than DNS measures. In August 2025, 's Federal Administrative Court overturned a BaFin directive imposing DNS blocks on ISPs for financial regulatory violations, ruling that the authority lacked statutory basis for such technical mandates without explicit legislative support. In , Section 69A of the , grants the central government power to direct blocking of public access to online information threatening sovereignty, public order, or defense, with procedures outlined in the 2009 Blocking Rules; this has enabled over 20,000 blocks annually by 2023, often via DNS or methods, though challenges persist on transparency and appeal processes. The upheld its constitutionality in 2015 ( v. ), distinguishing it from struck-down Section 66A by requiring reasoned orders, though critics note procedural safeguards remain limited in practice. Australia's Copyright Act 1968, amended in 2015 via section 115A, permits rights holders to obtain Federal Court injunctions compelling ISPs to block piracy websites, including DNS resolution; the first such order was granted in 2015 against sites like SolarMovie, with extensions for dynamic blocking of mirrors upheld in cases like Roadshow Films v. (2016), where the affirmed the provision's validity under free speech constraints. By 2024, over 50 injunctions had been issued, demonstrating judicial endorsement for targeted enforcement while requiring evidence of efficacy and minimal collateral impact.

International Variations and Sovereignty Claims

DNS blocking implementations vary significantly across nations, reflecting differences in legal frameworks, technical , and objectives. In authoritarian regimes, such as , the Great Firewall employs DNS poisoning—where queries for blocked domains return false addresses—and combines it with blocking and for comprehensive of political, social, and international content. This approach, operational since the early and refined through keyword-based filtering, targets both domestic and foreign sites, with studies identifying over 41,000 censored domains via reverse-engineered blocklists as of 2021. In contrast, Russia's Federal Law No. 90-FZ, enacted in 2019 and effective from January 1, 2021, mandates the use of a national DNS system by all autonomous system number holders, enabling the government to reroute traffic internally and potentially isolate the from the global during perceived threats. European Union member states adopt DNS blocking primarily for intellectual property enforcement and child protection, often through court-ordered injunctions rather than blanket national systems. For instance, dynamic blocking orders in countries like and require internet service providers to block access to piracy sites, but recent rulings, such as the 2023 German decision against mandating global DNS resolvers like Cloudflare's to comply, emphasize proportionality and reject extraterritorial overreach. 's 2025 protocol shift to individual judicial reviews for copyright-related DNS blocks further limits indiscriminate application. Elsewhere, nations like mandate ISP redirection of alternative DNS queries to government-controlled servers, effectively nullifying public resolvers, while announced plans in February 2025 to block Google's 8.8.8.8 DNS servers to enforce content controls. These variations highlight a spectrum from pervasive, state-orchestrated manipulation in to judicially constrained measures in the West, with middle-ground examples like using to serve localized block pages for specific content categories. Sovereignty claims underpin many national DNS blocking regimes, positing that states hold inherent authority to regulate resolution within their borders to protect , cultural values, and legal order. Russia's Sovereign Law exemplifies this, framing the national DNS as a defensive against external cyberattacks or , with tests in 2019 and 2022 demonstrating the feasibility of traffic rerouting without global disconnection. policy similarly asserts territorial control, justifying DNS tampering as necessary for social stability, though it fragments the unified DNS architecture originally designed for global interoperability. Critics, including the , argue such measures undermine the DNS's role in a shared , as national overrides introduce inconsistencies that exacerbate overblocking and enable collateral disruptions. In the EU, manifests in directives like the , which empower member states to mandate blocks for unlawful content while navigating tensions with cross-border data flows, as evidenced by resistance to proposals for an EU-wide protective DNS resolver capable of filtering "unlawful" traffic. These claims often invoke to override global norms, yet empirical assessments reveal implementation challenges, including easy circumvention via VPNs or alternative resolvers, which diminish efficacy while raising fragmentation risks. The Security and Stability Advisory Committee's 2025 report urges entities mandating DNS blocks to weigh technical implications, such as resolver and reduced trust in the root zone, underscoring how assertions can inadvertently erode the internet's foundational resilience. Worldwide, at least 17 countries exhibit protocol-specific variances tied to routing policies, per 2024 measurements, illustrating how local pursuits contribute to a patchwork of incompatible DNS behaviors.

Ongoing Proposals and Reforms

In the United States, legislative efforts to expand DNS blocking have focused on combating foreign digital piracy. The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (H.R. 791), introduced on January 28, 2025, amends U.S. copyright law to enable federal courts to issue blocking orders targeting specific foreign websites or services facilitating infringement, requiring ISPs and DNS providers to restrict access via DNS resolution failures or IP blocking. Similarly, the bipartisan Block BEARD Act, drafted in July 2025 by Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chair Thom Tillis and others, proposes court-ordered site blocking for foreign piracy platforms, drawing from models in the UK and Australia, with ISPs implementing DNS-level restrictions to prevent user access. These measures aim to protect domestic content industries but face opposition from digital rights groups, who argue they risk overreach and collateral blocking of legitimate content, as evidenced by historical implementations like Italy's Piracy Shield. Countering broader applications, U.S. policy reforms in 2025 emphasized limiting government-led blocking. On September 17, 2025, the State Department announced the cessation of all frameworks for countering foreign information manipulation, including the closure of the R/FIMI Hub (formerly the Global Engagement Center), pursuant to President Trump's January 20 prohibiting federal tools. This shift prioritizes free expression while addressing threats, effectively curtailing DNS or similar mechanisms repurposed for domestic suppression, though it does not preclude targeted uses. Technically, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers () Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) issued SAC 127 on May 16, 2025, revisiting DNS blocking practices and recommending reforms to mitigate harms if implemented. Key proposals include mandating clear policies to minimize over-blocking, ensuring no external network impacts, and deploying Extended DNS Error Code 16 ("Censored") for transparency in blocked responses, allowing users to identify intentional restrictions. The report highlights blocking's limited efficacy due to widespread adoption of encrypted DNS protocols like (DoH), which by late 2024 accounted for 21% of queries via public resolvers, and urges alternatives such as source-level content takedowns over network-layer interventions. Concurrently, the (IETF) advances structured DNS error reporting to enhance visibility into blocking events.

Debates and Critiques

Arguments in Favor: Sovereignty and Order

Proponents assert that DNS blocking reinforces national sovereignty by permitting governments to regulate digital content within their jurisdiction, countering the borderless nature of the internet that otherwise allows foreign entities to disseminate material undermining state authority or laws. In Russia, the Sovereign Internet Law of 2019 enables DNS manipulation to isolate the national network from global systems during perceived threats, justified as protecting territorial integrity in cyberspace and preventing external interference in domestic affairs. Similarly, China's Great Firewall employs DNS blocking to enforce information controls, with officials arguing it extends sovereign jurisdiction over online spaces, akin to physical borders, to safeguard political stability and cultural norms from Western influences. These measures are defended as causal necessities for states to maintain autonomy, as unchecked global DNS resolution could erode governmental control over narratives critical to national cohesion. DNS blocking is also advocated for preserving public order by curtailing access to content that incites disorder, such as terrorist recruitment materials or child sexual abuse imagery (CSAM), thereby reducing societal harms like radicalization or exploitation. The UK government supports the Internet Watch Foundation's (IWF) URL block lists, distributed to ISPs for DNS implementation since 2006, claiming they disrupt distribution networks and shield the public—particularly children—from accidental encounters with over 275,000 confirmed CSAM URLs assessed in 2023 alone. Proponents cite this as empirically aiding order, with IWF data indicating blocking acts as a temporary barrier that complements content removal, preventing normalization of abuse and supporting law enforcement efforts without requiring universal surveillance. In terrorism contexts, EU directives since 2017 mandate DNS blocking of propaganda sites, argued to limit propagation and mitigate real-world violence, as evidenced by reduced hosting of Daesh-related content post-implementation in member states. For economic facets of order, DNS blocking addresses , which governments quantify as causing global losses exceeding $29 billion annually in the film industry alone as of 2022. A Danish using a 2014-2015 policy shift found DNS blocks halved visits to infringing sites in non-bypass-prone households, bolstering claims that such interventions sustain creative sectors and deter networks reliant on illicit streams. Advocates maintain these targeted applications prioritize causal over unrestricted access, aligning with states' duty to enforce order amid of lowered engagement with prohibited domains.

Arguments Against: Liberty and Fragmentation

DNS blocking is criticized for undermining individual liberties by enabling centralized control over information access, often without or judicial oversight. advocates argue that such mechanisms facilitate on speech, violating principles enshrined in documents like the Universal Declaration of (), which affirms the right to seek, receive, and impart information regardless of frontiers. For instance, in the 's implementation of the Digital Economy Act 2010, which authorized DNS blocking for , critics including the Open Rights Group highlighted how ISPs were compelled to block entire domains, potentially affecting non-infringing content and chilling lawful expression. This approach risks overblocking, where legitimate sites are collateral damage; a 2012 study by the found that copyright blocks inadvertently restricted access to political and news sites due to shared ranges. Proponents of unrestricted contend that DNS blocking erodes user and fosters dependency on state or corporate gatekeepers, contravening first-principles of open networks designed for decentralized resilience. The (EFF) has documented cases where DNS manipulation, as seen in Turkey's 2014 blocking of and domains amid corruption scandals, suppressed dissent rather than targeted specific harms, leading to widespread circumvention but also heightened . from Iran's DNS-based filtering regime, which blocked over 50% of global websites by 2020 according to reports, shows correlations with reduced online activism and among users fearing reprisal. Such systems prioritize administrative efficiency over evidentiary standards, allowing vague criteria—like ""—to justify blocks, as evidenced by Russia's 2012 blacklist under Federal Law No. 139-FZ, which expanded to include opposition media without transparent appeals. On fragmentation, DNS blocking contributes to the of the , creating regionally siloed experiences that hinder global knowledge exchange and economic integration. By resolving domains differently based on geography, it fragments the unified intended by DNS architects like in 1983, leading to a "" where users in blocking jurisdictions face distorted views of reality. A 2019 analysis by the estimated that widespread DNS interference, as in China's Great blocking since 2010, reduces cross-border data flows by up to 30% in affected sectors, impeding in fields like AI and e-commerce reliant on universal access. This fragmentation exacerbates digital divides; for example, during the EU's 2018 Article 17 deliberations (now ), DNS proposals were faulted for potentially isolating European users from global content ecosystems, with a report warning of retarded startup growth due to inconsistent access standards. Critics further argue that fragmentation undermines trust in the DNS root system, managed by under U.S. stewardship until its 2016 internationalization, by incentivizing users to adopt alternative resolvers like encrypted DNS (/DoT), which evade blocks but introduce new points of failure and risks from proprietary providers. Data from Cloudflare's 2023 metrics indicate that DoH adoption surged 40% in blocking-heavy regions like post-2022 app store bans, fragmenting resolution paths and complicating global troubleshooting. Ultimately, these practices risk a causal cascade: initial blocks beget workarounds, which prompt escalated controls, eroding the internet's foundational openness without proportionally advancing stated goals, as evidenced by persistent rates despite Denmark's 2014-2020 DNS trials showing only marginal reductions in illegal downloads.

Empirical Evidence on Outcomes

In applications targeting copyright-infringing websites, DNS blocking has demonstrated reductions in direct access to blocked domains, with study of 53 site blocks in 2014 reporting a 90% drop in visits to those sites and a 22% overall decrease in activity among affected users. This intervention correlated with a 10% increase in traffic to legal ad-supported streaming platforms and a 6% rise in visits to paid subscription services like . Comparable outcomes appeared in following 2018 blocks, yielding a 19% decline in blocked site visits, a 5% uptick in legal site engagement (17% among heavy pirates), and survey data indicating 67% of users shifted to authorized content. In , blocks on over 2,300 domains from 2019 to 2020 cut site visits by 55% and drove 16% of respondents to paid streaming subscriptions. Portugal's multi-wave blocks from 2015 to 2016 similarly reduced visits to 146 targeted sites by 68%. User responses vary by block scale and demographics; multi-site UK blocks in 2014 boosted legal streaming sessions by 7-12% and new subscriptions by 1.1-1.5%, while earlier single-site efforts like the 2012 Pirate Bay block prompted substitution to unblocked piracy proxies without legal gains. A natural experiment on batch DNS filtering found significant drops in upload and download traffic indicative of curbed piracy, though less pronounced in households with youth who more readily circumvent via alternatives. Blocks in India (2019-2020) and Brazil (2021) yielded 3-8% increases in legal media consumption, aligning with displacement from blocked sources. Evidence for non-piracy contexts, such as curtailing illegal or child exploitation material, is sparse and indicates limited sustained reductions due to high circumvention feasibility—non-technical users can bypass via VPNs, encrypted DNS, or public resolvers, often without technical barriers. Aggregate studies highlight overing risks, where shared DNS infrastructure inadvertently restricts neutral services, though quantified collateral impacts remain under-documented. Overall, while targeted access declines, net suppression depends on breadth and against workarounds, with no uniform shift to legal alternatives across all user segments.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] SAC127 DNS Blocking Revisited - icann cdn
    May 16, 2025 · Domain Name System (DNS) blocking is a technique that restricts access to domain names or. Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and the content or ...
  2. [2]
    What is DNS filtering? | Secure DNS servers - Cloudflare
    DNS filtering is the process of using the Domain Name System to block malicious websites and filter out harmful or inappropriate content.
  3. [3]
    What is DNS Blocking? - TitanHQ
    Rating 4.7 (226) DNS blocking is a mechanism that prevents access to certain web pages on a server. It works by removing the IP address name from the “phonebook” on the server, ...
  4. [4]
    Censorship-by-Infrastructure: How DNS Blocking Threatens the ...
    Jun 3, 2025 · Blocking at the resolver level is easy to implement but hard to contain. This practice routinely leads to gross overblocking, critically ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] DNS at Risk: How Network Blocking and Fragmentation Undermine ...
    May 16, 2025 · DNS- based restrictions, IP-level filtering, protocol interference, and algorithmic takedowns are being used to pursue a range of policy goals, ...
  6. [6]
    What Is DNS Blocking, and What Should You Know about ... - N-able
    Aug 26, 2021 · A DNS block is a mechanism that allows you to prevent access to certain web pages on the server. The technology was originally designed to help defend against ...
  7. [7]
    https://vercara.digicert.com/resources/glossary-dns-filtering
  8. [8]
    What Is DNS Security? How Does It Work? - Cisco Umbrella
    DNS filtering is a tool used to block access to malicious websites and other harmful online content. It can be used to protect against DNS attacks, such as DNS ...
  9. [9]
    What is DNS Filtering? How Does it Work? | DNSFilter
    Sep 3, 2025 · DNS filtering applies policies to domains in real time, blocking malicious websites by checking their category or reputation before connection.
  10. [10]
    What is DNS Filtering? - zenarmor.com
    Nov 15, 2023 · DNS filtering restricts website access based on content, often using blacklists to block malicious sites, and whitelists to allow safe sites.
  11. [11]
    Comparing DNS blocking methods - The ADAM Blog
    Aug 22, 2024 · Comparing DNS blocking methods · What is a DNS blocking method? · Method #1: Using NXDOMAIN · Method #2: Using 0.0.0.0 · Method #3: Using a ...
  12. [12]
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8914/
  13. [13]
    [PDF] The Collateral Damage of Internet Censorship by DNS Injection
    The censorship tools inspect DNS queries near the ISP's boundary routers for sensitive domain key- words and injecting forged DNS responses, blocking the users.
  14. [14]
    RFC 5782: DNS Blacklists and Whitelists
    Introduction In 1997, Dave Rand and Paul Vixie, well-known Internet software engineers, started keeping a list of IP addresses that had sent them spam or ...Missing: history first
  15. [15]
    DNS Blacklists | The Anti-Abuse Project
    The first DNSBL was the Real-time Blackhole List (RBL), created in 1997 by Paul Vixie and Dave Rand as part of the Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS).
  16. [16]
    What is DNSBL? - Prolateral
    Rating 2.5 (4) The first DNSBL was created in 1997 and was called the RBL (Realtime Block List). Its purpose was to block spam email and to educate Internet service providers ...
  17. [17]
    What is a DNSBL (Domain Name System-based Blackhole List)?
    Feb 20, 2023 · As a part of the anti-spam initiative Mail Abuse Prevention Systems (MAPS), it became the first official DNS-based Blackhole List in 1997.
  18. [18]
    A Little Blacklist History | MxToolbox Blog
    Aug 29, 2019 · The first Domain Name System-based Blackhole List (DNSBL) was the ... created in 1997 as a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) list.
  19. [19]
    Deconstructing the Great Firewall of China | ThousandEyes
    Mar 8, 2016 · The first reports of DNS injections date back to 2002, when spoofed responses took the form of the same poisoned record for all blocked domains.Missing: history timeline
  20. [20]
    [PDF] The Golden Shield Project of China: A Decade Later&#x2014
    The following points explain how it works in steps. 1) DNS Blocking: When a netizen enters a URL, the DNS finds the corresponding IP address. If DNS is set as ...
  21. [21]
    Great Firewall | History, China, Hong Kong, & Facts | Britannica
    Sep 12, 2025 · When China banned Google in 2010 because the company refused to comply with government demands to filter search results, online activists ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  22. [22]
    A Survey of Worldwide Censorship Techniques - IETF
    Jan 10, 2023 · This document describes technical mechanisms employed in network censorship that regimes around the world use for blocking or impairing ...
  23. [23]
    Government mandated blocking of foreign Web content
    PDF | Blocking of foreign Web content by Internet access providers has been a hot topic for the last 18 months in Germany. Since fall 2001 the state of.
  24. [24]
    The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK ISPs, court rules - BBC News
    Apr 30, 2012 · The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK ISPs, court rules ... The ruling was upheld after an appeal in 2010, but the site continues to function.
  25. [25]
    British ISPs will block The Pirate Bay within weeks - The Guardian
    Apr 30, 2012 · High court orders service providers including Sky and Virgin Media to block The Pirate Bay in the UK. By Josh Halliday.
  26. [26]
    A Decade After SOPA/PIPA, It's Time to Revisit Website Blocking | ITIF
    Jan 26, 2022 · The results are clear: Website blocking was effective in changing consumer behavior, causing a 90 percent drop in visits to the blocked sites by ...
  27. [27]
    Why Is Turkey Blocking Twitter? | Electronic Frontier Foundation
    Mar 20, 2014 · UPDATE: As of March 22, the Turkish government has blocked Google DNS and other DNS servers, which were being used by thousands to ...
  28. [28]
    After DNS change fails, Turkish government steps up Twitter ...
    Mar 23, 2014 · A Turkish government webpage shows that there is an IP address block order in effect for 199.16.156.6, the primary IP address for twitter.com.
  29. [29]
    Disrupted, Throttled, and Blocked: State Censorship, Control, and ...
    Jul 30, 2025 · The 50-page report, “Disrupted, Throttled, and Blocked: State Censorship, Control, and Increasing Isolation of Internet Users in Russia,” ...
  30. [30]
    Policy Brief: Perspectives on Internet Content Blocking
    Sep 4, 2025 · Between 2024 and 2025, Italy rolled out its “Piracy Shield” system, an aggressive anti-piracy scheme requiring ISPs, DNS services, and VPN ...
  31. [31]
    Blocking Access to Foreign Pirate Sites: A Long-Overdue Task for ...
    Jun 9, 2025 · ISPs can block pirate sites at the DNS level by making configuration changes to their DNS servers such that they will not return the IP address ...<|separator|>
  32. [32]
    The Latest DNS Threat Landscape: Why CISOs Must Rethink ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · Throughout the quarter, almost 4% of total DNS traffic was blocked, breaking Q1's record. This doesn't mean that all blocked traffic is ...
  33. [33]
    Infoblox Unveils 2025 DNS Threat Landscape Report, Revealing ...
    Aug 4, 2025 · Infoblox Unveils 2025 DNS Threat Landscape Report, Revealing Surge in AI-driven Threats and Malicious Adtech · Request a DNS Security Workshop.
  34. [34]
    Fast Flux: A National Security Threat | CISA
    Apr 3, 2025 · Block access to domains identified as using fast flux through non-routable DNS responses or firewall rules. Consider sinkholing the malicious ...
  35. [35]
    Who Controls Your Internet? The Debate Over DNS Blocking
    Aug 1, 2025 · When DNS blocking is implemented, it restricts access to a domain name or IP address and the content or services associated with them, by ...Missing: definition explanation
  36. [36]
    Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering
    This document examines several technical approaches to Internet blocking and filtering in terms of their alignment with the overall Internet architecture.
  37. [37]
    RFC 9505: A Survey of Worldwide Censorship Techniques
    This document describes technical mechanisms employed in network censorship that regimes around the world use for blocking or impairing Internet traffic.
  38. [38]
    Protective Domain Name Service (PDNS) - NCSC.GOV.UK
    PDNS prevents access to domains known to be malicious, by simply not resolving them. Preventing access to malware, ransomware, phishing attacks, viruses, ...
  39. [39]
    How The Great Firewall works - Stanford Computer Science
    DNS blocking &emdash; The Great firewall prevents DNS lookup of certain domain names which causes a "site not found" error message in the user's web browser.
  40. [40]
    How Great is the Great Firewall? Measuring China's DNS Censorship
    Using data from GFWatch, we studied the impact of GFW blocking on the global DNS system. We found 77K censored domains with DNS resource records polluted in ...
  41. [41]
    Blocking by Roskomnadzor - 2IP IO
    These laws allow the authorities to block or restrict access to specific websites. In order to implement the laws, a black list, known as "the single register" ...
  42. [42]
    [PDF] A report on website blocking in India 2022
    Government of India blocks 43 mobile apps from accessing by users ... of which DNS blocking is used by the majority of Internet Service. Providers in India.
  43. [43]
    [PDF] How India Censors the Web - The Internet censorship bibliography
    Jul 10, 2020 · Amongst the most prevalent is DNS based blocking, where the network responds to DNS queries for websites it wishes to block with either (i) DNS ...
  44. [44]
    Federal Court of Australia Orders First Site-Blocking Injunctions to ...
    The site-blocking injunctions were made pursuant to section 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ("Copyright Act") and are the first of their kind in Australia.Missing: scheme | Show results with:scheme
  45. [45]
    [PDF] “Site Blocking” to reduce online copyright infringement - GOV.UK
    May 27, 2011 · If blocking is to be implemented, we consider DNS blocking to be the technique which could be implemented with least delay. While it carries a ...
  46. [46]
    Dynamic blocking injunctions in the EU - EUIPO - European Union
    The report provides an overview of static and dynamic blocking injunctions available for rights holders in the EU and the Member States studied who wish to ...
  47. [47]
    EU launches EU-based, privacy-focused DNS resolution service
    Jun 9, 2025 · DNS4EU, an EU-based DNS resolution service created to strengthen European Union's digital sovereignty, has become reality.
  48. [48]
    Report urges caution on governments' use of DNS blocking
    Jun 3, 2025 · Several examples highlight the collateral damage from DNS blocking. Italy's “Piracy Shield” program mistakenly blocked Google Drive and many ...<|separator|>
  49. [49]
    DNS Filtering Services: Security & Website Blocking | DNSFilter
    DNSFilter software delivers content filtering and website blocking solutions designed to enhance network security with protective DNS services.
  50. [50]
    Top 11 DNS Web Filtering Platforms For Business - Expert Insights
    ThreatLocker Web Control · Avast Secure Web Gateway · Barracuda Content Shield · Cisco Umbrella · Cloudflare Gateway · DNSFilter · NordLayer DNS Filtering ...
  51. [51]
    What Is Application Blocking? Uses, Types & Benefits | DNSFilter
    Discover how application blocking prevents risky or unauthorized apps. Learn its role in security, compliance, and reducing shadow IT risks.
  52. [52]
    8 Best DNS Filtering Services for 2025 [In-Depth Review] - Control D
    29 Jan 2025 · Examples include GDPR, HIPAA, and CIPA. DNS filtering helps maintain compliance by restricting access to non-compliant content and ...
  53. [53]
    US Court Orders Every ISP in the United States to Block Illegal ...
    May 2, 2022 · This is pretty interesting. DNS not just blocked but has to redirect you to plaintiffs website. Also they are going after their money as well.
  54. [54]
    Content Filtering with DNS Category blocking | NordLayer
    NordLayer has researched how their client companies use DNS filtering functionality. For example, organizations tend to block access to manga or underwear ...
  55. [55]
    DNS Blocking: A Viable Strategy in Malware Defense
    Jun 26, 2017 · Nonexistent domain (NXDOMAIN): This method is used to provide a response that the requested domain or the domain entity itself does not exist.
  56. [56]
    What Is Protective DNS? | How Does DNS Protection Work? - Akamai
    Prevent malware distribution. Protective DNS can block and alert malicious connection attempts to sites that are known to serve malware content or that are ...
  57. [57]
    What is DNS Protection | Common Attack Types - Imperva
    DNS tunneling is a technique used by attackers to bypass network security measures and gain unauthorized access to a network. The attacker encapsulates data ...
  58. [58]
    What Is DNS Protection? Can DNS Protection Prevent Cyber Threats?
    DNS protection adds another layer of security between your employees and the internet. It filters out unwanted traffic and adds suspicious Uniform Resource ...
  59. [59]
    Fighting botnets with sinkholes - ScienceDirect.com
    One of the most interesting was the DNSChanger sinkholing operation that began in November 2012. Rove Digital, the criminal group responsible for this botnet ...
  60. [60]
    How a DNS Sinkhole Can Protect Against Malware | Infosec
    Sep 8, 2014 · Case studies ... A 2013 report from CERT Polska in Poland provides a case study on the use of DNS sinkholes to subvert malicious botnet activity.Missing: mitigation | Show results with:mitigation
  61. [61]
    DNS Protection: A Must-Have Defense Against Cyber Attacks
    Sep 15, 2023 · A DNS solution can identify and block access to known phishing sites, reducing the risk of employees falling victim to these malicious schemes.
  62. [62]
    Eliminating Child Sexual Abuse Online | Internet Watch Foundation IWF
    ### Summary of DNS/URL Blocking Effectiveness for CSAM Prevention
  63. [63]
    [PDF] Blocking Child Pornography on the Internet: European Union ...
    The evaluation, following a survey of stakeholders, argued that blocking had become an essential tool to prevent access to child pornography, and recommended ...
  64. [64]
    Home Internet Security - OpenDNS
    OpenDNS is the easiest way to make your Internet safer, faster and more reliable. Protect your family across all devices on your home network.
  65. [65]
    Introducing 1.1.1.1 for Families - The Cloudflare Blog
    Apr 1, 2020 · 1.1 for Families has two default options: one that blocks malware and the other that blocks malware and adult content. You choose which setting ...
  66. [66]
    Cleanbrowsing DNS – How One Mom Protected Her Children Online
    Cleanbrowsing is software designed to protect children and adults from harmful online material. If you need support after discovering your husband's ...
  67. [67]
    [PDF] Internet Topics
    Aug 12, 2011 · The blocking of child pornography by ISPs is designed to prevent the circulation of such content by shutting down access to servers that.
  68. [68]
    The Importance of DNS Filtering in Schools - TitanHQ
    Rating 4.7 (226) A DNS or web content filter provides the protection needed to stop cyberattacks and inappropriate content from interfering with the education of students.
  69. [69]
    [PDF] Internet Society Perspectives on Domain Name System (DNS) Filtering
    The most effective way to combat illegal online activities such as dissemination of child pornography is to attack them at their source. The multi-national ...
  70. [70]
    UK ISPs Blocked 7,000+ Piracy Domains in the First Six Months of ...
    Jul 1, 2024 · During the first six months of 2024, the UK ISPs were required to block at least 7000 domains and subdomains to prevent piracy.
  71. [71]
    Publishers Association wins High Court bid ordering internet service ...
    Dec 20, 2024 · Publishers Association wins High Court bid ordering internet service providers to block pirate websites. NewsDec 20, 2024by Matilda Battersby.
  72. [72]
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/dns-provider-hit-outrageous-blocking-order-your-provider-next
  73. [73]
    Site Blocking and Incentive-Compatible Solutions to Illicit Online ...
    Aug 15, 2025 · Less expensive mechanisms like DNS blocking face minimal resistance from ISPs, but require frequent updates as infringers adapt. More ...<|separator|>
  74. [74]
    [PDF] Site-blocking-efficacy-study-United-Kingdom.pdf
    It is clear from the graph that the UK has experienced a significant decrease in traffic to the blocked sites and the associated proxies, with usage down by 74 ...
  75. [75]
    Controlling digital piracy via domain name system blocks: A natural ...
    We study the impact of a website blocking agreement for regulating copyright infringement in the digital context by implementing DNS-based website blocks.
  76. [76]
    [PDF] WIPO/ACE/17/14 - Advisory Committee on Enforcement
    Jan 30, 2025 · The evidence shows that site blocking is effective both at reducing traffic to pirate websites and increasing the use of legitimate services.
  77. [77]
    Together, We're Tackling Online Terrorism
    Dec 19, 2018 · The public have reported thousands of pieces of extremist content posted online, assisting with 400 Counter Terrorism Policing investigations in just under 12 ...
  78. [78]
    Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations - GOV.UK
    This document lists the extremist groups or organisations banned under UK law, and provides the criteria that are considered when deciding whether or not to ...
  79. [79]
    This CISA Program Blocked Over 1B Threats to Critical Networks
    Jun 28, 2024 · The program protects critical networks by blocking billions of Domain Name System (DNS) queries daily across all federal civilian executive ...Missing: national | Show results with:national<|control11|><|separator|>
  80. [80]
    NSA and partners Issue Guidance on Fast Flux as a National ...
    Apr 3, 2025 · The fast flux technique threatens national security as it enables cybercriminals and nation-state actors to create resilient, highly available ...Missing: sponsored | Show results with:sponsored
  81. [81]
    Protective Domain Name System (DNS) Resolver - CISA
    Official websites use .gov. A .gov website belongs to an official ... National Terrorism Advisory System. DHS National Terrorism Advisory System ...
  82. [82]
    What is China's Great Firewall? Nym explains censorship
    Aug 1, 2025 · DNS blocking. A technique that prevents domain name resolution, blocking access to specific websites through manipulated DNS servers. IP ...How The Great Firewall Works · Main Censorship Techniques... · Censorship Circumvention And...
  83. [83]
    RUSSIA: Internet censorship and freedom of religion or belief
    Oct 3, 2024 · Between February 2022 and August 2024, Roskomnadzor blocked over 20,000 websites and webpages for disseminating "false information" about the ...
  84. [84]
    The systematic suppression of independent media in Russia | OONI
    Dec 9, 2024 · On 2 March 2020, it was reported that Roskomnadzor blocked all three DNS servers of the DigitalOcean cloud service: ns1, ns2 and ns3, some ...
  85. [85]
    Russia's Quest for Digital Sovereignty | DGAP
    Feb 21, 2022 · This was followed by several tests that resulted in Roskomnadzor successfully blocking the encrypted DNS protocols of Google and Cloudflare for ...<|separator|>
  86. [86]
    Iran blocks social media, app stores and encrypted DNS amid ...
    Sep 25, 2022 · As of 20th September 2022 (amid protests following the death of Mahsa Amini), Iran intensified the blocking of encrypted DNS (DoH) services. We ...
  87. [87]
    Iran: Freedom on the Net 2024 Country Report
    The regime also employs extensive censorship, surveillance, content manipulation, and extralegal harassment against internet users, making Iran's online ...
  88. [88]
    Protests spur Internet disruptions in Iran - The Cloudflare Blog
    Sep 22, 2022 · Iran has a history of restricting Internet connectivity in response to protests, taking such steps in May 2022, February 2021, and November 2019.
  89. [89]
    Turkey's Twitter Ban Backfires as Millions Find Workarounds - VOA
    Mar 21, 2014 · ... Gezi Park protests with people ... Renesys said there was Domain Name Service (DNS) poisoning “from some (not all) DNS servers in Turkey.
  90. [90]
    Auditing the EU's ban of Russian state media 3 years on - ISD
    Aug 5, 2025 · However, following the EC's sanctions against RT in 2022, RT's accounts announced new alternative and mirror domains looking to circumvent ...
  91. [91]
    Turkey blocks Wikipedia under law designed to protect national ...
    Apr 29, 2017 · Turkey has blocked Wikipedia, the country's telecommunications watchdog has said, citing a law that allows it to ban access to websites deemed ...
  92. [92]
    Turkey Restores Wikipedia After More Than 2-Year Ban
    Jan 15, 2020 · Access to Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey in 2017, after the site refused to remove unflattering references to Turkey's relationship with ...
  93. [93]
    Turkey's Wikipedia block violates human rights, high court rules
    Dec 26, 2019 · The Turkish ban on all the various language editions of Wikipedia has been in place since April 2017 after entries on the website claimed ...
  94. [94]
    Kremlin doubled its blocking of independent media sites this year ...
    Dec 10, 2024 · The Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) confirmed the blocking of at least 279 foreign and local independent news media domains ...Missing: DNS | Show results with:DNS
  95. [95]
    [PDF] WIPO/ACE/17/13/EX - Advisory Committee on Enforcement
    Jan 24, 2025 · This study examines website-blocking orders, where ISPs are instructed to deny access to piracy sites, and their effectiveness in reducing ...
  96. [96]
    Voluntary guidance for internet infrastructure providers on tackling ...
    Feb 15, 2024 · For example, Internet Service Providers blocked 8.8 million attempts to access child sexual abuse content from the UK in a single month during ...Missing: metrics | Show results with:metrics
  97. [97]
    How effective is online blocking of illegal child sexual content? - OII
    Jun 28, 2013 · They find that blocking is a technically ineffective means of stopping the distribution of child pornography, and that it risks 'mission creep' ...
  98. [98]
    [PDF] How Great is the Great Firewall? Measuring China's DNS Censorship
    Aug 11, 2021 · Using data from GFWatch, we studied the impact of GFW blocking on the global DNS system. We found 77K censored domains with DNS resource records ...
  99. [99]
    [PDF] An Empirical Study on the Blocking of HTTP and DNS Requests at ...
    This work aims to track the changes on the analyzed malware samples. We expect that our findings might help understanding the impact of malicious traffic ...
  100. [100]
    How to: Understand and Circumvent Network Censorship
    Feb 1, 2024 · If ISPs are only relying on DNS blocking, changing your DNS provider and using encrypted DNS may restore your access. Change your DNS ...
  101. [101]
    Choosing the VPN That's Right for You | Surveillance Self-Defense
    Jan 24, 2025 · This guide will help you think through what tools are right for you, and what factors you should consider in your search for a VPN.
  102. [102]
    https://www.torproject.org/
  103. [103]
    Every ISP in the US has been ordered to block three pirate ...
    May 3, 2022 · A federal judge has ordered all Internet service providers in the United States to block three pirate streaming services operated by Doe defendants.
  104. [104]
    Rep. Lofgren Introduces Targeted Legislation to Combat Foreign ...
    Jan 29, 2025 · The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act is a smart, targeted approach that focuses on safety and intellectual property, while simultaneously upholding due process.
  105. [105]
    Latest copyright decision in Germany rejects blocking through global ...
    Dec 5, 2023 · The Court in Universal v. Cloudflare issued its decision rejecting a request to require public DNS resolvers like Cloudflare's 1.1.1.1. to block websites.
  106. [106]
    [PDF] DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/ 790 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ...
    May 17, 2019 · Further harmonisation of the laws of the Member States on copyright and related rights should contribute to the achievement of those objectives.
  107. [107]
    BaFin Directive on DNS Block Against Internet Service Providers ...
    Rating 4.6 (953) Aug 18, 2025 · The judges emphasized that the imposition of a DNS block could not be based on BaFin's current statutory powers and that the freedom of ...
  108. [108]
    Section 69A of the IT Act - India Code
    Section 69A. Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.
  109. [109]
    Section 69a Of It Act 2
    Oct 7, 2025 · Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information for Public) Rules, 2009
  110. [110]
    The Phantom Constitutionality of Section 69A: Part I
    Oct 22, 2022 · Section 69A empowers the Union Government to block the public from accessing “any information” on the internet when: (1) the Government ...
  111. [111]
    Australian Government passes site blocking legislation - Lexology
    Jul 31, 2015 · The new legislation enables copyright owners (and exclusive licensees) to apply to the Federal Court of Australia for an order requiring ISPs to ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  112. [112]
    Site Blocking & Copyright Infringement - ACC - INFO129
    In this fact sheet we give an overview of the site blocking laws under section 115A of the Copyright Act 1968.
  113. [113]
    [PDF] An Analysis of Australia's Recent Anti-piracy Website Blocking Laws ...
    When faced with the problem of widespread online piracy, this balancing act underlies the challenge for the Australian Government and policy makers.
  114. [114]
    A Longitudinal Measurement Platform Built to Monitor China's DNS ...
    Nov 4, 2021 · We designed a probing method to reverse-engineer the actual blocklist used by the GFW's DNS filter and identified 41K domains that appear to be ...<|separator|>
  115. [115]
    Russia's National DNS - Internet Society
    Dec 1, 2023 · The 'Sovereign Internet' law in Russia requires that all network operators that have an ASN use the National DNS beginning 1 January 2021.
  116. [116]
    Russia: Growing Internet Isolation, Control, Censorship
    Jun 18, 2020 · The “sovereign internet” law also requires the creation of a national domain domain name system (DNS) . Beginning January 1, 2021, internet ...
  117. [117]
    Germany Requires Judicial Review for DNS Blocking of Piracy Sites
    Aug 25, 2025 · Germany's CUII has introduced a new protocol requiring individual judicial reviews for DNS blocking of copyright-infringing websites, shifting ...
  118. [118]
    Google's DNS Ban in Iraq Restricts Internet Freedom - SMEX
    Feb 26, 2025 · Blocking DNS servers is a severe form of government censorship that limits internet access. Companies and organizations sometimes block DNS as a ...
  119. [119]
    No Access: LGBTIQ Website Censorship in Six Countries | OONI
    Aug 31, 2021 · ISPs in Indonesia and Malaysia serve block pages by means of DNS hijacking, whereas Iranian ISPs serve block pages primarily by means of DNS ...
  120. [120]
    Deciphering Russia's “Sovereign Internet Law” | DGAP
    Jan 16, 2020 · Russia's ambitions to build a model of state-backed internet control, create its own national DNS, and set new rules in cyberspace only make ...
  121. [121]
    What If Russia Isolates Itself from the Global Internet? - Flashpoint.io
    Mar 11, 2022 · The law obliged Russian service providers to connect to the national DNS from January 1, 2021 on, or risk being disconnected by Russia's ...
  122. [122]
    How Great is the Great Firewall: DNS censorship in China
    Mar 29, 2022 · This is due to the bidirectional nature of GFW's DNS filtering, which causes poisoned DNS to be cached on public DNS resolvers outside of China.
  123. [123]
    Understanding Routing-Induced Censorship Changes Globally
    Dec 9, 2024 · We find ECMP routing significantly changes observed censorship across protocols, censor mechanisms, and in 17 countries.
  124. [124]
    H.R.791 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act
    Jan 28, 2025 · A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to provide for blocking orders relating to specifically identified infringing foreign websites or online services.
  125. [125]
    U.S. Senators Introduce New Pirate Site Blocking Bill: Block BEARD
    Jul 31, 2025 · The site-blocking proposal seeks to amend U.S. copyright law, enabling rightsholders to request federal courts to designate online locations as ...
  126. [126]
    Re:Create Opposes Site-Blocking, The Block BEARD Act Is No ...
    Jul 31, 2025 · “The Block BEARD Act would legalize a dangerous mechanism for content trolls to request the take down of legitimate content because of an ...
  127. [127]
    United States Champions Free Expression, Ceases Censorship ...
    Sep 17, 2025 · The United States has ceased all Frameworks to Counter Foreign State Information Manipulation and any associated instruments implemented by ...Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
  128. [128]
    [PDF] THE EFFECT OF PIRACY WEBSITE BLOCKING ON CONSUMER ...
    In this study, we ask what drives the success or failure of various supply-side anti-piracy enforcement actions such as piracy website blocking.
  129. [129]
    The Impact of Online Piracy Website Blocking on Legal Media ...
    Mar 12, 2024 · Our results are consistent with those in the prior UK study showing that piracy website blocking can lead to increases in legal consumption.
  130. [130]
    Blocking measures against offshore online gambling: a scoping review
    Results show that there is a paucity of empirical research on the effectiveness of blocking measures. The scarce evidence suggests that the effectiveness of ...<|separator|>