• jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    They block the ip addresses for the server components of those applications. easily circumvented with a proxy outside of russia. most these communication apps have such proxy support builtin.

    The only way ‘apps’ can be banned is if they cut of the internet. soon as you have a data pipe from one end to another you can encrypt whatever you send.

    This is why i2p and p2p protocols are so important it makes it infinitely harder to control / ban. you end up having to have a directional whitelist (i.e. you need to only allow outgoing connections from home devices to a specific set of ip), and even then once thats in place… if any of those things allow communication we can push data through them.

    • TerHu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      i see your point, but i worry that deep packet inspection would still be a major pain in the butt in that case since it may detect your encryption and block it, regardless of the ip you’re trying to talk to

      • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        not really an issue. DPI just increases costs for enforcement and is fairly easily worked around at the application layer. annoying to implement a workaround but not hard. this is the issue with most enforcement mechanisms people try to come up with when dealing with systems, they try to prevent anything they dont like ™ and it just ends up costing them more.

        in fact iirc i2p basically helps with this problem just by existing already since it inherently generates a steady stream of data.