• Login
View Item 
  • DASH Home
  • Harvard Law School
  • HLS Scholarly Articles
  • View Item
  • DASH Home
  • Harvard Law School
  • HLS Scholarly Articles
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of DASH
  • Communities & Collections
  • By Issue Date
  • Author
  • Title
  • Keyword
  • FAS Department
This Collection
  • By Issue Date
  • Author
  • Title
  • Keyword

Submitters

  • Login
  • Quick submit
  • Waiver Generator

About

  • About DASH
  • DASH Stories
  • DASH FAQs
  • Accessibility
  • COVID-related Research
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Statistics

  • By Schools
  • By Collections
  • By Departments
  • By Items
  • By Country
  • By Authors

2007 Circumvention Landscape Report: Methods, Uses, and Tools

 
Thumbnail
View/Open
2007_Circumvention_Landscape.pdf (652.6Kb)
Author
Palfrey, JohnHARVARD
Roberts, HaroldHARVARD
Zuckerman, EthanHARVARD
Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.
Published Version
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2009/2007_Circumvention_Landscape_Report
Metadata
Show full item record
Citation
Hal Roberts et al., 2007 Circumvention Landscape Report: Methods, Uses, and Tools (2009).
Abstract
As the Internet has exploded over the past fifteen years, recently reaching over a billion users, dozens of national governments from China to Saudi Arabia have tried to control the network by filtering out content objectionable to the countries for any of a number of reasons. A large variety of different projects have developed tools that can be used to circumvent this filtering, allowing people in filtered countries access to otherwise filtered content. In this report, we describe the mechanisms of filtering and circumvention and evaluate ten projects that develop tools that can be used to circumvent filtering: Anonymizer, Ultrareach, DynaWeb Freegate, Circumventor/CGIProxy, Psiphon, Tor, JAP, Coral, and Hamachi. We evaluated these tools in 2007 -- using both tests from within filtered countries and tests within a lab environment -- for their utility, usability, security, promotion, sustainability, and openness. We find that all of the tools use the same basic mechanisms of proxying and encryption but that they differ in their models of hosting proxies. Some tools use proxies that are centrally hosted, others use proxies that are peer hosted, and others use re-routing methods that use a combination of the two. We find that, in general, the tools work in the sense that they allow users to access pages that are otherwise blocked by filtering countries but that performance of the tools is generally poor and that many tools have significant, unreported security vulnerabilities.

The report was completed in 2007 and released to a group of private sponsors. Many of the findings of the report are now out of date, but we present them now, as is, because we think that the broad conclusions of the report about these tools remain valid and because we hope that other researchers will benefit from access to the methods used to test the tools.

Responses from developers of the tools in question are included in the report.
Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2794933

Collections
  • Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Scholarly Articles [91]
  • HLS Scholarly Articles [1855]

Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)

Follow us on TwitterFollow us on FacebookFollow us on Google+

e: osc@harvard.edu

t: +1 (617) 495 4089

f: +1 (617) 495 0370

© 2018 President and Fellows of Harvard College
  • DASH
  • ETDs@Harvard
  • Copyright First Responders
  • HOPE
  • Contact
  • Harvard Library
  • Harvard University