News

Matthew Roth, Spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, responds to our recent Wikipedia drops the ball on China - not too late to make amends article:

The Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t hold any readers of our projects in any less regard than others. Our mission is to bring the knowledge contained in the Wikimedia projects to everyone on the planet. There is no strategic consideration around how we can make one or another language project more accessible or readable in one part of the world or another. We do not have control over how a national government operates its censorship system. We also do not work with any national censorship system to limit access to project knowledge in any way.

It is worth noting the Greatfire blog post makes some incorrect assumptions about Wikimedia culture - including incorrect titling of some Wikimedia Foundation staff (e.g. Sue Gardner is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is written by tens of thousands of volunteers and has no director and no explicit hierarchy). There is also an incorrect assertion that Jimmy Wales has a direct role in working with our staff in making changes to core infrastructure. Of course Jimmy plays a role in the conversation as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, but he is participating in the conversation along with anyone else from the volunteer editor community.

Our story last Friday about new Sina Weibo censorship tactics has attracted a lot of attention. In this story we ask the harder questions: Why would Sina start testing new censorship tactics at this time and what prompted this action?

Advantages

In summary, Sina's new censorship controls will:

• mitigate user criticism of Sina's censorship policy
• block information without exposing the importance attached to the information by the authorities through the mere act of censorship
• block information in a way where users will likely not actively try to get around the block because they won't know it exists
• create an image of Sina Weibo (and perhaps the Chinese Internet) as an open and welcoming forum with little censorship and bucketfuls of freedom of speech

Zhu Ling

It looks like the authorities finally learned their lesson after blocking information about the Thallium poisoning case of Zhu Ling. The censorship of this case is extremely interesting as the original incident took place in 1994. It aroused interest again after news about a recent poisoning incident at Fudan University. Strangely, authorities began to delete news articles posted on major Chinese media and blocked searches on Weibo and Google. This act of censorship actually creating more outcry than the case itself. Many Weibo users believed that the authorities were covering up discussion about the issue to protect the suspect, who comes from a family that has held senior posts in the government. After all, why would the authorities censor discussion about a 1990s murder case?

What happened?

From October 2011, Wikipedia started to fully support HTTPS connections on all language versions. This meant that for the Chinese language Wikipedia, the Great Firewall of China (GFW) could not selectively block sensitive content. This also meant that hundreds of articles that are blocked on the HTTP version of Wikipedia, were freely accessible to Chinese internet users if they simply added an ‘S’ behind HTTP.

On May 31, 2013, GFW began to block the encrypted version of Wikipedia through port blocking. HTTPS connections are usually established on port 443 while HTTP connections are on port 80. GFW only blocks Wikipedia’s IP on port 443.

All language versions of the encrypted version of Wikipedia are also blocked. See the testing data on our system for Chinese Wikipedia, English Wikipedia and Wikipedia.

Consequence of the block

The HTTPS version of Wikipedia is blocked while the HTTP version is not. This method forces users inChina to use the unencrypted HTTP version, which is subject to keyword filtering; hundreds of articles are blocked including articles on Tiananmen Square protests.

Why

It surprises us that GFW took one and a half years to respond to the support of HTTPS on Wikipedia. One explanation of the slow reaction is that Wikipedia by default uses HTTP and only a minority of visitors to the site would use HTTPS.

Retweet this! Arrests and online censorship in China.

Please find below a list of Chinese who are or have been imprisoned in China often for “inciting subversion of state power” using the internet as a means of information dissemination. In many cases, the internet properties which these activists were using were complicit in police investigations and provided full access to these accounts. Wikipedia has an excellent list of all dissidents in China which is surprisingly not blocked by the great firewall (even in Chinese!) at the time of publication. Much of the information which follows was gathered from that list.

What happened?

At around 8pm, on January 26, reports appeared on Weibo and Twitter that users in China trying to access GitHub.com were getting warning messages about invalid SSL certificates. The evidence, listed further down in this post, indicates that this was caused by a man-in-the-middle attack.

What is a man-in-the-middle-attack?

Wikipedia defines a man-in-the-middle-attack in the following way:

The man-in-the-middle attack...is a form of active eavesdropping in which the attacker makes independent connections with the victims and relays messages between them, making them believe that they are talking directly to each other over a private connection, when in fact the entire conversation is controlled by the attacker.

We go into detail about what happened later in this post, but first we will explore why we think this happened.

Why?

At the time of writing, there are 5,103,522 repositories of data on GitHub and as many possible theories as to why the Chinese authorities want to block or interfere with access. We will focus on one of these theories however please note that this is pure speculation on our part.

On January 25, the day before the man-in-the-middle attack, the following petition was created on WhiteHouse.gov:

People who help internet censorship, builders of Great Firewall in China for example, should be denied entry to the U.S.

What happened?

Update: On January 23, https://github.com was unblocked again.

On January 18, or possibly the day before (though our test data doesn’t cover this), the Great Firewall began to reset connections containing “*.github.com”. As a result, code sharing projects hosted on a subdomain of GitHub, such as aoxu.github.com, were blocked in China. The main GitHub website was mostly unaffected, for two reasons. Firstly, it’s hosted on github.com, without a subdomain. Secondly, it serves encrypted content only, thus preventing the Great Firewall from resetting connections based on keywords.

A day later, the block was extended through the inclusion of github.com, without subdomains, in the list of keywords causing connections to be reset. Chinese users could still access GitHub as long as they manually typed in https://github.com in their browser (notice the https). Strangely the www.github.com host was DNS poisoned, but not any other hosts. The www subdomain is not used by GitHub.

On January 21, DNS poisoning was extended to all github.com hosts including the root domain as well as all its subdomains. In effect, all of GitHub was blocked in China.

Interestingly, the blocking of GitHub has seemingly not been censored on social media. The keyword “github” has not been blocked on Sina Weibo, and we have not detected any deleted posts containing “github” on FreeWeibo.

For further information on how the blocking was introduced, including data references, see the Timeline at the end of this article.