I would guess it's at least HTTP/2, but it would be interesting if it
ran over QUIC as well. That would arguably make it more blockable in
some respects (more unique traffic) and less blockable in others (less
likely censors have any mechanism for dealing with it yet).
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Eric Wustrow <
next...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are the typical clients that use this service using SPDY/QUIC to access it,
> and not simply HTTP? That might be a consideration for evading detection if
> used directly without domain fronting.
>
> Also worth considering Google's TOS for this service, but maybe Google could
> be convinced to allow it if this became a popular proxy either way (I assume
> they benefit from the user browsing data they now can directly collect).
>
> Eric
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Network Traffic Obfuscation" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to
traffic-obf...@googlegroups.com.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Network Traffic Obfuscation" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to
traffic-obf...@googlegroups.com.
--
--
President
Brave New Software Project, Inc.
https://www.getlantern.org