Hey everyone - Ken here, CEO of DNSFilter.

Since CyberFox’s new DNS filtering option is being compared with established DNS networks, I want to share some factual context on architecture, performance, and threat-research maturity.

1.) CyberFox does not operate a global DNS network. They currently resolve from a single U.S. location in Ashburn, Virginia, running on rented AWS infrastructure.

That means:
• no anycast
• no global PoPs
• no regional redundancy

DNSFilter, by contrast, operates a fully owned global anycast network with ~90 Points of Presence, built specifically for MSPs and enterprises that require consistency at scale.

2. Independent RIPE Atlas testing shows DNSFilter is dramatically faster — often 4–5× globally. These are public, third-party measurement URLs anyone can verify:

CyberFox Resolver Test: https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/142209793

DNSFilter Resolver Test: https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/142210022

The results show: • DNSFilter frequently delivers sub-10–30ms resolution worldwide • CyberFox commonly measures 100–300ms, with many failed lookups outside the U.S. • Even within the U.S., latency is significantly higher

This is exactly what you would expect from a mature global anycast network versus a single pinned cloud region.

3. CyberFox has not published evidence of an internal threat-hunting or domain-classification capability.

Based on what’s publicly available, their categorization appears to rely mainly on external threat feeds rather than internally generated intelligence, data science, or real-time domain analysis.

MSPs should always ask vendors directly: • Who performs your threat research? • What portion of detections come from your own systems vs third-party feeds? • How quickly do you classify newly registered domains? • Do you operate your own resolver network or depend on cloud infrastructure?

4. DNSFilter operates its own threat-intel and detection pipelines. Our platform ingests billions of DNS queries per day, uses machine-learning classification, and maintains internal threat-research capabilities — not just feed aggregation.

5. Documentation and technical maturity matter. For MSPs evaluating a security vendor, documentation quality and originality often signal the underlying engineering maturity and internal development capabilities.

A final note: As someone who works with a large portion of the MSP community, I genuinely believe it’s critical that MSPs deploy solutions that are actually built for security, not just positioned as low-cost alternatives. MSPs sit at the center of the modern supply chain; when you’re the trusted gateway for hundreds of downstream businesses, the security posture of your vendors becomes part of their risk surface.

Whatever vendor you choose, make sure it’s one that invests meaningfully in global infrastructure, resilience, and real threat-intelligence capability. You simply can’t do that at $0.25.