Which of these routers would be best for the purpose described?

[Odysseus42]

I am replacing my Arris modem/router/AP rented from TWC with my own Arris Surfboard SB6141 which I already have. I just need a simple router to get the signal from the modem down to where my two AP's are (one at each end of the house). The output from the existing Arris router, and from the new Surfboard, is to a patch panel which serves the entire house. (I am happy to explain this if necessary, but this is the setup I will be using and it is not the purpose of this post. So if there questions about this I can start a new post on that topic.)

All I want to know in this post is which of the following routers, router/AP's (which will have the AP disabled as I only want a wired router function at this location) will provide the best security of the lot. For info, my lan has both linux and windows (8.1, soon to be 10) computers, plus Roku, smart TV, etc. I have dug through my box of spare routers and find these (yes I know some are antiques):

Cisco Aironet 350 (may not work)
D-Link EBR-2310
D-Link DI-604
Linksys BEFSR41 ver. 4.2
Linksys BEFSR41 ver. 4.3 (one of these Linksys may not work)
Motorola WR850G
Netgear WNHDE111 (AP/Bridge) (may not work)
Uniden ENR1505 (may not work)
Zyxel P-330W v2

Since some of these may not work, if you could please simply rank as many of these from your firsthand knowledge as you feel like doing, I will test the rated ones (rather than spending time on ones that may be not recommended) to select the (working) top rated one.

Since this will be purely a wired router, the built-in security functions are most important. In case useful, the two downstream routers are a DLink DIR-655 and a Buffalo WZR-1750DHPD

I have done and continue to do googling on these for online opinions, but it is slow going. So I am hopeful that some among you will have some opinions on some or all of these.

 

[corroded]

I'd go with one of these that is best fit:

https://www.ubnt.com/products/#all/routing

Not too expensive either.

 

[Odysseus42]

Hello Corroded.

Thank you for your suggestion about buying yet another router. Given that I have 9 of them already, I am sure that you will understand that buying a new router is not the solution I seek (unless of course what you did not say is that none of these is a serious router.)

Any responses in point will be much appreciated.

 

[bill001g]

I will leave it to you to dig though all those part numbers and find the best. When you don't care about wireless then all that really matters is the processor speed. In general routers that have gig ports and claim higher speed wireless...ie bigger numbers...tend to have faster processors.

It depends how fast your cable connection is. If you are talking a 300m one you will need to spend some time digging, if it is 100m or less then many of the fairly modern routers will do.

Try http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/view

The wan/lan should be the only number you care about....some of your equipment may be too old to be on this table.

 

[Odysseus42]

I am indeed going through these routers and learning what I can about them. To clarify, I certainly would not ask anyone to do this footwork for me, but I have total confidence that among the various good folks checking the forums, ALL of the routers in my list will be familiar to some of them. So if each who knows one or more of those can advise if they think they are too old, junk, great or whatever, their independent opinion will be very helpful.

Also I note

all that really matters is the processor speed

. My impression is that routers do more than NAT, e.g., security functions, but maybe that is the crux of the issue. Any clarification on that point will be helpful.

If I am correct, then any comments on the value of any of my routers as firewalls or other built-in security would be very welcome. If I am mistaken about that, then I suppose what I want to know is what security device either as a separate piece of equipment from a router, or what router with security built in, is recommended?

 

[bill001g]

Nat because it is stupid does solves most security issues firewalls are used to solve. Since it does not allow any incoming session...because it does not know which internal machine to send it to....it is actually more effective than many firewalls. Firewall analyze incoming patterns but it can miss one but if no traffic is allowed at all then you can't miss anything.

Mostly firewalls on consumer routers are used to restrict internal users. Most times this points to a more generic issue of why you have something risky inside your network.

 

[Odysseus42]

May I conclude from yours that you believe one router is as good as another for security purposes? Or perhaps that very simple routers are preferred over ones with firewalls?

Unsure of the intent of the final sentence, but don't we all have

something risky inside your network.

Called passwords.

 

[bill001g]

The only other feature a firewall can help with in a home user would be if a machine got infected by you being tricked into downloading something, the machine could not then attack other people on the internet with some firewall software.

Mostly you would would only need a firewall if you were running some form of server that you intentionally needed to allow incoming session from the internet. It would look for attack patterns on the ports you were forced to allow to get the application running.