Member Avatar for dyrshin

Hello all, first time posting something here (I think). I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me on the difference between the Cisco ASA 5505 and Linksys E3000, as far as Firewall protection is concerned. Is the ASA 5505 somehow more robust in stopping attacks? I'm not paranoid, but I work for someone that is convinced the ASA needs to be in place. Thanks for the replies!

  • 3 Contributors
  • 5 Replies
  • 288 Views
  • 9 Months Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by smferoz

Dani AI

Generated

Brief, practical note to sit above the thread: this is a checklist and hardening guidance to help decide whether the Linksys E3000 is an acceptable replacement for the ASA 5505 in 's environment. It builds on the points raised by and but focuses on operational checks and low-effort mitigations that close most of the real-world gaps a consumer router can introduce.

  • Inventory and exposure: list every host and service that must be reachable from the Internet (protocol, port, destination). Remove any service that is not explicitly required.

  • Verify from outside your network that only the expected services respond. Example quick test (run from an external host or mobile data connection):

    nmap -Pn -sT -p 1-65535 your.public.ip.address

    Confirm results match the inventory and fix any unexpected responses.

  • Management hardening: remove default accounts, set a strong admin password, disable remote/ WAN-side management, disable UPnP/WPS, and restrict any management access to specific trusted addresses only.

  • Logging and visibility: ensure the router can export logs to a syslog/collector or that endpoints produce adequate logs. If the device cannot provide reliable logs, add external monitoring (host agents, IDS, or a small packet capture).

  • Network separation and endpoints: keep wireless and guest networks isolated from critical hosts; enforce endpoint hardening and patching; assume endpoint controls are necessary because the consumer device may not fully isolate threat traffic.

  • Capacity and failure modes: check concurrent connection limits and observe CPU/memory under load. Consumer gear can fail silently when tables fill or under attack—plan a fallback (reintroduce the ASA config or use a supported appliance) if stability matters.

Conclusion: for a tiny office with no internet-facing services and good endpoint hygiene, a properly locked-down E3000 can be workable. If visibility, audited logging, segmentation, or resilient behavior under attack are required, restore or replace the ASA with a supported, business-class appliance.

Recommended Answers

All 5 Replies

Member Avatar for CimmerianX

The ASA 5505 is a business class firewall that has a lot more flexibility when it comes to configuration. With that flexibility comes a very big learning curve if you've not used an ASA before. Not that it's rocket science, but a beginner will get frustrated with the command line quickly.

The ASA does a lot that the linksys can't do. The ASA can handle deep packet inspection and run fixups for things like DNS, SQLnet, etc to handle the NATing quirks for those protocols. The ASA can run static nats and port forwarding internally to various machines with access list control to really get detailed about what's allowed.

The ASA has support for the IPSEC VPN client and the SSL Anyconnect clients (check your licensing). It can also forward internally to multiple VLANs (again, check licensing). The ASA can route multiple subnets across a single VPN IPSEC tunnel instead of just 1 single subnet spec.

The big CON here is price. The ASA's are expensive if you start adding licensing for sec plus or Anyconnect support. So make sure you know what you are buying.

Member Avatar for dyrshin

Thank you for your reply, very helpful, particularly the part about packet inspection. My question was more to do with the difference I will see, security-wise, when I replaced the ASA 5505 with the E3000. Cost is not the factor, as the ASA was already here and in place before I got here. Problem is that it wasn't configured by me. I just don't see the use for it. We weren't using it's robust VPN features or anything fancy at all. I believe it was only being used as a firewall.

Since removing it and replacing it with the E3000, do you think I am putting the network at a greater security risk?

Member Avatar for CimmerianX

If all you want to do is block traffic and allow certain outbound ports, then I think any firewall would suffice. The ASA begins to shine when you talk about hosting services, managing VPNs, etc...

If you have no VPN, and no internal hosts to share, then the e3000 should do the job fine IMHO.

Member Avatar for dyrshin

Thanks again for the answers.

Member Avatar for smferoz

Hi,

ASA has many features when compared with LinkSys Firewall .ASA Firewall is more secure and reliable one can configure Failovers and VPN and on ASA Firewall .

commented: Stop revivin dead thread more than 3 months old. Dude -2
Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.