This topic has been marked solved and closed to new posts due to inactivity. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.
> [...] There is no problem but "admin" is easily hackable. Would like > to change it.
I believe that you're out of luck, but feel free to consult the documentation. (Visit http://netgear.com/support , put in your model number, and look for Documentation. Get the User Manual (at least).)
As it's very near universal, "admin" is widely known. But, so far as I know, it's also useless without a password. This gets discussed here from time to time, often by people with a tenuous grasp on reality. For example:
> [...] There is no problem but "admin" is easily hackable. Would like > to change it.
I believe that you're out of luck, but feel free to consult the documentation. (Visit http://netgear.com/support , put in your model number, and look for Documentation. Get the User Manual (at least).)
As it's very near universal, "admin" is widely known. But, so far as I know, it's also useless without a password. This gets discussed here from time to time, often by people with a tenuous grasp on reality. For example:
I had a feeling it was unchangeable. I would think, especially in this crazy day and age, having a unique login (one not as commonly known as admin) coupled with a unique password would logically add another level of security. Thank you for your time and reply.
> [...] I would think, especially in this crazy day and age, having a > unique login (one not as commonly known as admin) coupled with a unique > password would logically add another level of security. [...]
If you can explain "logically" how user = <other_name> pass = <short_pass> beats: user = admin pass = <other_name><short_pass> then I'm open to a good counter-argument.
If all you're doing is repeating that "pieces of information" nonsense ( https://community.netgear.com/t5/x/x/m-p/1947504 ), then you need to work on your "logically". Even "in this crazy day and age", math is still math.
