NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Hardware
3904 TopicsM4250-26G4XF-PoE+ adding copper SFP
In an attempt to expand the port count of the switch, we have added two proper Netgear copper SFP modules. The switch recognizes them and show that they are supported. However, when an attempt to connect a device to the port, there is no connection established. At one point I was able to successfully connect a device and it had been working. The switch no longer wants to participate. We have other modules here to test with as well and we get the same result. I have ruled out that it is a module issue because they shown as supported in the switch. I am under an impression that the firmware might have something to do with the behavior. I have not rolled back firmware yet but willing to do so. Anyone one else have a similar experience? I know I am not alone because I have read many different threads online with the same type of complaint. Anyone found a solution?14Views0likes1CommentM4300-52G-POE+ Bricked Recovery Method
Anyone knows how to recover from a power outage that bricked my M4300 ? M4300-52G-POE+ We had an outage. Power came back on, then the unit boots but none of the 52-ports came back up. The OOB port lights up when plugged into, but nothing. Then I console it and got the readout. It didn't even get past port0 and stalled out. Here is the vid: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7Q5zGWaNzxY About 8 seconds into it and the screen will show up41Views0likes1CommentSome GS308EP switches do not comply with IEEE 802.3 Ethernet specifications
IEEE 802.3 Ethernet specifications require that the switches provide galvanic isolation between all ports and chassis ground. this means that the POE supply is meant to be "floating" not connected to earth ground. I have found several of these switches in my installations that do not comply with this standard. I have also found those of the same model which do comply. It seems that the newer ones do not comply. Is there some rhyme or reason for this selective non-compliance? Can I select switches which do comply by the serial numbers? surely this is not a configuration, but correct me if I am wrong. Does Netgear offer any switches which do comply with IEEE poe requirements? test setup: plug switch into POE powered device, use a multimeter to check the volts to ground of the powered to device to the earth ground of the building. If you find that earth ground is mV from the powered device ground in voltage, this switch is compliant. if you find that ground is -54V from the ground on the powered device, then the PSE is non-compliant because it is providing a voltage source REFERENCED TO EARTH GROUND. Don't believe me about galvanic isolation being a requirment? ref: https://www.analog.com/en/resources/technical-articles/jumpstarting-ieee-802-3bts-poe.htmlSolvedWAX210 Firmware 1.1.0.34 Bug – SSID Password Complexity Incorrectly Enforced
Hi everyone — I’m seeing what looks like a firmware regression on the WAX210 after updating to v1.1.0.34, and I want to report it in case others are affected. After updating, the AP now refuses to save any configuration changes (even unrelated ones like just renaming the Access Point). The UI throws this error: SSID1: SSID passphrase length must be between 8 and 63 characters, and contain at least one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number, and one special symbol. This happens even when the SSID password is not edited at all. The AP loads the existing (valid) WPA2/WPA3 passphrase and flags it as invalid due to a complexity requirement that didn’t exist before. This appears to be the AP Login Password complexity policy being mistakenly applied to SSID passphrases, which contradicts the official manual. SSID passwords for WPA2/WPA3 should only require 8–63 characters. Reproduction Steps Update WAX210 to firmware 1.1.0.34 Log into the web interface Make any change (example: AP Name only) Click Apply The SSID password complexity error appears, even though SSID settings were untouched Impact. The AP cannot accept any configuration changes unless the SSID password is replaced with a much more complex passphrase. This forces a complete re-key of all connected devices. Expected Behavior Per the WAX210 User Manual, SSID passphrases should be valid with: 8 to 63 characters No requirements for uppercase/lowercase/digits/symbols Those rules worked correctly in previous firmware versions. Current Workaround Rolling back to firmware 1.1.0.25 or 1.1.0.20 fully resolves the issue. Request Can Netgear please confirm whether this is a regression in 1.1.0.34 and escalate to the firmware engineering team? This issue effectively prevents configuration of the device. I can provide: Screenshots of the error dialog A configuration backup A short video showing the issue Exact hardware revision and serial if needed Thanks in advance.866Views4likes20CommentsWAX610Y and WAC540 Bridged Network
I have a WAC540 that is working great, and it's connected hardwired. There's a driveway gate controller that needs internet access, but no hardwired network available. So, I purchased a WAX610Y (since it's used outdoors), made the WAC540 the root, and WAX610Y the extender. I also used a PoE injector to power the WAX610Y. The WAX610Y also services outdoor clients. Both connect and formed a bridge across a long driveway. Although it's only 50 feet away, the wireless strength reported "good" (one below "excellent") at -54 dBm. I connected a laptop to the other end of the CAT5e that is connected to this WAX610Y, and I was getting very poor internet speed, something like 5-10 mbps up/down where it's normally 600+ mbps. I reset everything, did firmware upgrade, etc., but I am still having connectivity issues. It's also disconnecting and reconnecting every so often. Can you tell me if the WAX610Y supports extending the network across the driveway? This is how I have it: Gate Keypad <-CAT5e-> PoE Injector <-CAT5e+PoE-> WAX610Y <-wireless-> WAC540 WAC540 <-> router <-> internet Thanks for any advise for getting this to work properly.66Views0likes2CommentsFVS114 Router Login Took Too Long to Respond
When I attempt to login to the FVS114, I get the error message "www.routerlogin.com took too long to respond". I have removed/re-inserted power and tried to login (nothing), did a hard factory reset and tried to login (nothing), cleared Win Edge browser cache (nothing), switched Edge to IE mode (nothing). I have used a different ethernet cable for FVS114 to computer & gateway (nothing). Am I to the point of accepting this device is pooched and I have to move on? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks, Kym.133Views0likes5CommentsGS105E: kein Zugriff
Hi, ich habe hier seit 2022 ein GS105E Switch. Irgendwann habe ich ihn nicht mehr benötigt und beiseite gepackt. Nun möchte ich ihn wieder im Einsatz haben. Leider bekomme ich kein Zugriff, da ich die manuell vergebene IP vergessen habe. Ein Reset habe ich schon mehrfach durchgeführt. Egal ob ich den Switch direkt an den Laptop oder an eine Powerline hänge, mit der Standard IP (192.1680.239) komme ich nicht an den Switch. Auch ist es egal ob ich es über Windows oder Linux versuche. Auffällig ist jedoch, dass unter Windows -> Netzwerk -> Adapteroption immer wieder im wechsel angezeigt wird, das dass Netzwerk ermittelt wird oder das Netzwerkkabel entfernt wurde. Ist der Switch defekt? Hat jemand ggf. eine Lösung? Danke für´s lesen :)WAX210 iPhone WPA3 Incorrect Password isBSSIDDenylisted 1
Hi I've been using a WAX210 as my home access point for a few months and every few days my iPhone is banned from the network. It won't auto-connect and if I manually connect it fails with "Incorrect password" I enabled iOS Wi-Fi diagnostics and it shows the BSSID has been banned for connections, with isBSSIDDenylisted 1. WAX210 running latest Firmware V1.1.0.34 released 25th July 2025 iPhone 16 Pro running latest iOS 26.3.1 5Ghz network WPA3 password I have also submitted feedback to apple as FB22209711 in case it is their bug. I believe it's either a bug in the WAX210 that is getting it banned by the iPhone or the iPhone's banning logic is too restrictive. Relevant log lines below: 03/12/2026 9:02:39.181 __WiFiDeviceManagerKnownNetworkSuitabilityCheck: Network 'agate', isFilteringAJCandidates 0, isSSIDTemporarilyDenylisted 0, isBSSIDDenylisted 1, isTDDenylisted 0 03/12/2026 9:02:39.181 __WiFiDeviceManagerKnownNetworkSuitabilityCheck: Not considering problematic Network agate isSSIDTemporarilyDenylisted 0 isBSSIDDenylisted 1 isFilteringAJCandidates 0 isTDDenylisted 0471Views0likes15Comments