Decree No.176 Covers Eight Categories of Regulated Entities: SME All‑Optical Compliance Upgrade Must Go Beyond Wi‑Fi Real‑Name Authentication

Effective October 1, 2026, the Measures for the Supervision and Inspection of Cyberspace Security (Decree No.176 of the Ministry of Public Security) officially takes effect, repealing the former Decree No.151. The new regulation clearly extends cyberspace security supervision to eight categories of entities: internet service providers, public internet access service providers, network operators and their builders/maintainers, entities related to critical information infrastructure, network product and service providers, data processors, personal information processors, and other subjects subject to inspection by law.

For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the key focus is not merely judging “whether we will be inspected”, but re-evaluating network management blind spots. Many SMEs have already deployed real-name authentication for employee and visitor Wi‑Fi, yet cameras, access controllers, printers, servers and internal business systems remain under loose management.

According to inspection items specified in Decree No.176, cyberspace security covers far more than “who accesses the network”. It also includes network logs, classified protection, attack defence, vulnerability remediation, data security and personal information protection.

I. Why Wi‑Fi Real‑Name Authentication Alone Still Leaves Compliance Gaps

Real-name authentication verifies identities, but it does not deliver full network security
Enterprises deploying Portal authentication, SMS authentication or other real-name methods can record user identities and know “who is accessing the network”.

However, confirming user identity is separate from securing the network itself.

Article 7 of Decree No.176 lists inspection items including network filing, cybersecurity management systems, retention of user registration and internet access logs, classified protection, safeguards against malware, network attacks, intrusions and hidden vulnerabilities, plus obligations for data security and personal information protection.

If an enterprise only enables Wi‑Fi real-name authentication without log retention, boundary defence and vulnerability handling, it only completes one single link of network governance.

Wired terminals bypass Wi‑Fi authentication

SME internal networks host many devices that never connect to Wi‑Fi.
Cameras, access controllers, attendance machines, printers and various IoT devices are commonly connected directly to switches via network cables. They skip employee Wi‑Fi authentication but still join the corporate internal network.

This creates an easily overlooked blind spot: wireless users are controlled, while wired terminals connect freely.
Without terminal identification and access control in the network architecture, standalone Wi‑Fi authentication cannot cover the whole internal network.

Exposed business systems remain vulnerable to web attacks even with real-name authentication

If enterprise OA, ERP, CRM and corporate portals are published for external access, they face risks such as web vulnerabilities, malicious visits and attack traffic.

These risks exist independently of whether employees complete real-name authentication.
Decree No.176 explicitly includes defence against network attacks, intrusions and security vulnerabilities in inspection scope. Enterprises must build security protection and risk response mechanisms for network egresses, server zones and business systems.

Compliance upgrades therefore cannot focus only on the Wi‑Fi entry point; controls must extend to internal terminals, network exits and business systems.

II. AINOPOL All‑Optical Compliance Upgrade: From Wi‑Fi Authentication to Full Network Security Governance

Combine real-name authentication and log retention for traceable network access

Wi‑Fi real-name authentication is valuable, but must be extended to “authentication + logging”.
AINOPOL supports identity recognition for employees and visitors via Portal authentication, paired with gateway log audit to record and query network access behaviour.

When abnormal access occurs, enterprises can trace not only “which terminal connected to the network”, but also cross-reference identity, timestamp and access records for investigation.
Network logging is one of the core inspection items under Decree No.176.

Terminal whitelisting and 802.1X fill wired internal network gaps

For dumb terminals including cameras, access controllers and printers, AINOPOL implements access control through ONU port binding, device whitelisting and 802.1X authentication.

For example, a designated port only permits pre-authorised devices. Unauthorised hardware plugged into the network jack cannot directly access the core corporate network.

This brings previously ignored wired terminals into the security management system, transforming the network from “managing only Wi‑Fi users” to unified control for wireless users, wired devices and dumb IoT terminals.

WAF, IPS protect business systems and network egresses

For SMEs running OA, ERP and web portals, terminal management alone is insufficient. Network egress and server zone protection must be strengthened.

AINOPOL security gateways integrate firewall, IPS, WAF and antivirus functions to inspect inbound traffic. WAF defends web services; IPS identifies network attack behaviour. Security zones isolate business servers from ordinary office terminals.

If one office terminal is compromised, network zoning and access policies limit lateral spread of threats to core business zones.

Integrated communication & security: all‑optical network carries both connectivity and security

SMEs prefer to avoid stacking many independent hardware appliances. Security can be deployed alongside all‑optical network construction.

AINOPOL’s integrated communication & security design uses the all‑optical network as the communication foundation, embedding identity authentication, access control, service isolation and data security into the overall architecture.

The infrastructure supports multiple services including office, surveillance, access control and IoT. Security capabilities are deployed together with network construction, rather than added as separate appliances after network completion.

After Decree No.176 takes effect, enterprise cybersecurity must evolve from isolated internet authentication toward comprehensive cyberspace governance. Note that the eight categories are classifications of inspected subjects, and SMEs do not bear identical obligations. Enterprises need to assess specific requirements based on their business, network, data and personal information processing activities.

Wi‑Fi real-name authentication can serve as a starting point for compliance, but it is not the full solution.

Building upon all‑optical infrastructure, enterprises can unify user authentication, log retention, terminal access control, service isolation, WAF, IPS and security management. SMEs can upgrade their network from “having authentication” to a state where the whole network is manageable, services are controllable, behaviour is traceable and risks are remediable. One all‑optical transformation delivers both network upgrade and long-term compliance.

FAQ

Q: What specific requirements does Decree No.176 impose on SMEs?
A: Decree No.176 expands supervision to eight types of entities. SMEs operating networks, processing data or handling personal information fall under inspection scope. Key audit items include network filing, internet log retention of at least six months, cybersecurity classified protection, malware and attack defence, data security and personal information protection, totalling eleven inspection items.

Q: Can Wi‑Fi real-name authentication alone pass Decree No.176 inspection?
A: No. Wi‑Fi real-name authentication only addresses one requirement: retention of user registration and internet logs. Decree No.176 covers filing, log retention, classified protection and security defence. Incomplete log fields, unsegmented internal networks or missing security controls will cause non-compliance.

Q: Must visitor Wi‑Fi and office networks be separated?
A: Yes. Decree No.176 requires technical safeguards against network attacks and intrusions. If visitor Wi‑Fi shares the same VLAN as the office network, visitors can access internal devices after connecting, creating a direct compliance vulnerability.