SMEs Network Compliance Pitfall Avoidance: Don’t Only Deploy WiFi Real-Name Authentication While Ignoring Intranet Auditing

With the digitalization of enterprise office work, cloud migration of business systems and rising IoT device deployment, corporate networks have evolved from simple internet access tools into critical infrastructure supporting office, production, data and business applications. Especially after the Measures for the Supervision and Inspection of Cyberspace Security by Public Security Organs (Ministry of Public Security Order No.176) officially takes effect on October 1, 2026, the scope of enterprise cybersecurity compliance checks has expanded significantly.

The new regulation clarifies that public security inspections examine not only whether network operators fulfill cybersecurity obligations, but also user registration information and internet log retention, cybersecurity protection, vulnerability remediation, data security and personal information protection. Inspectors can identify risks via online patrols, vulnerability scanning and remote testing.

A common pitfall for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): completing WiFi real-name authentication and assuming network compliance is fully achieved.

In fact, WiFi real-name authentication only partially addresses the question of “who connects to the wireless network”. Without identity management for intranet terminals and auditing of access activities, enterprises cannot trace security incidents, leaving obvious management blind spots in the network.

I. The Most Overlooked Compliance Blind Spot for SMEs: Intranet Auditing

Against the inspection requirements of Order No.176, SMEs most frequently encounter issues in the following areas:

• Logs only record external internet access, without intranet activity records: Order No.176 mandates that internet logs cover not only external website visits, but also intranet business access, file exfiltration and cloud disk uploads. Many SMEs only track “which websites employees visited”, ignoring “which internal systems employees accessed and which files were sent out”. Access logs for internal business systems and file transfer records are also key inspection targets.
• Separate authentication and logging systems: This is the most prevalent architectural flaw. Enterprises deploy a Portal authentication gateway for real-name verification and a standalone internet behavior management device for log recording. The two systems operate independently: the authentication system stores “which account logged in at what time”, while the log system stores “which IP accessed which website”. There is no underlying correlation between the two datasets. When inspectors request complete records of “what a specific IP accessed at a given time”, staff must manually splice data between systems, which is inefficient and error-prone. More importantly, authentication accounts cannot be inherently linked to online activities — the system can prove “someone connected to the network”, but cannot prove what actions that person performed.
• Logs scattered across multiple devices, unable to produce complete evidence chains: SME networks typically include egress routers, authentication gateways and behavior management appliances. Logs are stored separately with inconsistent formats. Order No.176 requires not merely “storing logs”, but being able to retrieve complete evidence chains at any time. Building on Order No.151’s real-name internet log requirements, Order No.176 adds three new log categories: device operation logs, link operation logs and security operation logs. These logs are usually distributed across different hardware in traditional architectures and require additional independent systems to collect.
• Missing network security operation logs: Under Order No.151, most SMEs only retained internet behavior logs. Order No.176 introduces new requirements for network security operation logs, including NAT session records, firewall policy hits and link anomalies. Many SMEs lack basic awareness of these logs, let alone retention capabilities.

II. How All-Optical Networks Resolve Intranet Auditing at the Architecture Level

To meet the new requirements of Order No.176, AINOPOL’s approach avoids adding appliances after network deployment. Instead, compliance capabilities are built into the underlying network — the core concept of integrated communication & security: networking and security functions are natively fused, rather than bolted on after network construction.

The core hardware is the M1 Mengxiang Gateway. This single device integrates routing, Portal authentication, real-name identity verification, log auditing, IPS intrusion prevention, AV antivirus and WAF web application protection. The authentication and logging modules are unified at the underlying layer.

1. Underlying session binding: every log carries user identity
   The M1 gateway uses underlying session binding technology to natively associate authenticated accounts with network behaviors. After users complete real-name authentication, every generated log automatically carries identity information. Inspectors query an IP address and directly obtain a full record: who, at what time, using which account, via which link, accessed what resources. No cross-system reconciliation or manual data splicing is required.
2. Full log storage covering both intranet and external network
   The M1 gateway supports high-capacity local log storage, automatically retaining 180 days of complete logs on local hard disks. Log fields include MAC address, IP address, authenticated account, online/offline timestamps and visited URLs. It covers intranet business access, file exfiltration and cloud disk upload scenarios. Logs are encrypted and tamper-proof, supporting one-click export of standard compliance reports and Syslog/API integration with network supervision platforms.
3. Unified retention of network security operation logs
   For the new security operation log requirements in Order No.176, the M1 gateway enables NAT session records, firewall policy hits and link anomaly logs on the same hardware, with no extra independent systems required. Existing AINOPOL deployments can activate these log modules remotely to satisfy the new regulatory rules.
4. 18 authentication methods to eliminate anonymous access loopholes
   Full auditing depends on real-name identity for all network activities. The M1 gateway supports 18 authentication modes, including local accounts and one-click login via WeChat, DingTalk and Lark. Employees, visitors and IoT terminals share a unified real-name authentication entry. Even dumb terminals such as printers and attendance machines can be included in audit scope via MAC whitelisting, eliminating unmonitored traffic blind spots.

III. Integrated Communication & Security: Extend Compliance to Data Transmission

Solving only access authentication and behavior auditing addresses basic cybersecurity management. Enterprises handling sensitive data in R&D, manufacturing and financial services must also protect data during transmission.

AINOPOL’s integrated communication & security architecture builds on the all-optical network foundation, merging networking and security capabilities. Office data, production data and audio-video services run on unified infrastructure, paired with access control, encrypted transmission and security zoning to implement tiered protection for different business types.

This shifts enterprise network design from simple bandwidth evaluation to comprehensive assessment: trusted access, traceable activities, isolated services and secure data.

For SMEs, network compliance is not achieved by stacking more devices. The goal is to build a closed loop covering identity, terminals, access, logs and security protection. Built on all-optical networks, paired with terminal admission, intranet auditing, security zoning, WAF and integrated communication & security, corporate networks evolve from “basic internet access” to visible, controllable, traceable and defendable.

FAQ

Q: Why is WiFi real-name authentication alone insufficient to pass Order No.176 inspections?
A: WiFi real-name authentication only verifies “who accesses the network”. Order No.176 requires a complete traceability chain: user registration records plus full internet logs covering external visits, intranet business access and file exfiltration. Logs must include source IP, account, timestamp, domain name and activity details. Real-name authentication without complete logs constitutes failure to perform cybersecurity protection obligations.

Q: What are Order No.176’s specific log retention requirements?
A: Internet logs must be retained for at least six months with sufficient storage capacity to prevent premature overwriting. Logs must cover external web access, intranet business access, file exfiltration and cloud disk uploads, with mandatory fields including source IP, account, timestamp, domain name and activity. In addition, Order No.176 adds requirements for network security operation logs including NAT sessions, firewall policy hits and link anomalies.

Q: How does the M1 Mengxiang Gateway link authenticated accounts with network behaviors?
A: The M1 gateway uses underlying session binding. After real-name authentication, every subsequent log automatically carries the user’s identity. Correlation is established at the moment the log is generated, without post-hoc data matching. Logs are encrypted locally and retained for 180 days, supporting one-click export of standard compliance reports.