WiFi Compliance Upgrade Under MPS Order No.176: One-Stop All-Optical Network Remediation with Real-Name Authentication + Log Auditing + Security Protection

Corporate park WiFi serves employee office work, visitor internet access, conference rooms, production auxiliary areas and a wide range of smart terminals. As cybersecurity regulations grow stricter, wireless network construction must cover not only coverage, speed and stability, but also real-name user authentication, internet log retention and network threat defence.

MPS Order No.176, Measures for Cyberspace Security Supervisory Inspection by Public Security Organs, came into force on October 1, 2026. If park WiFi only provides basic internet access without real-name verification, log recording or security safeguards, enterprises will face compliance failures during official inspections and daily audits

To address these requirements, AINOPOL integrates Portal authentication, log storage and firewall security into the Dream Gateway. Combined with all-optical networking, we deliver a one-stop remediation solution covering user admission and boundary protection for enterprise parks.

I. Compliance Risks Facing Corporate Park WiFi Under MPS Order No.176

1. Shared WiFi without real-name authentication leads to poor identity governance

Many parks still use a single shared WiFi password for staff, visitors and suppliers. Once the password is widely shared, administrators cannot identify individual users or trace access records afterwards.

WiFi compliance is far more than stable connectivity. It requires formal user identity verification and admission workflows. Without proper authentication for visitor Wi-Fi, enterprises cannot build traceable access logs as required by regulation.

2. Stable network operation does not guarantee complete log retention

Numerous parks deploy routers, switches and wireless APs with reliable connectivity, yet overlook internet log recording and storage. When investigating access behaviour, IT teams find records scattered across multiple devices or missing entirely.

Network connectivity and log retention are two separate capabilities. Enterprises must verify continuous log generation, flexible query functions and a retention period meeting regulatory standards. Operational stability alone cannot prove full compliance.

3. Authentication and logging are insufficient without network security protection

Real-name authentication manages user access, and log retention supports post-inspection tracing, but neither can replace threat defence. Without boundary security controls, malicious intrusions, virus outbreaks and web application attacks will still disrupt business systems.

WiFi remediation must combine identity verification, log archiving and threat protection. Operators need to track who accesses the network and ensure all connections are under proper security control.

II. AINOPOL Dream Gateway: Integrated Real-Name Authentication, Log Retention & Security Protection

1. Built-in Portal with over ten authentication modes

The AINOPOL Dream Gateway embeds native Portal authentication, supporting more than ten access modes tailored to park user groups and scenarios.

For visitor Wi-Fi, flexible authentication workflows eliminate the risks of permanent shared passwords. For office networks, access policies can align with existing network architecture. Embedding Portal directly on the gateway simplifies deployment and reduces O&M workload compared with standalone authentication servers.

For legacy park networks, we first assess existing switches, wireless APs and gateways to design low-impact renovation plans and avoid unnecessary rework.

2. Local log storage with 6-month retention

Real-name authentication is only the first step. Compliance fails if identity records exist but internet activity logs are incomplete or irretrievable.

The Dream Gateway supports local log storage for up to 180 days (6 months), providing reliable data for daily management, record inquiries and official regulatory audits.

Enterprises must ensure logs are consistently generated, searchable and protected with strict access permissions. Portal authentication and log auditing run on the same hardware to eliminate cross-system data matching errors. Note that enabling the function alone does not satisfy all compliance obligations; enterprises must verify log fields, storage mechanisms and audit workflows against regulatory requirements.

3. Integrated NGFW: IPS, WAF and AV anti-virus protection

Beyond authentication and logging, the Dream Gateway delivers multi-layer boundary security with next-generation firewall modules:

• IPS (Intrusion Prevention System): Detects and blocks network attacks in real time;
• WAF (Web Application Firewall): Shields web services against common application-layer exploits;
• AV (Anti-Virus): Identifies and intercepts malware and virus traffic.

These security engines work together to block malicious flows, hacking attempts and virus propagation at the network egress. Security policies must be fine-tuned according to park topology, business systems and risk profiles to avoid false positives.

III. One-Stop Park WiFi Remediation Built on All-Optical Networks

The Dream Gateway fulfils authentication, logging and boundary defence requirements, while the overall network architecture determines the final remediation outcome. For multi-building office parks and factories, AINOPOL’s all-optical network solution unifies access planning and inter-domain traffic control.

We divide the network into isolated security zones: office network, visitor network, monitoring network and IoT terminal network. VLAN segmentation and access control lists block unnecessary cross-domain communication. Visitors who complete real-name authentication only get limited access permissions and cannot reach internal business systems automatically.

For dumb terminals such as cameras and access controllers that cannot support individual account login, we implement terminal whitelisting and port binding for strict admission control.

With an all-optical backbone, strict network segmentation and the Dream Gateway’s integrated authentication, logging and security capabilities, enterprises build a complete network governance framework from basic connectivity to full lifecycle security management.

Under MPS Order No.176, park WiFi upgrades cannot stop at wireless coverage. Real-name authentication, log archiving and threat protection must work in tandem. Built on Dream Series Secure Optical Gateways, AINOPOL follows the "Communication-Security Integrated" design: all-optical network as the foundation, audio-video transmission as the engine, and embedded security as the shield. We deliver end-to-end support for user admission management, log archiving and egress boundary protection

FAQ

Q: Why is "scan QR code to get password" not recognised as real-name authentication under MPS Order No.176?
A: QR code distribution of a universal shared password does not verify visitor identity or bind access behaviour to a specific individual. The regulation requires retention of user registration information, which is absent with generic open passwords. Compliant QR-code-based authentication must run through a Portal workflow with SMS verification, WeChat login or document validation to complete real-name binding.

Q: What is the difference between this one-stop integrated solution and separately purchasing an authentication gateway plus an independent log server?
A: Standalone devices lack underlying session binding. Authentication records and internet logs are stored on separate systems, so administrators cannot match browsing behaviour to mobile phone numbers during inspections. Our all-in-one Dream Gateway generates authentication accounts and traffic logs on the same hardware; every internet record carries the authenticated user ID natively without post-hoc data reconciliation.

Q: How long must logs be retained, and what fields are mandatory?
A: Minimum retention period: 180 days (6 months). Mandatory fields include real-name identity, terminal MAC address, private IP, public NAT IP and port range, target URL/destination address, and online/offline timestamps. Missing NAT port segments is a frequent compliance defect: multiple terminals share one public IP, and logs cannot be traced back to individual endpoints without accurate port information.