You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 3, 2016

New Law on Cyber Security in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Vietnam’s new Law on Cyber-Information Security (LCIS) was passed on November 19, 2015, and it will take effect this year on July 1. This is the first comprehensive law ever issued in Vietnam on the security of “cyber-information,” which is information exchanged in a telecommunications or computer network environment. Previous regulations on the subject had been scattered throughout different pieces of legislation, such as the Law on Information Technology; the Law on Telecommunications; the Law on E-Transactions; Decree 72 on the management, provision, and use of Internet services and online information; the Penal Code; and information security regulations for specific sectors such as banking and finance.

The key aspects of the LCIS include assurances for the safety and security of cyber-information; protection of personal information in the network environment; protection of information systems and infrastructure; production, trading, and use of civil ciphers; standards and technical regulations on information security; provision of information security services; prevention of spam, computer viruses, and harmful software; and emergency responses.

The LCIS retains the main principle of existing data privacy regulations in that the collection, processing, and use of personal information of an individual require the consent of that person. It also reemphasizes the importance of active prevention, detection, stopping, and handling of computer viruses and harmful software as well as the prevention and stopping of sabotage or use of information for the purpose of terrorism.

The new law requires intermediary service providers (e.g., enterprises providing email services or transmitting and storing information) to have malware-filtering systems in the course of sending, receiving, and storing information via their systems and to send reports to competent state agencies in accordance with the law. It also requires organizations and individuals, within their authority and responsibilities, to prevent the sabotage of information originating from their information infrastructure, to collaborate with one another in identifying sources, and to counter and remedy the consequences of cyber-attacks carried out via the information systems of domestic and foreign organizations and individuals.

The new law further aims to enhance capacity-building in cyber-information security and encourage organizations and individuals to invest in and enter into joint ventures and associations with other organizations in building higher-education institutions and vocational-training institutions with a view to training human resources for cyber-information security.

A current problem with the LCIS is that its scope of applicability is rather broadly defined. Accordingly, it seems to pose some new requirements and challenges which could apply to many business operators in Vietnam. On its face, the law includes a number of provisions that might apply to many organizations that own information and information systems, defined as a combination of hardware, software, and databases for creating, transmitting, and storing information, among other matters, in a network environment. Needless to say, many businesses could fall under this broad scope. These provisions include the following:

  • Organizations which own information must classify information based on varying levels of secrecy in order to take appropriate protective measures.
  • Those collecting information are subject to inspections and examinations on an annual basis, and on an extraordinary basis when deemed necessary by the relevant state agencies.
  • Organizations which own information systems must classify their systems according to levels of security from 1 to 5 (with 5 as the highest level). These levels reflect the potential harm that a security breach could cause to other entities, social order, and national security, among other matters. These organizations must also formulate policies and rules to ensure cyber-information security when designing, developing, managing, operating, using, updating, or deactivating information systems.
  • Organizations which own information systems are also responsible for protecting their information systems, and must determine the security level of their information systems; assess and manage security risks to information systems; supervise, monitor, and check the protection of information systems; take measures to protect information systems; comply with the reporting regime; and conduct activities to disseminate information and raise awareness about cyber-information security.

It is not clearly defined in the LCIS as to what suffices as compliance for many of the aspects set out above.

While the LCIS retains the existing requirements that the production, trading, or importation of civil cryptographic products requires a license, it poses a new requirement for the use of civil ciphers (i.e., cryptographic techniques and products used to keep secret or authenticate information that is not classified as state secrets). In particular, organizations and individuals that use civil cryptographic products provided by enterprises which are not licensed to do business in those products must declare such use to the Government Cipher Committee. Certain organizations, such as foreign consular offices, are exempt from making this declaration.

The LCIS sets out regulations for new types of products and services:

  • Cyber-information security products, which include, among others: civil cryptographic products; cyber-information security testing and evaluation products; and products to counter cyber-attacks and hacking.
  • Cyber-information security services, which include, among others: cyber-information security testing and evaluation services; services relating to information confidentiality which do not use civil cryptography; civil cryptographic services; e-signature certification services; data recovery services; and cyber-attack prevention and countering services.

The provision of cyber-information security services and trading in cyber-information security products are subject to licensing. An importer might need to obtain a cyber-information security product import permit depending on its cyber-information security imports.

While the new law is a welcome step in codifying the regulations on the vital issue of cyber-information security, it still needs further detail and guidance in several areas. The expectation is that subordinate legislation will soon be issued to clarify the practical realities of the LCIS, and hopefully including a more narrow scope of applicability.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More