Basel III Compliance
Basel III: International Regulatory Framework for Banks
Overview
Basel III is an international regulatory framework for banks developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). While primarily focused on capital adequacy, liquidity risk, and leverage ratios, Basel III also includes operational risk requirements that cover technology and cyber risk.
Bindy, as critical DNS infrastructure in a regulated banking environment, falls under Basel III operational risk management requirements.
Key Basel III Areas Applicable to Bindy:
- Operational Risk (Pillar 1): Technology failures, cyber attacks, service disruptions
- Cyber Risk Management (2018 Principles): Cybersecurity governance, threat monitoring, incident response
- Business Continuity (Pillar 2): Disaster recovery, high availability, resilience
- Operational Resilience (2021 Principles): Ability to withstand severe operational disruptions
Basel III Cyber Risk Principles
The Basel Committee published Cyber Risk Principles in 2018, which define expectations for banks’ cybersecurity programs. Bindy complies with these principles:
Principle 1: Governance
Requirement: Board and senior management should establish a comprehensive cyber risk management framework.
Bindy Implementation:
| Control | Implementation | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Security Policy | Comprehensive security policy documented | SECURITY.md |
| Threat Model | STRIDE threat analysis with 15 threats | Threat Model |
| Security Architecture | 5 security domains documented | Security Architecture |
| Incident Response | 7 playbooks for critical/high incidents | Incident Response |
| Compliance Roadmap | Tracking compliance implementation | Compliance Roadmap |
Evidence:
- Security documentation (4,010 lines across 7 documents)
- Compliance tracking (H-1 through H-4 complete)
- Quarterly security reviews
Status: ✅ COMPLIANT - Comprehensive cyber risk framework documented
Principle 2: Risk Identification and Assessment
Requirement: Banks should identify and assess cyber risks as part of operational risk management.
Bindy Implementation:
| Risk Category | Identified Threats | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoofing | Compromised Kubernetes API, stolen ServiceAccount tokens | HIGH | RBAC least privilege, short-lived tokens, network policies |
| Tampering | Malicious DNS zone changes, RNDC key compromise | CRITICAL | RBAC read-only, signed commits, audit logging |
| Repudiation | Untracked DNS changes, no audit trail | HIGH | Signed commits, audit logs (7-year retention), WORM storage |
| Information Disclosure | Secret leakage, DNS data exposure | CRITICAL | Kubernetes Secrets, RBAC, secret access audit trail |
| Denial of Service | DNS query flood, pod resource exhaustion | HIGH | Rate limiting (planned), pod resource limits, DDoS playbook |
| Elevation of Privilege | Controller pod compromise, RBAC bypass | CRITICAL | Non-root containers, read-only filesystem, minimal RBAC |
Attack Surface Analysis:
| Attack Vector | Exposure | Risk Level | Mitigation Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kubernetes API | Internal cluster network | HIGH | ✅ RBAC, audit logs, network policies (planned) |
| DNS Port 53 | Public internet | HIGH | ✅ BIND9 hardening, DDoS playbook |
| RNDC Port 953 | Internal cluster network | CRITICAL | ✅ Secret rotation, access audit, incident playbook P4 |
| Container Images | Public registries | MEDIUM | ✅ Trivy scanning, Chainguard zero-CVE images |
| CRDs (Custom Resources) | Kubernetes API | MEDIUM | ✅ Input validation, RBAC, audit logs |
| Git Repository | Public GitHub | LOW | ✅ Signed commits, branch protection, code review |
Evidence:
- Threat Model - 15 STRIDE threats, 5 attack scenarios
- Security Architecture - Attack surface analysis
- Quarterly risk reviews (documented in compliance roadmap)
Status: ✅ COMPLIANT - Comprehensive risk identification and mitigation
Principle 3: Access Controls
Requirement: Banks should implement strong access controls, including least privilege.
Bindy Implementation:
| Control | Implementation | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Least Privilege RBAC | Controller minimal RBAC (create/delete secrets for RNDC lifecycle, delete managed resources for cleanup) | deploy/rbac/clusterrole.yaml |
| Secret Access Monitoring | All secret access logged and alerted | Secret Access Audit Trail |
| Quarterly Access Reviews | Security team reviews access every quarter | docs/compliance/access-reviews/ |
| 2FA Enforcement | GitHub requires 2FA for all contributors | GitHub organization settings |
| Signed Commits | Cryptographic proof of code authorship | Git commit signatures |
Access Control Matrix:
| Role | Secrets | CRDs | Pods | ConfigMaps | Nodes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controller | Create/Delete (RNDC keys) | Read/Write/Delete (managed) | Read | Read/Write/Delete | Read |
| BIND9 Pods | Read-only | None | None | Read | None |
| Developers | None | Read (kubectl) | Read (logs) | Read | None |
| Operators | Read (kubectl) | Read/Write (kubectl) | Read/Write | Read/Write | Read |
| Security Team | Read (audit logs) | Read | Read | Read | Read |
Evidence:
- RBAC policy:
deploy/rbac/clusterrole.yaml - RBAC verification:
./deploy/rbac/verify-rbac.sh - Secret access logs: Elasticsearch query Q1 (quarterly)
- Access review reports:
docs/compliance/access-reviews/YYYY-QN.md
Status: ✅ COMPLIANT - Least privilege access, quarterly reviews, audit trail
Principle 4: Threat and Vulnerability Management
Requirement: Banks should implement a threat and vulnerability management process.
Bindy Implementation:
| Activity | Frequency | Tool | Remediation SLA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependency Scanning | Daily (00:00 UTC) | cargo audit | CRITICAL (24h), HIGH (7d) |
| Container Image Scanning | Every PR + Daily | Trivy | CRITICAL (24h), HIGH (7d) |
| Code Security Review | Every PR | Manual + cargo clippy | Before merge |
| Penetration Testing | Annual | External firm | 90 days |
| Threat Intelligence | Continuous | GitHub Security Advisories | As detected |
Vulnerability Remediation SLAs:
| Severity | CVSS Score | Response Time | Remediation SLA | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | 9.0-10.0 | < 15 minutes | 24 hours | ✅ Enforced |
| HIGH | 7.0-8.9 | < 1 hour | 7 days | ✅ Enforced |
| MEDIUM | 4.0-6.9 | < 4 hours | 30 days | ✅ Enforced |
| LOW | 0.1-3.9 | < 24 hours | 90 days | ✅ Enforced |
Evidence:
- Vulnerability Management Policy
- GitHub Security tab - Vulnerability scan results
CHANGELOG.md- Remediation history- Monthly vulnerability remediation reports
Status: ✅ COMPLIANT - Daily scanning, defined SLAs, automated tracking
Principle 5: Cyber Resilience and Response
Requirement: Banks should have incident response and business continuity plans for cyber incidents.
Bindy Implementation:
Incident Response Playbooks (7 Total):
| Playbook | Scenario | Response Time | Recovery SLA |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1: Critical Vulnerability | CVSS 9.0-10.0 vulnerability detected | < 15 minutes | Patch within 24 hours |
| P2: Compromised Controller | Controller pod shows anomalous behavior | < 15 minutes | Isolate within 1 hour |
| P3: DNS Service Outage | All BIND9 pods down, queries failing | < 15 minutes | Restore within 4 hours |
| P4: RNDC Key Compromise | RNDC key leaked or unauthorized access | < 15 minutes | Rotate keys within 1 hour |
| P5: Unauthorized DNS Changes | Unexpected zone modifications detected | < 1 hour | Revert within 4 hours |
| P6: DDoS Attack | DNS query flood, resource exhaustion | < 15 minutes | Mitigate within 1 hour |
| P7: Supply Chain Compromise | Malicious commit or compromised dependency | < 15 minutes | Rebuild within 24 hours |
Business Continuity:
| Capability | Implementation | RTO (Recovery Time Objective) | RPO (Recovery Point Objective) |
|---|---|---|---|
| High Availability | Multi-pod deployment (3+ replicas) | 0 (no downtime) | 0 (no data loss) |
| Zone Replication | Primary + Secondary DNS instances | < 5 minutes | < 1 minute (zone transfer) |
| Disaster Recovery | Multi-region deployment (planned) | < 1 hour | < 5 minutes |
| Data Backup | DNS zones in Git + etcd backups | < 4 hours | < 1 hour |
Evidence:
- Incident Response Playbooks
- Semi-annual tabletop exercise reports
- Incident logs (if any occurred): S3
bindy-audit-logs/incidents/
Status: ✅ COMPLIANT - 7 incident playbooks, business continuity plan
Principle 6: Dependency on Third Parties
Requirement: Banks should manage cyber risks associated with third-party service providers.
Bindy Third-Party Dependencies:
| Dependency | Purpose | Risk Level | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| BIND9 | DNS server software | MEDIUM | Chainguard zero-CVE images, Trivy scanning |
| Kubernetes | Orchestration platform | MEDIUM | Managed Kubernetes (EKS, GKE, AKS), regular updates |
| Rust Dependencies | Build-time libraries | LOW | Daily cargo audit, crates.io verified sources |
| Container Registries | Image distribution | LOW | GHCR (GitHub), signed images, SBOM |
| AWS S3 | Audit log storage | LOW | Encryption at rest/transit, WORM, IAM access controls |
Third-Party Risk Management:
| Control | Implementation | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Dependency Vetting | Only use actively maintained dependencies (commits in last 6 months) | Cargo.toml review |
| Vulnerability Scanning | Daily cargo audit, Trivy container scanning | GitHub Security tab |
| Supply Chain Security | Signed commits, SBOM, reproducible builds | Build Reproducibility |
| Vendor Assessments | Annual review of critical vendors (BIND9, Kubernetes) | Vendor assessment reports |
Evidence:
Cargo.toml,Cargo.lock- Pinned dependency versions- SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) - Release artifacts
- Vendor assessment reports (annual)
Status: ✅ COMPLIANT - Third-party dependencies vetted, scanned, monitored
Principle 7: Information Sharing
Requirement: Banks should participate in information sharing to enhance cyber resilience.
Bindy Information Sharing:
| Activity | Frequency | Audience | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security Advisories | As needed | Public (GitHub) | Coordinated disclosure of vulnerabilities |
| Threat Intelligence | Continuous | Security team | Subscribe to GitHub Security Advisories, CVE feeds |
| Incident Reports | After incidents | Internal + Regulators | Post-incident review, lessons learned |
| Compliance Reporting | Quarterly | Risk committee | Basel III operational risk reporting |
Evidence:
- GitHub Security Advisories (if any published)
- Quarterly risk committee reports
- Incident post-mortems (if any occurred)
Status: ✅ COMPLIANT - Active participation in threat intelligence sharing
Basel III Operational Risk Reporting
Quarterly Operational Risk Report Template:
[Bank Letterhead]
Basel III Operational Risk Report
Q4 2025 - Bindy DNS Infrastructure
Reporting Period: October 1 - December 31, 2025
Prepared by: [Security Team Lead]
Reviewed by: [Chief Risk Officer]
1. OPERATIONAL RISK EVENTS
1.1 Cyber Incidents:
- 0 critical incidents
- 0 high-severity incidents
- 2 medium-severity incidents (P3: DNS Service Outage)
- Root cause: Kubernetes pod OOMKilled (memory limit too low)
- Resolution: Increased memory limit from 512Mi to 1Gi
- RTO achieved: 15 minutes (target: 4 hours)
- 0 data breaches
1.2 Service Availability:
- Uptime: 99.98% (target: 99.9%)
- DNS query success rate: 99.99%
- Mean time to recovery (MTTR): 15 minutes
1.3 Vulnerability Management:
- Vulnerabilities detected: 12 (3 HIGH, 9 MEDIUM)
- Remediation SLA compliance: 100%
- Average time to remediate: 3.5 days (CRITICAL/HIGH)
2. COMPLIANCE STATUS
2.1 Basel III Cyber Risk Principles:
- ✅ Principle 1 (Governance): Security policies documented
- ✅ Principle 2 (Risk Assessment): Threat model updated Q4 2025
- ✅ Principle 3 (Access Controls): Quarterly access review completed
- ✅ Principle 4 (Vulnerability Mgmt): SLAs met (100%)
- ✅ Principle 5 (Resilience): Tabletop exercise conducted
- ✅ Principle 6 (Third Parties): Vendor assessments completed
- ✅ Principle 7 (Info Sharing): Threat intelligence active
2.2 Audit Trail:
- Audit logs retained: 7 years (WORM storage)
- Log integrity verification: 100% pass rate
- Secret access reviews: Quarterly (last: 2025-12-15)
3. RISK MITIGATION ACTIONS
3.1 Completed (Phase 2):
- ✅ H-1: Security Policy and Threat Model
- ✅ H-2: Audit Log Retention Policy
- ✅ H-3: Secret Access Audit Trail
- ✅ H-4: Build Reproducibility Verification
3.2 Planned (Phase 3):
- L-1: Implement NetworkPolicies (Q1 2026)
- M-3: Implement Rate Limiting (Q1 2026)
4. REGULATORY REPORTING
4.1 PCI-DSS: Annual audit scheduled (Q1 2026)
4.2 SOX 404: Quarterly ITGC attestation provided
4.3 Basel III: This report (quarterly)
Approved by:
[Chief Risk Officer Signature]
Date: 2025-12-31
Basel III Audit Evidence
For Basel III operational risk reviews, provide:
-
Cyber Risk Framework:
- Security policies (
SECURITY.md,docs/security/*.md) - Threat model (STRIDE analysis)
- Security architecture documentation
- Security policies (
-
Incident Response:
- Incident response playbooks (P1-P7)
- Incident logs (if any occurred)
- Tabletop exercise results (semi-annual)
-
Vulnerability Management:
- Vulnerability scan results (GitHub Security tab)
- Remediation tracking (GitHub issues, CHANGELOG.md)
- Monthly remediation reports
-
Access Controls:
- RBAC policy and verification output
- Quarterly access review reports
- Secret access audit logs
-
Audit Trail:
- S3 bucket configuration (WORM, retention)
- Log integrity verification results
- Sample audit logs (redacted)
-
Business Continuity:
- High availability architecture
- Disaster recovery procedures
- RTO/RPO metrics
See Also
- Threat Model - STRIDE threat analysis
- Security Architecture - Security domains, data flows
- Incident Response - 7 playbooks (P1-P7)
- Vulnerability Management - Remediation SLAs
- Audit Log Retention - Long-term log retention
- Compliance Roadmap - Tracking compliance progress