64 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
64 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
|
# ADR-0004: Zero-Trust Authentication Strategy
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Status
|
||
|
|
Accepted
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Context
|
||
|
|
The DBIS Core Banking System requires secure authentication for all API requests. Traditional authentication methods are insufficient for sovereign-grade financial infrastructure that handles:
|
||
|
|
- Multi-sovereign operations
|
||
|
|
- High-value transactions
|
||
|
|
- Regulatory compliance requirements
|
||
|
|
- Cross-border operations
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Decision
|
||
|
|
Implement a zero-trust authentication strategy using:
|
||
|
|
1. **Sovereign Identity Tokens (SIT)**: JWT-based tokens with sovereign bank identity
|
||
|
|
2. **Request Signature Verification**: HSM-backed cryptographic signatures for each request
|
||
|
|
3. **Multi-layer Validation**: Token validation + signature verification + timestamp/nonce checks
|
||
|
|
4. **HSM Integration**: Hardware Security Module for key management and signing
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Consequences
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Positive
|
||
|
|
- Strong security with multiple validation layers
|
||
|
|
- HSM-backed cryptographic operations
|
||
|
|
- Replay attack prevention (timestamp/nonce)
|
||
|
|
- Sovereign identity verification
|
||
|
|
- Scalable across multiple sovereign banks
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Negative
|
||
|
|
- More complex implementation
|
||
|
|
- Requires HSM infrastructure
|
||
|
|
- Slightly higher latency per request
|
||
|
|
- More complex client implementation
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Risks
|
||
|
|
- HSM availability dependency
|
||
|
|
- Signature verification performance at scale
|
||
|
|
- Key rotation complexity
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Alternatives Considered
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
1. **Simple JWT Only**: Basic JWT authentication
|
||
|
|
- Pros: Simple, fast
|
||
|
|
- Cons: Insufficient security for financial operations
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
2. **API Keys**: Static API keys
|
||
|
|
- Pros: Very simple
|
||
|
|
- Cons: No cryptographic verification, weak security
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
3. **Zero-Trust with HSM**: Chosen approach
|
||
|
|
- Pros: Strong security, regulatory compliance, sovereign-grade
|
||
|
|
- Cons: More complex
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Implementation
|
||
|
|
- JWT tokens with sovereign bank identity
|
||
|
|
- Request signature headers (X-SOV-SIGNATURE, X-SOV-TIMESTAMP, X-SOV-NONCE)
|
||
|
|
- HSM service integration for signature verification
|
||
|
|
- Middleware: `zeroTrustAuthMiddleware` in `src/integration/api-gateway/middleware/auth.middleware.ts`
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## References
|
||
|
|
- Zero Trust Architecture: https://www.nist.gov/publications/zero-trust-architecture
|
||
|
|
- HSM Best Practices: https://www.nist.gov/publications/guidelines-selection-and-use-approval-cryptographic-modules
|
||
|
|
|