TL;DR
On April 1, 2026, the Reserve Bank of India expects regulated financial institutions to demonstrate continuous external threat monitoring capabilities. This is not about periodic VAPT reports or annual penetration tests. RBI mandates real-time visibility into credential exposure, dark web activity, domain impersonation, and external attack surface threats.
The problem: Most banks believe their existing security controls meet RBI expectations. They have firewalls, endpoint protection, SIEM platforms, and quarterly VAPT assessments. But these internal controls provide no visibility into what attackers see when targeting your organization from outside.
With 35 days remaining: Financial institutions must urgently implement external threat intelligence platforms that monitor dark web marketplaces for stolen credentials, detect domain impersonation attempts, identify exposed services, and track threat actor discussions targeting the banking sector.
Three weeks ago, the CISO of a large private sector bank sat in a regulatory review meeting. The RBI examiner asked a straightforward question: Can you show us your external threat monitoring dashboard?
The CISO pulled up their SIEM platform, showing internal network traffic, endpoint alerts, and firewall logs. The examiner shook his head. That is internal monitoring. We want to see external threats. Show us what credentials of yours are circulating in dark web marketplaces right now. Show us which domains are impersonating your brand today. Show us what vulnerabilities attackers can see in your external infrastructure this moment.
The CISO could not. Their expensive security stack, monitoring terabytes of internal data daily, provided zero visibility into external threats. They had no idea which employee credentials were being sold on underground forums. They could not identify phishing domains targeting their customers. They had never seen the discussions in Telegram channels where attackers planned campaigns against banks.
The bank had 35 days to close this gap. They were not alone. Based on our assessment of over 200 Indian financial institutions, approximately three quarters lack adequate external threat monitoring capabilities. April 1st is not a suggestion. It is a regulatory requirement with real consequences for non-compliance.
This is the story playing out across India’s banking sector right now. Institutions discovering that their traditional security approaches, however comprehensive internally, provide no visibility into the external threat landscape where attacks originate.
The Reserve Bank of India’s cybersecurity framework, particularly the sections addressing external threat monitoring, uses specific language that many institutions misinterpret. Understanding what RBI actually requires is the first step toward compliance.
Continuous Monitoring, Not Periodic Assessment
The mandate explicitly requires continuous monitoring. This is fundamentally different from periodic security assessments. A quarterly VAPT report tells you what vulnerabilities existed three months ago. Continuous monitoring shows what threats exist right now.
What continuous monitoring means in practice:
The distinction between periodic and continuous is not semantic. It represents a fundamental shift in how organizations approach external threat visibility.
RBI specifically requires monitoring of external threats. Most security investments focus internally: endpoint protection on employee computers, network monitoring within your infrastructure, SIEM platforms analyzing internal logs. These are necessary but insufficient for compliance.
External threat monitoring means visibility into:
Internal security tools cannot access these external sources. You need specialized threat intelligence platforms that operate beyond your perimeter.
Demonstrable Compliance, Not Just Documentation
RBI expects institutions to demonstrate compliance, not just document policies. This means showing actual monitoring capabilities, real alerts generated, and evidence of response to detected threats.
When examiners ask to see your external threat monitoring, they want dashboards showing current threats, logs of alerts received, records of how you responded, and metrics demonstrating continuous operation. A policy document stating you perform external monitoring is insufficient.
Many institutions believe their quarterly or annual vulnerability assessment and penetration testing contracts satisfy RBI’s external threat monitoring mandate. This is a dangerous misunderstanding that will result in compliance failures.
The Time Gap Problem
VAPT assessments occur quarterly at best, annually in many cases. Between assessments, your institution operates with zero visibility into external threats. Credentials stolen and sold on dark web marketplaces go undetected for months. Phishing domains impersonating your brand remain active throughout the gap. New vulnerabilities discovered and published between tests leave you exposed.
RBI’s continuous monitoring requirement exists precisely because threats emerge constantly, not on quarterly schedules. The time gap between VAPT assessments creates a massive blind spot that attackers exploit.
The Scope Limitation
VAPT focuses on technical vulnerabilities in your infrastructure. This is valuable but narrow. External threat monitoring encompasses:
VAPT tells you if your firewall configuration has weaknesses. It does not tell you that 300 of your employee credentials are being sold on a Telegram channel right now. Both matter, but only the latter is external threat monitoring.
Our assessment of over 200 Indian financial institutions reveals seven recurring gaps that prevent RBI compliance. Understanding these gaps is essential for addressing them before April 1st.
Gap 1: No Dark Web Monitoring
Institutions have no visibility into underground marketplaces where their stolen credentials, customer data, and internal documents are traded. They discover breaches months after credentials are compromised, only after attackers exploit them. This reactive approach violates RBI’s requirement for proactive threat detection.
Gap 2: No Domain Monitoring
Phishing domains impersonating bank brands remain active for weeks or months because institutions lack systematic monitoring for newly registered domains similar to their brands. Customers fall victim to phishing attacks that could have been prevented with early detection and takedown.
Gap 3: No Credential Exposure Detection
Employee credentials compromised by infostealers sit in logs accessible to attackers for years without detection. The recent wave of ransomware attacks exploiting Jira credentials stolen years ago demonstrates this gap’s severity. Banks cannot respond to credential exposure they do not know exists.
Gap 4: No Social Media Threat Monitoring
Fake social media accounts impersonating bank officials conduct social engineering attacks against customers. Fraudulent customer support pages collect credentials. These threats operate openly on public platforms but remain undetected because banks lack social media monitoring capabilities.
Gap 5: No Attack Surface Visibility
Institutions do not maintain comprehensive inventories of their external attack surface. Forgotten test servers, legacy systems, third-party integrations, and shadow IT create exposure that internal security tools never see because these assets exist outside monitored networks.
Gap 6: No Threat Actor Intelligence
Banks lack visibility into threat actor forums where campaigns targeting financial institutions are discussed, tools are shared, and attack strategies are refined. This intelligence gap means institutions react to attacks rather than preparing for known threats before they materialize.
Gap 7: No Continuous Monitoring
Even institutions with some external threat visibility typically operate reactively rather than continuously. They check for threats when incidents occur or during security reviews. RBI requires always-on monitoring that detects threats as they emerge, not periodic spot checks.
The 35-Day Compliance Roadmap
With April 1st approaching rapidly, institutions need an accelerated path to compliance. This roadmap prioritizes actions that demonstrate meaningful external threat monitoring capabilities within the remaining timeframe.
Days 1 to 7: Assessment and Planning
Immediate actions:
This week is critical for decision-making. Delays at this stage compress the remaining implementation timeline dangerously.
Days 8 to 21: Implementation
Deploy monitoring capabilities:
Two weeks provides sufficient time for deployment if solutions are selected promptly. Cloud-based platforms can be operational within days rather than months.
Days 22 to 35: Validation and Documentation
Demonstrate compliance readiness:
The final two weeks focus on proving compliance through documentation and operational evidence. This preparation is essential for regulatory examinations.
Q1: What happens if we are not compliant by April 1st?
RBI has enforcement authority including monetary penalties, operational restrictions, and increased scrutiny through more frequent examinations. Beyond regulatory consequences, non-compliance signals to the market that your institution lacks adequate cybersecurity controls, potentially impacting customer trust and investor confidence.
Q2: Can we request an extension of the April 1st deadline?
RBI has not indicated flexibility on compliance timelines. The mandate has been in effect since 2023, providing ample time for implementation. Institutions should assume the deadline is firm and plan accordingly rather than hoping for extensions that may not materialize.
Q3: Is external threat monitoring required only for large banks?
No. The requirement applies to all scheduled commercial banks, NBFCs above specified asset thresholds, payment banks, and other regulated entities. Institution size may affect implementation scope but not the fundamental requirement for continuous external threat monitoring.
Q4: Can we build external threat monitoring capabilities internally?
Building comprehensive external threat monitoring internally requires significant investment in infrastructure, threat intelligence feeds, dark web access capabilities, and specialized expertise. Given the 35-day timeline, most institutions should prioritize proven external platforms that can be deployed rapidly rather than attempting in-house development.
Q5: How much does RBI-compliant external threat monitoring cost?
Costs vary based on institution size, monitoring scope, and platform selection. However, compliance costs are minimal compared to potential regulatory penalties, breach-related losses, and reputational damage from inadequate external threat visibility. Most platforms offer flexible pricing scaled to organizational needs.
Saptang Labs has helped over 50 Indian financial institutions achieve RBI external threat monitoring compliance. Our platform is specifically designed to meet regulatory requirements while providing operational security value beyond mere compliance.
Comprehensive External Threat Monitoring:
Rapid Deployment for April 1st Deadline:
Our cloud-based platform can be operational within 48 hours of onboarding. You receive immediate visibility into existing external threats affecting your institution, allowing you to demonstrate active monitoring capabilities before the compliance deadline.
RBI-Specific Compliance Support:
We provide compliance documentation templates, audit-ready dashboards, and evidence of continuous monitoring operations specifically designed for RBI examinations. Our team assists with regulatory review preparation to ensure you can demonstrate full compliance.
Proven Track Record:
Saptang Labs serves scheduled commercial banks, NBFCs, payment banks, insurance companies, and fintech firms across India. Our platform has successfully passed RBI inspections and regulatory audits, demonstrating that our capabilities meet mandated requirements.
You may find this insight also helpful: From $10 Malware to Enterprise Breach: The HellCat Ransomware Supply Chain