CSP-Assessor Customer Security Programme Assessor Certification(CSPAC) Questions and Answers

This question addresses the process for resolving uncertainty about the applicability of a CSCF control to a specific component.

Step 1: Understand the CSCF Documentation Structure

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024provides detailed guidance on control applicability, including sections like the Introduction and appendices, as well as support mechanisms for users.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Call your Swift contactWhile contacting a Swift representative might be helpful, it is not the first recommended step inthe CSCF documentation. The framework prioritizes self-service through documentation and support channels like swift.com before direct contact.Conclusion: This is not a primary step.

B. Check appendix F of the CSCFAppendix F of theCSCF v2024provides detailed guidance on control applicability, including scenarios, architecture types, and component mappings. It is a key resource for clarifying whether a control applies to a specific component.Conclusion: This is correct.

C. Check carefully the Introduction section of the CSCFThe Introduction section of theCSCF v2024outlines the scope, objectives, and applicability of controls, including definitions of in-scope components and architecture types. It’s a critical starting point for understanding control applicability.Conclusion: This is correct.

D. Open a case with Swift support via the case manager on swift.com if further information or solution cannot be found in the documentationIf the CSCF documentation (e.g., Introduction, Appendix F) does not resolve the uncertainty, theSwift CSP FAQandSwift Support Guidelinesrecommend opening a case via the swift.com case manager. This ensures users can get official clarification from Swift support.Conclusion: This is correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The verified steps areB, C, and D, as they align with the recommended process in theCSCF v2024for resolving uncertainty about control applicability: first consult the documentation (Introduction and Appendix F), then escalate to Swift support if needed.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Introduction Section and Appendix F.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Resolving Control Applicability.

Swift Support Guidelines, Section: Case Manager Usage.

This question addresses the obligations of Swift users regarding the submission of assessment-related documents to Swift under the Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand CSP Assessment Submission Requirements

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024and theIndependent Assessment Frameworkoutline the process for CSP assessments, including what must be submitted to Swift. The focus is on ensuring compliance through attestation, with specific deliverables defined.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Yes, all documents produced from the assessment must be provided proactively to SwiftThis is incorrect. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkdoes not require proactive submission of all assessment documents (e.g., detailed reports, working papers). Only the completion letter and attestation are typically submitted unless otherwise requested by Swift.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. No, it is not required to provide Swift with any documents by default. However, Swift can request a copy of the Assessment completion letterTheCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkstate that users are not required to proactively submit the full assessment report or other documents. However, Swift retains the right to request the completion letter (certifying assessment completion) or additional evidence during quality assurance reviews. This aligns with theSwift CSP Compliance Guidelines.Conclusion: Correct.

C. Yes, a copy of (only) the assessment report must be provided to Swift, no other documentsThis is incorrect. The full assessment report is not mandated for proactive submission; only the completion letter is typically required unless requested. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkemphasizes the completion letter as the key deliverable.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. Yes, in cases where a customer performs an Independent assessment rather than an audit then a copy of the assessment report must be provided. However, it is not required for the Swift user to provide any forms when an Internal/External Audit is performedThis is partially misleading. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkdoes not distinguish between independent assessments and audits in terms of mandatory report submission. For both, the completion letter is the default submission, with reports requested only if needed. The differentiation based on assessment type is not supported byCSCF v2024guidelines.Conclusion: Incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkdo not require proactive submission of the full assessment report, but Swift can request the completion letter as part of its oversight process.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Section: Independent Assessment Requirements.

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Deliverables and Submission.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Document Submission Rules.

=========================

This question identifies which operator session flows must be protected for confidentiality and integrity under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand Session Protection Requirements

TheCSCF v2024, underControl 2.4: Secure Session Management, mandates that all sessions involving access to Swift-related components or secure zones must be protected using strong encryption (e.g., TLS) and integrity controls to prevent unauthorized access or data tampering. This applies to operator and administrator sessions interacting with the Swift environment.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. System administrator sessions towards a host running a Swift related componentAdministrator sessions to hosts running Swift components (e.g., Alliance Access, Gateway) are in scope, as they require protection perControl 2.4to ensure confidentiality and integrity of administrative actions.Conclusion: Correct.

B. All sessions to and from a jump server used to access a component in a secure zoneJump servers are used to access secure zones (perControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection), and all sessions to and from them must be encrypted and integrity-protected, as specified inControl 2.4.Conclusion: Correct.

C. All sessions towards a secure zone (on-premises or hosted by a third-party or a Cloud Provider)Secure zones, whether on-premises or hosted (e.g., by outsourcing agents or cloud providers), contain Swift components and must have all incoming sessions protected perControl 2.4andControl 1.1.Conclusion: Correct.

D. All sessions towards a Swift related application run by an Outsourcing Agent, a Service Bureau or an L2BA ProviderSessions to Swift-related applications managed by outsourcing agents or service bureaus (e.g., Components C, D, E in the diagram) are in scope, as they handle Swift traffic and must be secured perControl 2.4and theSwift Outsourcing Guidelines.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

All options (A, B, C, D) are correct, asControl 2.4of theCSCF v2024requires protection of all listed session types to ensure confidentiality and integrity across the Swift ecosystem, including secure zones, hosted environments, and outsourced applications.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.4: Secure Session Management, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Session Security.

Swift Outsourcing Guidelines, Section: Session Protection.

The "Swift Customer Security Controls Policy" and "Independent Assessment Framework" outline the consequences of non-compliance with the CSP. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: To be reported to their supervisors (if applicable)

This does not apply. Non-compliance is managed by SWIFT, not internal reporting to supervisors, unless specified by the user’s internal governance (not a CSP requirement).

•Option B: To be seen as non-compliant to their counterparts in KYC-SA

This applies. Non-compliance is reflected in the KYC-SA portal, where counterparties can view the user’s status, impacting trust and business relationships, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option C: To be contacted by SWIFT to provide the CSP assessment report and detailed information about the reason of non-compliance

This applies. SWIFT engages with non-compliant users, requesting assessment reports and remediation plans, as outlined in the "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option D: To be delisted from the BIC directory

This does not apply. Delisting is an extreme measure not automatically triggered by non-compliance; it requires persistent failure to remediate after engagement, which is not guaranteed.

Summary of Correct Answers:

Possible impacts include being seen as non-compliant in KYC-SA (B) and being contacted by SWIFT for reports (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Details non-compliance impacts.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Supports SWIFT follow-up.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Reflects KYC-SA visibility.

========

This question focuses on the authentication method for online SwiftNet Security Officers (SOs), who manage security-related functions for a Swift user.

Step 1: Understand the Role of SwiftNet Security Officers

SwiftNet Security Officers are responsible for managing security settings, such as PKI certificates and user roles, within the Swift environment. Their authentication is critical to ensure secure access, as outlined inControl 2.3: System Access Controlof theCSCF v2024.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Via their PKI certificatePKI certificates are used for securing message exchanges and connectivity within the SwiftNet environment (e.g., signing messages), but they are not the primary method for authenticating Security Officers when accessing SwiftNet services online (e.g., via swift.com). Security Officerstypically use a user account for such access, not a PKI certificate directly.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

B. Via their swift.com account and secure code cardSwiftNet Security Officers authenticate to swift.com using their swift.com account credentials combined with a secure code card (a physical token that generates one-time codes). This two-factor authentication method is standard for high-privilege roles like Security Officers, as detailed in theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.3, which mandates multi-factor authentication for privileged users.Conclusion: This is correct.

C. Via their swift.com accountWhile a swift.com account is part of the authentication process, relying solely on the account (e.g., username and password) does not meet Swift’s security requirements for Security Officers. Multi-factor authentication, including a secure code card, is required for such roles.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as SwiftNet Security Officers are authenticated using their swift.com account and a secure code card, aligning with Swift’s multi-factor authentication requirements for privileged users.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.3: System Access Control.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Authentication for Security Officers.

Swift User Handbook, Section: Security Officer Authentication.

SwiftNet Security Officers (e.g., Local Security Officer [LSO] or Remote Security Officer [RSO]) are responsible for managing security functions in the SWIFT environment, such as configuring accesscontrols and managing PKI certificates. Authentication for online access to SwiftNet services (e.g., via the Alliance Web Platform) is a critical security measure. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Via their PKI certificate

This is incorrect. While PKI certificates are used for authenticating and signing SWIFT messages or securing communications, they are not the primary method for authenticating security officers’ online access to SwiftNet management interfaces. PKI certificates are managed by the HSM and used by applications or users for message-level security, not for logging into administrative portals.

•Option B: Via their swift.com account and secure code card

This is correct. Online SwiftNet Security Officers are authenticated using a combination of their swift.com account (a username and password managed through SWIFT’s customer portal) and a secure code card (a physical or virtual token providing a one-time password or multi-factor authentication code). This two-factor authentication (2FA) method ensures robust access control, aligning with CSCF Control "6.1 Security Awareness" and SWIFT’s emphasis on multi-layered security. SWIFT documentation for the Alliance suite and SwiftNet confirms this authentication process for security officers accessing online tools.

•Option C: Via their swift.com account

This is incorrect. Relying solely on a swift.com account (username and password) is insufficient for authenticating security officers, as it lacks the additional security layer required for sensitive administrative access. SWIFT mandates multi-factor authentication, typically involving a secure code card, to comply with security standards.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Online SwiftNet Security Officers are authenticated via their swift.com account and secure code card (B), ensuring secure access to management functions.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 6.1 supports multi-factor authentication for security officers.

•SWIFT Alliance Security Documentation: Details the use of swift.com accounts and secure code cards for LSO/RSO authentication.

•SWIFT SwiftNet Guidelines: Confirms 2FA for online security officer access.

========

This question relates to the objective of Control 1.1 – SWIFT Environment Protection in the CSCF:

Step 1: Control 1.1 Overview

Control 1.1 aims to “restrict access to the SWIFT infrastructure by segregating it from the general IT environment and external threats,” protecting against unauthorized access and malware.

The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" and "Independent Assessment Framework" address reliance on outsourcing agents’ assessments. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, after confirmation and validation of the scope

This is correct. The SWIFT user can rely on the outsourcing agent’s independent assessment report if it covers the relevant CSP components and uses the latest CSCF version. However, the user’s assessor must confirm and validate the scope and findings to ensure alignment with the user’s attestation, as per the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option B: Yes, only if the outsourcing agent is a global trusted provider and published the report on their compliance portal

This is incorrect. The CSP does not require the outsourcing agent to be a "global trusted provider" or publish the report publicly; validation by the user’s assessor is sufficient.

•Option C: No, an audit report (and not an assessment) is required from the outsourcing agent as an external provider

This is incorrect. An independent assessment report is acceptable, not necessarily an audit report, as long as it meets CSCF standards, per the "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025."

•Option D: No, except if the cloud provider components are partially covered by the SWIFT Alliance Connect Virtual programme

This is incorrect. The Alliance Connect Virtual programme’s coverage is irrelevant; the key is the report’s validity and scope validation.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The report is sufficient after confirmation and validation of the scope (A).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Allows reliance on agent assessments.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Requires scope validation.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Supports integrated reporting.

========

This question addresses the use of ISAE 3000 reports in CSP assessments:

Step 1: ISAE 3000 in CSP Context

ISAE 3000 (International Standard on Assurance Engagements) reports provide assurance on controls but are not specifically tailored to SWIFT CSP requirements. The IAF allows their use as supporting evidence, not as a primary assessment substitute.

This question involves the role of the Hardware Security Module (HSM) and cryptographic operations in the Swift environment. Let’s evaluate each option.

Step 1: Understand HSM and Cryptographic Operations in Swift

The HSM is a secure device used to manage cryptographic keys and perform encryption/decryption operations, as detailed inControl 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Managementof theCSCF v2024. Swift uses public key infrastructure (PKI) for secure messaging, with HSMs storing keys and certificates.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. The public and private keys of a Swift certificate are stored on the Hardware Security ModuleIn the Swift environment, the HSM stores both the private key (for signing/decryption) and the public key (for verification/encryption) as part of the certificate pair. This is a standard practice for secure key management, as confirmed in theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.5B, which mandates secure storage of cryptographic keys in HSMs.Conclusion: This statement is correct.

B. The certificate stored on the Swift Hardware Security Module is used during the decryption operation of a messageThe HSM uses the private key stored in the certificate to perform decryption of incoming Swift messages. This is part of the secure message handling process, as outlined inControl 2.5Band theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation.Conclusion: This statement is correct.

C. The decryption operation uses the encryption private key of the receiverDecryption uses theprivate keyof the receiver, not the “encryption private key” (a misnomer). The correct term is the receiver’s private key, which corresponds to the public key used for encryption. This error makes the statement technically incorrect, despite the intended meaning.Conclusion: This statement is incorrect.

D. To verify the signature the SwiftNetLink uses the signing private key of the receiverSignature verification requires the sender’s public key, not the receiver’s private key. The SwiftNetLink (SNL) uses the public key to verify the signature, as perControl 2.5BandSwift Security Best Practices. The private key is used for signing, not verification.Conclusion: This statement is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The verified statements areAandB, as they accurately describe the HSM’s role in key storage and decryption, consistent with Swift CSP documentation.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Management.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: HSM Usage.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Cryptographic Operations.

The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" and "Independent Assessment Framework" outline conditions for relying on previous assessments. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: The control compliance conclusion must have already been relied on the past two years

This does not apply. There is no requirement that reliance has been used for two prior years; reliance is assessed annually based on current conditions, per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option B: The previous assessment was performed on the CSCF version of the previous year (at least)

This does not apply. The CSCF version must match the current assessment year (e.g., v2025 for a 2025 assessment), not the previous year, to ensure alignment with updated controls, as per the "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025."

•Option C: The control definition has not changed

This applies. Reliance is permitted only if the control’s definition remains unchanged from the previous assessment, ensuring the prior conclusion remains relevant, as noted in the "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025."

•Option D: The control design and implementation are the same

This applies. The assessor must confirm that the control’s design and implementation have not changed since the last assessment, as required by the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" to validate ongoing compliance.

Summary of Correct Answers:

Reliance is allowed if the control definition has not changed (C) and the control design and implementation are the same (D).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Lists conditions for reliance.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires unchanged definitions and designs.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports reliance criteria.

========

CSCF Control 2.9 (Transaction Business Controls) requires institutions to implement measures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of SWIFT transactions (e.g., payment validation, authorization). Compliance can be achieved through various methods, as outlined in the "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and its implementation guidelines. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: More than one of the measures proposed in the implementation guidelines are implemented

This ensures compliance. The CSCF provides implementation guidelines for Control 2.9, suggesting measures like dual authorization or automated validation. Implementing multiple measures meets the control’s objective of ensuring transaction integrity.

•Option B: A customer-designed implementation that encounters the control objective and addresses the risk driver

This ensures compliance. The CSCF allows flexibility for customer-designed solutions, provided they meet the control objective (e.g., preventing fraudulent transactions) and address the identified risk drivers (e.g., human error), as validated in the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls."

•Option C: Reliance on a recent business assessment or regulator response confirming effectiveness of the existing control

This ensures compliance. If a recent assessment (e.g., by an internal audit or regulator) confirms that existing controls effectively meet the CSCF 2.9 requirements, this can be accepted as evidence of compliance, per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option D: Any implementation if approved by the CIO

This does not ensure compliance. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) approval alone does not guarantee that the implementation meets CSCF requirements. Compliance must be based on objective evidence and alignment with the control’s intent, as assessed against the "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" and validated by an independent assessor, not just internal approval.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Reliance on CIO approval alone (D) does not ensure compliance with CSCF 2.9.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 2.9 and implementation guidelines.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires objective validation, not just CIO approval.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Specifies evidence-based compliance.

========

This question identifies the authentication methods supported by Alliance Interfaces (e.g., Alliance Access, Alliance Gateway) under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand Authentication on Alliance Interfaces

TheCSCF v2024, underControl 2.3: System Access Control, mandates strong authentication for access to Swift-related components, including Alliance Interfaces. TheSwift Alliance Gateway Technical DocumentationandAlliance Access User Guidedetail supported methods.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. PasswordAlliance Interfaces support basic password authentication as a standard method, as noted in theAlliance Access User Guide. While not the strongest alone, it is permitted with additional controls.Conclusion: Correct.

B. LDAP AuthenticationLDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) is supported for centralized authentication, integrating with enterprise directory services, per theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.3.Conclusion: Correct.

C. Radius One-time passwordRADIUS with one-time passwords (OTP) is not a standard authentication method for Alliance Interfaces. TheAlliance Gateway Technical Documentationdoes not list RADIUS OTP as supported, focusing instead on password, LDAP, and TOTP.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. Password and TOTPTime-based One-Time Password (TOTP) combined with password (multi-factor authentication) is supported for enhanced security, as required byControl 2.3and detailed in theSwift Security Best Practicesfor privileged access.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areA, B, and D, as these methods are supported by Alliance Interfaces, aligning withCSCF v2024and related documentation.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.3: System Access Control.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Authentication Methods.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Multi-Factor Authentication.

The Hardware Security Module (HSM) Box is a critical component for managing cryptographic keys in the SWIFT environment. Hardening at the system level involves securing the HSM’s operating system and configuration against vulnerabilities. Let’s evaluate:

•CSCF Control "2.3 System Hardening" mandates that all SWIFT-related systems, including the HSM Box, be hardened to reduce the attack surface. This is the responsibility of the SWIFT user owning the equipment, as outlined in the "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025."

•The "Assessment template for Mandatory controls" requires users to demonstrate hardening of owned HSMs, including patching, disabling unused services, and enforcing access controls.

•If the HSM is owned by the user (e.g., in an on-premises A1 or A2 architecture), the user must perform hardening. This differs from cloud deployments (e.g., A4), where the provider may handle it, but the question specifies user-owned equipment.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The SWIFT user owning the HSM Box must harden it at the system level (TRUE).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 2.3 requires system hardening.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Specifies user responsibility for owned HSMs.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Includes HSM hardening in assessments.

The "SWIFT footprint" refers to the extent of SWIFT-related infrastructure (hardware, software, and connectivity components) that a user must manage within their environment. A smaller footprint means less local infrastructure to maintain, typically achieved through cloud-based or managed services. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Full stack of products up to the Messaging Interface

This refers to an on-premises deployment where the user manages a complete set of SWIFT components, including the messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access), communication interface (e.g., Alliance Gateway), SwiftNet Link (SNL), HSM, and VPN boxes for connectivity to the SWIFT network. This setup requires significant local infrastructure, including servers, security devices, and network components, resulting in a large SWIFT footprint.

•Option B: Alliance Remote Gateway

Alliance Remote Gateway (ARG) is a service where the Alliance Gateway is hosted remotely by SWIFT or a third party, but the user still maintains a messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) locally. While this reduces the footprint slightly by outsourcing the communication interface, the user still manages the messaging interface, HSM, and local connectivity components, resulting in a moderate footprint.

•Option C: Lite 2 or Alliance Cloud

This is the correct answer. Alliance Lite2 and Alliance Cloud are cloud-based solutions designed for smaller institutions or those seeking a minimal local footprint. In Alliance Lite2, the user connects to SWIFT via a lightweight client (Alliance Lite2 AutoClient) or a browser-based interface, with most infrastructure (e.g., messaging interface, communication interface, HSM) hosted by SWIFT in the cloud. Alliance Cloud similarly hosts the full SWIFT stack (including Alliance Access and Alliance Gateway) in a SWIFT-managed cloud environment, requiring only minimal local infrastructure (e.g., a secure connection to the cloud). This results in the smallest SWIFT footprint, as the user manages very little on-premises infrastructure. The CSCF still applies, but many controls are managed by SWIFT (e.g., "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection").

•Option D: A user with a Messaging Interface behind a Service Bureau

A Service Bureau is a third-party provider that hosts SWIFT infrastructure (e.g., Alliance Gateway, SNL) for multiple users, but the user still maintains a local messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) to connect to the Service Bureau. This setup reduces the footprint compared to a full on-premises deployment, as the user does not manage the communication interface or network connectivity components. However, the local messaging interface and associated security components (e.g., HSM) still constitute a larger footprint than a fully cloud-based solution like Alliance Lite2 or Alliance Cloud.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Alliance Lite2 or Alliance Cloud (C) has the smallest SWIFT footprint, as most infrastructure is hosted in the cloud by SWIFT, minimizing the user’s local management responsibilities.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.1 applies to cloud deployments like Alliance Cloud, reducing the user’s local footprint.

•SWIFT Alliance Lite2 Documentation: Describes the minimal infrastructure required for Lite2 users.

•SWIFT Alliance Cloud Documentation: Highlights the fully hosted nature of the solution, minimizing the SWIFT footprint.

========

Application Hardening is a key concept within theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF), specifically addressed under security controls related to protecting systems and reducing vulnerabilities. The CSCF outlines principles to secure applications by minimizing risks, particularly in the context of Swift-related systems. Let’s break down the options and verify them against Swift CSP guidelines.

Step 1: Understand Application Hardening in the Context of Swift CSP

Application Hardening refers to the process of securing an application by reducing its attack surface, limiting access, and mitigating potential vulnerabilities. This aligns with Swift CSP’s overarching goal of enhancing the security of the Swift user community, as outlined in theCSCF v2024(and prior versions like CSCF v2023). Relevant controls fall under domains likeControl Objective 2: Protect Critical SystemsandControl Objective 6: Detect Anomalous Activity.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option Against Swift CSP Principles

A. Least PrivilegesThe principle of least privilege is a core tenet of application hardening. It ensures that applications (and users) only have the minimum permissions necessary to perform their functions, reducing the risk of misuse or exploitation. This is explicitly referenced in theCSCF v2024, underControl 2.1: Operating System Privileged Account Control, which emphasizes restricting privileges to the minimum required. Application Hardening extends this to software processes, ensuring they run with minimal rights.Conclusion: This applies.

B. Access on a need to haveThis principle, often phrased as “need-to-know” or “need-to-have” in security contexts, ensures that access to applications or their components is granted only to entities that require it for their role. In the Swift CSP, this aligns withControl 2.3: System Access Control, which mandates that access to Swift-related systems (including applications) is restricted to authorized users or processes. Application Hardening incorporates this by ensuring that applications only expose interfaces or resources to authorized entities.Conclusion: This applies.

C. Reduced footprint for less potential vulnerabilitiesReducing the attack surface (or “footprint”) of an application is a fundamental hardening technique. This involves disabling unnecessary features, services, or modules that could be exploited. TheCSCF v2024addresses this underControl 2.5A: Application Hardening, which explicitly requires users to minimize the attack surface of Swift-related applications by removing unused components and limiting exposed services. This directly correlates with reducing potential vulnerabilities.Conclusion: This applies.

D. Enhanced Straight Through Processing (STP)Straight Through Processing refers to the automated, end-to-end processing of transactions without manual intervention, a concept often associated with operational efficiency in financial systems. While STP is relevant to Swift’s messaging and transaction workflows, it is not a principle of Application Hardening. The CSCF does not link STP to security hardening practices, which focus on reducing vulnerabilities rather than optimizing transaction flows.Conclusion: This does not apply.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

Application Hardening, as per theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF), focuses on security principles that minimize risks to applications. The verified principles areLeast Privileges (A),Access on a need to have (B), andReduced footprint for less potential vulnerabilities (C). These align with Swift CSP’s emphasis on securing critical systems and reducing attack surfaces.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.5A: Application Hardening.

Swift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices, Section: Application Security.

CSCF v2024, Control 2.1: Operating System Privileged Account Control, and Control 2.3: System Access Control.

The diagram provided represents a Swift user environment with an outsourcing agent, showing various components involved in the Swift workflow. The Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP) mandates specific security controls to protect critical components, particularly those handling Swift-related data or connectivity. Let’s analyze the diagram and determine which components must be placed in asecure zoneas per theCSCF v2024.

Step 1: Understand the Secure Zone Requirement

Asecure zonein the Swift CSP context refers to a segregated, protected environment where critical Swift-related components are isolated from general-purpose systems to minimize risks. This is outlined inControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protectionof theCSCF v2024, which mandates that Swift infrastructure (e.g., messaging interfaces, connectors, and related systems) must be logically and physically separated from non-Swift systems. The secure zone ensures that only authorized systems and users can interact with Swift components.

Step 2: Analyze the Diagram and Identify Components

The diagram includes the following components:

A. Middleware server (customer connector): Labeled as Component A, this server facilitates connectivity between the Swift user’s systems and the outsourcing agent’s infrastructure.

B. General-purpose PC Operator GUI: This is a general-purpose system used by an operator to interact with the Swift environment.

C. Swift-related OAA (Operational Application Architecture): Labeled as Component C, this represents the Swift messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access/Entry) managed by the outsourcing agent.

D. Customer connector: This component, within the outsourcing agent’s environment, interfaces directly with the Swift connector or interface.

E. Dedicated PC Admin users: This represents administrative systems used to manage the Swift environment.Additionally, there’s aConnector or Interface(SB, L2BA, or Enabler) connecting to the Swift network.

Step 3: Determine Which Components Belong in a Secure Zone

A. Middleware server (customer connector):This component facilitates connectivity between the Swift user and the outsourcing agent’s Swift-related systems. According toControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection, any system that directly interacts with the Swift messaging infrastructure (e.g., as a connector) must reside in a secure zone to prevent unauthorized access or tampering. Since this middleware server is part of the Swift data flow, it must be in a secure zone.Conclusion: Component A must be in a secure zone.

B. General-purpose PC Operator GUI:This is a general-purpose system used by operators, not a core Swift component. TheCSCF v2024underControl 1.2: Logical Access Controlrecommends that operator systems (e.g., GUIclients) should not reside in the same secure zone as critical Swift infrastructure to avoid introducing vulnerabilities from general-purpose systems. These systems typically connect to the secure zone via controlled interfaces (e.g., VPN or jump servers) but are not part of it.Conclusion: Component B does not need to be in a secure zone.

C. Swift-related OAA:This represents the Swift messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access/Entry), which is a core component of the Swift environment.Control 1.1explicitly requires that messaging interfaces be placed in a secure zone to protect them from external threats and ensure segregation from non-Swift systems. Since this component is directly involved in Swift message processing, it must be in a secure zone.Conclusion: Component C must be in a secure zone.

D. Customer connector:This connector interfaces directly with the Swift connector or interface (SB, L2BA, or Enabler) to facilitate communication with the Swift network. As perControl 1.1, any component that directly connects to the Swift network or handles Swift traffic must be in a secure zone to ensure end-to-end security of the communication chain. This applies to the customer connector within the outsourcing agent’s environment.Conclusion: Component D must be in a secure zone.

E. Dedicated PC Admin users:Administrative systems used to manage the Swift environment are typically not placed in the same secure zone as the operational Swift components. According toControl 1.2: Logical Access Control, administrative access should be tightly controlled and segregated, often using jump servers or bastion hosts to access the secure zone. While these systems need secure access, they are not part of the secure zone itself.Conclusion: Component E does not need to be in a secure zone.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

Based on theCSCF v2024requirements, the components that must be placed in a secure zone are those directly involved in Swift message processing or connectivity to the Swift network. These are:

A. Middleware server (customer connector)

C. Swift-related OAA

D. Customer connectorComponent B (general-purpose PC) and Component E (admin PC) are not required to be in the secure zone, as they are operator or administrative systems that should be segregated from the Swift operational environment.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection.

Swift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices, Section: Secure Zone Configuration.

CSCF v2024, Control 1.2: Logical Access Control.

This question examines the applicability of internet access restrictions under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand Internet Access Restrictions

Control 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restrictionof theCSCF v2024requires restricting internet access for Swift-related components to minimize exposure, applicable to both secure zones and other in-scope systems.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The question asks if the restriction is only relevant when Swift-related components are in a secure zone, implying a scope limitation.

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option

A. Yes, because if there is no secure zone then the internet connectivity does not need to be restrictedIncorrect.Control 2.6applies to all in-scope components, not just those in secure zones. For example, operator PCs accessing hosted applications (e.g., via A3 architecture) must have restricted internet access, per theSwift Security Best Practices.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. No, because there can be in-scope general operator PCs used to access a Swift-related application hosted at a service providerCorrect. General operator PCs (e.g., Component B in the diagram) are in scope when accessing Swift applications (e.g., hosted by a service provider in A3 architecture).Control 2.6requires internet restriction for these systems, even outside a secure zone, as confirmed in theCSCF v2024andSwift Outsourcing Guidelines.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, asControl 2.6mandates internet access restrictions for all in-scope components, including operator PCs accessing hosted Swift applications, not just those in secure zones.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restriction.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Internet Access Controls.

Swift Outsourcing Guidelines, Section: Operator PC Security.

The SWIFT CSP requires an independent assessment to ensure compliance with the CSCF, as outlined in the "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines." Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes

This is incorrect. The CSP mandates that an independent assessor, not the user’s first line of defence, conducts the assessment to provide an unbiased evaluation. Relying solely on a self-assessment, even if detailed, does not meet the requirement for independence, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option B: Yes, but only if the CISO signs the completion letter at the end of the assessment

This is incorrect. While the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) may sign the "CSCF Assessment Completion Letter" to acknowledge the assessment, this does not replace the need for independent testing. The signature is a formal step, but the assessor must still perform their own validation.

•Option C: No, even if it could support the compliance level, additional testing will always be required by the independent assessor to confirm a controls compliance level

This is correct. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" requires assessors to conduct their own testing, even if the user provides a valid self-assessment. This ensures objectivity and verifies the effectiveness of controls (e.g., Control 1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection). The self-assessment can serve as supporting evidence, but additional testing is mandatory, as detailed in the "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025."

•Option D: No, except if the SWIFT user’s chief auditor approves this approach

This is incorrect. Chief auditor approval does not override the CSP’s requirement for independent assessor testing. The assessment process is governed by SWIFT standards, not internal approvals.

Summary of Correct Answer:

An assessor cannot fully rely on the user’s self-assessment; additional testing is always required (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Mandates independent assessor testing.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Requires additional validation.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Outlines assessor testing requirements.

========

SWIFT, which stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is a global member-owned cooperative that provides a network for financial institutions to securely exchange information, primarily for financial transactions. Let’s break down the options and evaluate them against SWIFT’s official services as outlined in the SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP) and related documentation.

Option A: A platform for messagingThis is correct. SWIFT’s core function is to provide a secure, standardized messaging platform for financial institutions to exchange information. SWIFT operates a messaging network that enables banks, financial institutions, and other entities to send and receive standardized financial messages (such as payment instructions, securities transactions, and trade messages). This is facilitated through services like SWIFTNet, which is the messaging infrastructure that ensures secure and reliable communication. The SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) emphasizes the security of this messaging platform, with controls designed to protect the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the messaging environment. For example, the CSCF includes controls like "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection," which ensures the messaging platform is isolated and secure.

Option B: Standards for communicatingThis is also correct. SWIFT is well-known for developing and maintaining global standards for financial messaging, most notably the SWIFT message types (MT) and the newer ISO 20022 standard, which is increasingly being adopted for cross-border payments and reporting. These standards define the format and structure of messages, ensuring consistency and interoperability across the global financial community. For instance, a payment instruction sent via SWIFT follows a standardized format (e.g., MT103 for a customer payment), which ensures that the sending and receiving institutions can process it efficiently. The SWIFT CSP documentation, including the CSCF, indirectly references these standards by focusing on the secure transmission of standardized messages, as seen in controls like "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security," which ensures data integrity during communication.

Option C: Hosting for financial institutionsThis is incorrect. SWIFT does not provide hosting services for financial institutions. SWIFT’s role is focused on messaging and standards, not on hosting infrastructure like data centers or cloud services for financial institutions. While SWIFT does offer some cloud-based connectivity options (e.g., Alliance Cloud for smaller institutions to connect to the SWIFT network), this is not the same as providing hosting services for the institutions’ broader IT operations. Hosting infrastructure is typically managed by the institutions themselves or third-party providers, and the CSCF emphasizes that institutions are responsible for securing their own environments (e.g., Control "6.1 Security Awareness" highlights the need for institutions to manage their own security).

Option D: A high-level programming languageThis is incorrect. SWIFT does not provide a programming language. SWIFT’s focus is on messaging protocols and standards, not on developing or providing programming languages.Financial institutions may use various programming languages (like Java, Python, or C++) to integrate with SWIFT’s messaging system via APIs or interfaces like SWIFT Alliance Access, but SWIFT itself does not develop or distribute programming languages. The CSCF does not reference programming languages as a SWIFT offering; instead, it focuses on secure integration with SWIFT services, such as Control "2.3 System Hardening," which ensures that systems interacting with SWIFT are secure.

Summary of Correct Answers:SWIFT provides a platform for messaging (Option A) through its SWIFTNet network and standards for communicating (Option B) via its message formats like MT and ISO 20022. The other options—hosting services and a high-level programming language—are not part of SWIFT’s offerings.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: The CSCF outlines the security controls that protect the SWIFT messaging environment, emphasizing SWIFT’s role in secure messaging (e.g., Control 1.1, 2.1).

SWIFT User Handbook: Details SWIFT’s messaging services and standards, including SWIFTNet and message types like MT and ISO 20022.

SWIFT CSP Implementation Guide: Highlights that institutions are responsible for their own infrastructure, ruling out hosting as a SWIFT service.

CSCF Control "3.1 Database Integrity" focuses on ensuring the integrity of databases used by SWIFT-related components. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Nothing is further expected when the messaging interface or connector integrates/embeds an integrity check functionality at each SWIFT transaction record level

This is incorrect as a sole expectation. While embedding integrity checks (e.g., checksums or hashes) in a messaging interface or connector is a valid measure, the CSCF expects additional protections for the database itself, not just reliance on application-level checks. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" requires broader database security.

•Option B: When a database is used by a messaging interface or connector, the related hosted database and its supporting system is expected to be protected as a SWIFT-related component, the identified exceptions alerted and followed-up

This is correct. Control 3.1 mandates that databases supporting SWIFT components (e.g., storing transaction data for Alliance Access) be protected as in-scope components. This includes securing the database and its system (e.g., via access controls, encryption) and addressing integrity exceptions through alerts and follow-up, as detailed in the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls."

•Option C: Alerts generated from performed integrity checks are captured and analyzed for appropriate treatment

This is correct. The CSCF expects institutions to monitor database integrity (e.g., via logging) and analyze alerts to detect and respond to anomalies, aligning with Control "3.1" and "5.1 Operational Incident Response." The "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" includes this as a compliance criterion.

Summary of Correct Answers:

The CSCF expects the database and its system to be protected with alerts and follow-up (B) and alerts to be captured and analyzed (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 3.1 defines database integrity requirements.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Includes protection and alert management.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Tests database integrity measures.

========

In the SWIFT architecture, VPN boxes (e.g., Alliance Connect boxes or virtual VPN appliances) are network devices that establish a secure connection to the SWIFT Secure IP Network (SIPN) using Virtual Private Network (VPN) technology. Let’s evaluate the statement:

•The "Messaging Interface" refers to components like Alliance Access (SAA), which create, process, and manage SWIFT messages (e.g., MT103). The "Communication Interface" refers to components like Alliance Gateway (SAG), which consolidate message flows and connect to the SWIFT network via SwiftNet Link (SNL).

•The SWIFT VPN boxes are located at the network boundary, connecting the customer’s internal SWIFT environment (including both messaging and communication interfaces) to the external SIPN. They are not positioned between the messaging interface and the communication interface; instead, they sit outside the SWIFT secure zone, linking the entire local infrastructure to SWIFTNet.

•In a typical deployment, the architecture flows as follows: Messaging Interface (e.g., Alliance Access) → Communication Interface (e.g., Alliance Gateway with SNL) → VPN Boxes → SWIFTNet. The VPN boxes are part of the external connectivity layer, not an intermediary between internal components. This is supported by CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection," which defines the secure zone as including messaging and communication interfaces, with VPN boxes providing the external link.

•The statement’s implication that VPN boxes separate the messaging and communication interfaces is incorrect, as they are part of the broader connectivity infrastructure.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The SWIFT VPN boxes are not located between the Messaging and Communication interface; they connect the entire local SWIFT environment to the SIPN, making the statement false.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.1 defines the secure zone and external connectivity via VPN boxes.

•SWIFT Alliance Gateway Documentation: Describes the placement of VPN boxes outside the communication interface.

•SWIFT Network Architecture Guide: Confirms VPN boxes as the external connection point to SIPN.

The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" require that the CSP assessment be conducted by an independent, certified assessor, with the resulting "CSCF Assessment Completion Letter" being a key deliverable. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: The Internal audit lead assessor and the external company lead assessor

This is incorrect. The CSP prohibits reliance on internal audits for the completion letter due to the independence requirement. Only the external assessor’s letter is valid, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option B: The Internal audit lead assessor only

This is incorrect. Internal audits lack the independence needed to issue the completion letter, which must come from an external assessor.

•Option C: The External company lead assessor only

This is correct. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" mandates that the completion letter be provided by the lead assessor from the external assessment company, as they are the independent entity conducting the assessment. The internal audit’s involvement is supplementary and cannot replace the external assessor’s responsibility.

•Option D: None of them, it is not required when an internal department was involved in the assessment

This is incorrect. A completion letter is always required, and internal involvement does not waive this requirement; it must be issued by the external assessor.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Only the external company lead assessor needs to provide the completion letter (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires an independent assessor’s completion letter.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Specifies external assessor responsibility.

•CSCF Assessment Completion Letter: Issued by the external assessor.

========

SWIFT Alliance Cloud is a managed cloud service provided by SWIFT to deliver a fully hosted SWIFT infrastructure, reducing the local footprint for users. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT cloud-based solution. It provides a universal channel to the financial community and to SWIFT Value Added services and initiatives

This is partially correct but incomplete. Alliance Cloud is indeed a SWIFT-managed cloud solution, and it facilitates connectivity to the financial community and SWIFT Value Added Services (e.g., SWIFT gpi, Sanctions Screening). However, the term "universal channel" is vague and not a precise description of Alliance Cloud’s functionality, which is more accurately defined as a hosted messaging and connectivity platform. This option lacks specificity about the deployment model.

•Option B: Alliance Cloud is a cloud-based solution. It is offered by the 3 official public cloud providers. This allows customers the choice to select their preferred cloud provider

This is incorrect. Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT-managed service deployed on specific public cloud providers approved by SWIFT, not a solution where customers can choose any of the "3 official public cloud providers." SWIFT partners with select providers (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud) but controls the deployment and configuration, limiting customer choice to SWIFT-approved instances.

•Option C: Alliance Cloud is a cloud-based solution. It is offered by any public cloud provider that subscribed to the digital connectivity initiative

This is incorrect. Alliance Cloud is not available on any public cloud provider that subscribes to a "digital connectivity initiative." It is hosted exclusively on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers, ensuring compliance with SWIFT’s security and operational standards. The term "digital connectivity initiative" is not a recognized framework in SWIFT documentation for Alliance Cloud.

•Option D: Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT cloud-based solution. It consists of an Alliance Access instance deployed at one of the three SWIFT-approved public cloud providers

This is correct. Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT-managed cloud solution that includes a hosted Alliance Access instance (a messaging interface) deployed on one of the three SWIFT-approved public cloud providers (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud). This setup provides a fully managed environment for SWIFT connectivity, reducing the user’s local infrastructure needs. The CSCF applies to this cloud deployment, with SWIFT managing many security controls (e.g., "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection"). SWIFT documentation confirms this model, emphasizing the use of approved providers.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The correct statement is D, accurately describing Alliance Cloud as a SWIFT-managed solution with an Alliance Access instance on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Supports cloud deployments on approved providers (Control 1.1).

•SWIFT Alliance Cloud Documentation: Details the deployment on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers with Alliance Access.

•SWIFT Cloud Partnership Guidelines: Lists approved providers like AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.

========

Alliance Lite2 is a cloud-based solution for smaller institutions, providing a lightweight interface to the SWIFT network. The messaging operator in Alliance Lite2 is a role responsible for managing message-related activities, typically through the Alliance Lite2 Business Application (L2BA) interface. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Can create and modify messages

This is correct. The primary role of a messaging operator in Alliance Lite2 is to create and modify SWIFT messages, such as payment instructions (e.g., MT103) or other FIN messages. This is a core function of the L2BA interface, which provides a browser-based platform for operators to input, edit, and send messages. SWIFT documentation for Alliance Lite2 confirms that messaging operators have the necessary permissions to perform these tasks, aligning with the operational workflows supported by the platform.

•Option B: Can assign RBAC roles to RMA operators and messaging operators

This is incorrect. Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) role assignment in Alliance Lite2 is typically managed by a security officer or administrator role, not the messaging operator. The messaging operator’s scope is limited to message-related activities, not user or role management. In Alliance Lite2, RBAC is managed through the Alliance Web Platform, where a security officer (e.g., LSO) assigns roles to operators, including RMA (Relationship Management Application) operators and messaging operators. The CSCF Control "6.1 Security Awareness" emphasizes the separation of duties, ensuring that operational roles like messaging operators do not overlap with administrative roles.

•Option C: Can approve the Customer Security Officer change requests

This is incorrect. Approving Customer Security Officer (CSO) change requests is a high-level administrative task that falls under the purview of SWIFT’s security and compliance processes, often involving SWIFT’s support team or a designated administrator within the institution. In Alliance Lite2, this responsibility does not lie with the messaging operator, whose role is focused on message handling. The CSCF mandates strict controls for CSO changes, typically requiring multi-party approval outside the messaging operator’s scope.

•Option D: Can approve messages

This is correct. In Alliance Lite2, messaging operators can approve messages as part of the workflow, depending on the institution’s configuration. For example, a message created by one operator may require approval by another operator (or the same operator if configured with dual roles) before it is sent to the SWIFT network. This approval process ensures accuracy and compliance with internal controls, a feature supported by the L2BA interface in Alliance Lite2. SWIFT documentation highlights this capability as part of the messaging workflow.

Summary of Correct Answers:

The messaging operator in Alliance Lite2 can create and modify messages (A) and can approve messages (D), consistent with their operational role.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 6.1 emphasizes role separation, limiting messaging operators to message-related tasks.

•SWIFT Alliance Lite2 Documentation: Details the messaging operator’s role in creating, modifying, and approving messages via L2BA.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: Highlights administrative roles for RBAC and CSO changes, excluding messaging operators.

This question outlines conditions for relying on a previous year’s control assessment under theCSCF v2024.

Step 1: Understand Reliance on Previous Assessments

TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkallows reliance on prior assessments to reduce redundancy, provided specific conditions are met, as detailed in theCSCF v2024andSwift CSP Compliance Guidelines.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. The control compliance conclusion must have already been relied on the past two yearsThere is no requirement in theCSCF v2024orIndependent Assessment Frameworkthat reliance must have occurred for two prior years. Reliance is assessed annually based on current conditions.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. The previous assessment was performed on the (correct) CSCF version of the previous yearThe assessment must align with the CSCF version active at the time, ensuring relevance. This is a condition in theIndependent Assessment Framework.Conclusion: Correct.

C. The control definition has not changedIf the control definition in theCSCF v2024has not been updated, prior conclusions remain valid, per theSwift CSP FAQ.Conclusion: Correct.

D. The control-design and implementation are the sameContinuity in design and implementation is required to ensure the control’s effectiveness has not changed, as specified in theIndependent Assessment Framework.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areB, C, and D, as these conditions ensure the prior assessment’s relevance and accuracy under theCSCF v2024.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Section: Assessment Reliance.

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Reliance Conditions.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Assessment Continuity.

This question pertains to the Alliance Web Platform (AWP) Single Edition (SE) Administrator’s capabilities:

Step 1: AWP SE Overview

AWP SE is a web-based interface for managing SWIFT services (e.g., Alliance Lite2, monitoring tools). It’s primarily GUI-driven, unlike Alliance Access, which supports command-line operations.

This question focuses on the encryption methods securing communications between the SwiftNet Link (SNL) host and Hardware Security Module (HSM) boxes in the Swift environment.

Step 1: Understand SNL and HSM Communication

The SwiftNet Link (SNL) facilitates secure connectivity to the Swift network, while the HSM manages cryptographic keys. Secure communication between the SNL host and HSM is critical, as outlined inControl 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Managementof theCSCF v2024. These communications must use strong encryption protocols.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. NTLS and SSH

NTLS (Network Transport Layer Security): This is Swift’s proprietary protocol for securing communications over the SwiftNet network, including between SNL and HSM. It provides end-to-end encryption and is widely used in Swift infrastructure, as confirmed in theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation.

SSH (Secure Shell): SSH is used for secure management and administration of HSMs and SNL hosts, enabling encrypted remote access and configuration, as noted inSwift Security Best Practices.This combination aligns with Swift’s security requirements for protecting HSM communications.Conclusion: This is correct.

B. Telnet and SSL

Telnet: An unencrypted protocol, unsuitable for secure communications, and not used in Swift’s security framework perControl 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restriction.

SSL (Secure Sockets Layer): An older encryption protocol, largely replaced by TLS in modern systems. Swift does not specify SSL for SNL-HSM communications, favoring NTLS.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

C. NTLS and Telnet

NTLS: As above, this is valid for SwiftNet communications.

Telnet: As an unencrypted protocol, it is not acceptable for securing HSM communications, perControl 2.5B.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

D. MPLS and SSL

MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching): A networking technology for routing, not an encryption method, and not relevant to SNL-HSM security.

SSL: As above, not used in this context by Swift.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isA, as NTLS secures the data communication and SSH provides secure management access between the SNL host and HSM, consistent withCSCF v2024and Swift technical documentation.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Management, Control 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restriction.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Network Security Protocols.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: HSM and SNL Configuration.

The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" and "Independent Assessment Framework" provide guidance on using external audit reports (e.g., ISAE 3000) to support CSP assessments. ISAE 3000 is an international standard for assurance engagements. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: No, that is too old, the maximum is 18 months

This is correct. The CSP specifies that external reports like ISAE 3000 must be no older than 18 months to ensure relevance, as security environments can change. The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" set this time limit to validate current compliance status.

•Option B: Yes, there is no time limit for an ISAE 3000 report

This is incorrect. A time limit is enforced to ensure the report reflects the current security posture, as per CSP guidelines.

•Option C: No, an ISAE 3000 report is no valid substitute as a rule

This is incorrect. An ISAE 3000 report can be used as supporting evidence if relevant and recent, but it is not a full substitute for the independent assessment, per the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option D: Yes, provided there is no change to the SWIFT user’s infrastructure

This is incorrect. Even with no changes, the 18-month limit applies to ensure the report’s currency, not just infrastructure stability.

Summary of Correct Answer:

An assessor cannot rely on an ISAE 3000 report dating back 2 years; the maximum is 18 months (A).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Limits ISAE 3000 reports to 18 months.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Specifies timeframe for external evidence.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Enforces currency of supporting reports.

========

The High-Level Test Plan (HLTP) is outlined in the "Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines" and serves as a guidance document for assessors. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: The HLTP provides a way of testing and the typical evidence for each control (based on implementation guidelines) and must be strictly followed

This is incorrect. The HLTP is a recommended framework, not a strict mandate. Assessors have flexibility to adapt testing approaches based on the user’s environment, as per the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option B: The HLTP provides a way of testing and the typical evidence for each control (based on implementation guidelines), testing should be ideally based on it

This is correct. The HLTP offers a standardized methodology and evidence examples for testing CSCF controls, derived from implementation guidelines. The "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" encourages assessors to use it as a best practice, allowing adjustments as needed.

•Option C: The HLTP provides the rules to define the sample for testing

This is incorrect. While the HLTP includes sample size guidance (e.g., minimum of 3 for limited testing), its primary purpose is broader, covering testing methods and evidence, not just sampling rules.

•Option D: The HLTP provides a detailed way of control testing

This is incorrect. The HLTP is high-level, not detailed; detailed testing plans are developed by assessors based on the HLTP framework.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The HLTP provides testing methods and evidence, and testing should ideally be based on it (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines: Defines HLTP purpose.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Recommends HLTP usage.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Allows flexibility.

========

The SWIFT CSP requires a consistent and independent assessment process, as specified in the "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines." Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, a SWIFT user can combine multiple assessment types (internal and external assessment) as long as all controls are covered

This is incorrect. The CSP mandates that the assessment be conducted by a single, independent assessor or firm to ensure uniformity and objectivity. Mixing internal audits (which lack independence) with external assessments does not meet the requirement, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option B: No, because the SWIFT user cannot be sure the same approach and quality will be delivered

This is incorrect as the primary reason. While consistency is a concern, the main issue is the lack of independence, not just quality variation.

•Option C: Yes, but only if there is a signed agreement between all involved assessors

This is incorrect. A signed agreement does not resolve the CSP’s requirement for a single independent assessment. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" does not allow hybrid assessments.

•Option D: No, SWIFT can reject the attestation in such situations

This is correct. SWIFT reserves the right to reject attestations if the assessment process does not comply with the requirement for a fully independent assessment by a certified assessor. The "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" and "CSCF Assessment Completion Letter" must reflect a single, consistent evaluation, and the "Independent Assessment Framework" explicitly prohibits reliance on internal audits for compliance attestation.

Summary of Correct Answer:

This approach is not acceptable, and SWIFT can reject the attestation (D).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires a single independent assessor.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Prohibits mixed assessment types.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Reflects a unified assessment process.

========

This question addresses the type of control effectiveness that must be validated during an independent assessment under the Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP). Let’s analyze this based on theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF)and related guidelines.

Step 1: Understand Independent Assessments in Swift CSP

The Swift CSP mandates that users undergo an independent assessment to validate their compliance with the CSCF controls. This requirement is detailed in theCSCF v2024, under theIndependent Assessment Framework. The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that controls are not only designed appropriately but also implemented and operating effectively.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Effectiveness is never validated only the control designThis statement is incorrect. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkexplicitly requiresvalidation of both the design and theoperational effectivenessof controls. Assessing only the design without confirming that the control is working as intended does not meet Swift’s compliance requirements.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

B. An independent assessment is a point in time review with possible reviews of older evidence as appropriateWhile this statement is factually true (an independent assessment is indeed a point-in-time review, as per theCSCF v2024), it does not directly answer the question about what type of control effectiveness needs to be validated. It describes the nature of the assessment, not the focus of validation.Conclusion: This does not address the question directly.

C. Operational effectiveness needs to be validatedTheIndependent Assessment Frameworkspecifies that an independent assessment must validate both the design and the operational effectiveness of CSCF controls. Operational effectiveness ensures that controls are functioning as intended over a period of time, not just designed correctly on paper. This includes testing controls (e.g., logging, access controls) to confirm they are working in practice, as required for attestation.Conclusion: This is correct.

D. None of the aboveSince option C is correct, this option is not applicable.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isC, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequire validation of the operational effectiveness of controls during an independent assessment, ensuring that controls are not only designed but also implemented and functioning effectively.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Section: Independent Assessment Requirements.

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Assessment Scope and Objectives.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Independent Assessment Guidelines.