Free and Premium Swift CSP-Assessor Dumps Questions Answers

This question requires identifying the architecture type based on the SWIFT CSP Architecture Types (defined in CSCF documentation) for a user with an sFTP server pushing files to an outsourcing agent hosting the Communication Interface:

Step 1: Define the Scenario

The SWIFT user uses an sFTP server to transfer files to an outsourcing agent, which hosts the user’s Communication Interface (e.g., SWIFT Alliance Gateway). The Communication Interface connects to the SWIFT network.

Step 2: SWIFT Architecture Types Overview

A1: Full in-house stack (Messaging Interface, Communication Interface, etc.).

A3: Communication Interface hosted by a service provider/outsourcing agent; back-office or middleware connects to it.

A4: Both Messaging and Communication Interfaces hosted by a service provider.

B: Alliance Lite2 (direct cloud-based connectivity).

This question pertains to the default user roles available in Alliance Cloud, a SWIFT cloud-based messaging solution:

Step 1: Alliance Cloud Overview

Alliance Cloud provides a hosted messaging service (e.g., for Alliance Lite2 or RMA), with predefined roles for managing operations, security, and messages. Default roles are outlined in the product documentation.

This question addresses the scope of penetration testing for Swift-related components under theSwift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Penetration Testing Requirements

TheCSCF v2024, underControl 4.1: Penetration Testing, mandates penetration testing to identify vulnerabilities in Swift-related systems. The scope is defined by theSwift Testing Policy, not arbitrarily applied to all components.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The statement suggests that penetration testing "must be performed at application level against the Swift-related components, such as the interfaces, Swift and customer connectors." We need to verify if this is a mandatory scope.

Step 3: Evaluate Against Swift Guidelines

Control 4.1: Penetration Testingrequires testing of in-scope components, but theSwift Testing Policy(referenced in theCSCF v2024andSecurity Best Practices) specifies which components (e.g., messaging interfaces, connectors) must be tested based on risk and architecture.

The policy does not mandate testing all listed components (e.g., interfaces, connectors) at the application level unless they are identified as high-risk or in-scope per the user’s assessment. For example, customer connectors might be excluded if managed by a Service Bureau, per theSwift Outsourcing Guidelines.

The statement’s assertion of a broad mandate is incorrect; the scope is limited to components defined in theSwift Testing Policy, which provides a tailored approach.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isB, as penetration testing must follow theSwift Testing Policy, which defines the specific components to test, rather than mandating all Swift-related components like interfaces and connectors.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 4.1: Penetration Testing.

Swift Testing Policy, Section: Scope Definition.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Penetration Testing.

This question requires identifying the component types of the numbered components (1, 2, 3, and 4) in the provided diagram, which illustrates a Swift infrastructure with Architecture Type A4 (user environment) and Architecture Type A1 (group hub). The classification is based on theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024and related architecture definitions.

Step 1: Understand the Diagram and Component Types

The diagram shows two environments:

Architecture Type A4: The user’s local environment with back-office systems using middleware clients and servers.

Architecture Type A1: A group hub hosting Swift components like Alliance Access, Alliance Gateway, and HSM/PKI, connecting to the Swift network.

Component Types:

Customer Connector: A system or server that facilitates connectivity between the user’s environment and the Swift infrastructure (e.g., middleware servers interfacing with the group hub).

Bridging Server (Middleware Server): A server that bridges data flows between back-office systems and the Swift messaging environment, often handling message queuing or transformation.

Step 2: Analyze Each Numbered Component

Component 1 (Middleware Server connected to Back Office 1):This server is part of the A4 architecture, interfacing the back-office middleware client with the group hub (A1). It acts as a connector, facilitating data exchange to the MQHA (Message Queue High Availability) server in the group hub. Per theCSCF v2024andSwift Architecture Types Explained, this is aCustomer Connector.

Component 2 (MQHA Middleware Server in the Group Hub):This server is within the A1 group hub, bridging the user’s data (via the customer connector) tothe Alliance Access and Gateway. It handles message queuing and acts as aBridging Server (Middleware Server), as defined in theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation.

Component 3 (Middleware Server connected to Back Office 2):Similar to Component 1, this server connects the second back-office middleware client to the MQHA server in the group hub, functioning as aCustomer Connector.

Component 4 (MQ Middleware Server connected to MQHA):This server within the A1 group hub supports the MQHA, bridging data flows to the Swift messaging components (Alliance Access/Gateway). It is aBridging Server (Middleware Server), consistent with theCSCF v2024definitions.

Step 3: Match with Options

A. 1. Customer Connector, 2. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 3. Customer Connector, 4. Bridging Server (Middleware Server): Matches the analysis above.

B. 1. Customer Connector, 2. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 3. Customer Connector, 4. Customer Connector: Incorrect, as Component 4 is a bridging server, not a customer connector.

C. 1. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 2. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 3. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 4. Bridging Server (Middleware Server): Incorrect, as Components 1 and 3 are customer connectors, not bridging servers.

D. 1. Customer Connector, 2. Customer Connector, 3. Customer Connector, 4. Customer Connector: Incorrect, as Components 2 and 4 are bridging servers.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isA, as it accurately identifies the component types based on their roles in the A4 and A1 architectures, consistent withCSCF v2024andSwift Architecture Types Explained.

References

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

Swift Architecture Types Explained, Section: Component Roles.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Middleware and Connectors.

The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" and "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" define provider categories and CSP impact. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: The public cloud provider is considered a L2BA provider, and therefore not in scope of the CSP

This is incorrect. An L2BA (Lite2 Business Application) provider hosts the full SWIFT stack for users, but a public cloud provider offering a virtual machine is not an L2BA provider unless it provides the full service. The CSP still applies to the provider’s infrastructure.

•Option B: The public cloud provider is considered a SWIFT connectivity provider, and therefore not in scope of the CSP

This is incorrect. A SWIFT connectivity provider (e.g., Alliance Connect) is a specific role, but a public cloud provider (e.g., AWS) hosting a communication interface is an outsourcing agent, subject to CSP requirements.

•Option C: The public cloud provider is considered an outsourcing agent, and therefore in scope of the CSP

This is correct. The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" classifies public cloud providers hosting SWIFT components (e.g., a virtual machine with Alliance Gateway) as outsourcing agents. The CSP impacts the provider by requiring them to secure the underlying infrastructure (e.g., Control 1.1), while the user secures the communication interface.

•Option D: This type of implementation is not allowed by the CSP

This is incorrect. The CSP permits cloud-based deployments, including user-installed components on public cloud VMs, as long as security controls are met.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The public cloud provider is an outsourcing agent, in scope of the CSP (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Defines cloud providers as outsourcing agents.

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Applies controls to outsourced environments.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Includes cloud provider assessments.

========

The Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF), part of the SWIFT Customer Security Programme, aims to enhance the security of the SWIFT ecosystem by defining mandatory and advisory security controls for users. The three main objectives are explicitly outlined in the CSCF documentation and reflect a holistic approach to security. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: 1. Secure your environment, 2. Know and Limit Access, 3. Detect and Respond

This is correct. These three objectives align directly with the core principles of the CSCF:

oSecure your environment: This involves implementing controls to protect the SWIFT-related infrastructure (e.g., CSCF Control 1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection, 1.2 Physical Security) against unauthorized access and threats.

oKnow and Limit Access: This focuses on managing access controls and authentication (e.g., CSCF Control 2.2 External Transmission Security, 6.1 Security Awareness) to ensure only authorized personnel can interact with the SWIFT environment.

oDetect and Respond: This emphasizes monitoring and incident response (e.g., CSCF Control 4.1 Logging and 5.1 Operational Incident Response) to identify and mitigate security incidents. These objectives are explicitly stated in the "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and reinforced across related documents like the "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025."

•Option B: 1. Restrict Internet Access and Protect Critical Systems from General IT Environment, 2. Reduce Attack Surface and Vulnerabilities, 3. Physically Secure the Environment

This is incorrect. While these are specific controls within the CSCF (e.g., Control 1.1, 2.3 System Hardening, 1.2), they are not the overarching objectives. They are implementation details rather than the high-level goals of the framework.

•Option C: 1. Secure and Protect, 2. Prevent and Detect, 3. Share and Prepare

This is incorrect. These terms are vague and do not match the official CSCF objectives. "Share and Prepare" is not a recognized objective, and the phrasing does not align with SWIFT documentation.

•Option D: 1. Raise pragmatically the security bar, 2. Maintain appropriate cyber-security hygiene, 3. React promptly

This is incorrect. While these concepts are related to security improvement, they are not the specific objectives outlined in the CSCF. The language is more general and lacks the structured focus of the official objectives.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The three main objectives of the CSCF are to Secure your environment, Know and Limit Access, and Detect and Respond (A), as defined in the framework’s core principles.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Outlines the three main objectives (Secure, Know and Limit, Detect and Respond).

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Aligns controls with these objectives.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Supports the assessment of these objectives.

========

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.

This question identifies the key components of Alliance Lite2 under theSwift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Alliance Lite2 Components

Alliance Lite2 is a browser-based Swift solution for smaller institutions, with a simplified architecture. Its components are detailed in theSwift Alliance Lite2 User Guideand referenced in theCSCF v2024context.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. A web interfaceThe web interface is the primary user access point for Alliance Lite2, enabling message sending and receiving via a browser. This is a core component, as confirmed in theSwift Alliance Lite2 User Guide.Conclusion: Correct.

B. An AutoClientThe AutoClient is an optional automated client for batch processing and integration with back-office systems, considered a key component for enhanced functionality, per theSwift Alliance Lite2 Technical Documentation.Conclusion: Correct.

C. A HSM boxWhile HSMs are used for cryptographic security in Swift environments, Alliance Lite2 relies on Swift-managed HSM infrastructure, not user-managed HSM boxes. It is not a key user-side component, per theSwift Security Best Practices.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. A WebSphere MQ ServerWebSphere MQ is a middleware solution not integral to Alliance Lite2, which uses a lightweight architecture without requiring such servers. TheSwift Alliance Lite2 User Guidedoes not list it as a component.Conclusion: Incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areAandB, as the web interface and AutoClient are the key user-side components of Alliance Lite2, consistent with theSwift Alliance Lite2 User GuideandCSCF v2024.

References

Swift Alliance Lite2 User Guide, Section: System Components.

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

Swift Alliance Lite2 Technical Documentation, Section: Architecture.

The Local Security Officer (LSO) and Remote Security Officer (RSO) are roles defined within the SWIFT Alliance suite, particularly for managing security in messaging interfaces like Alliance Access. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: They are Alliance Security Officers

This is correct. The LSO and RSO are collectively referred to as Alliance Security Officers within the SWIFT ecosystem. The LSO is typically an on-site officer responsible for local security management, while the RSO can perform similar functions remotely, often for distributed environments. These roles are critical for configuring and maintaining security settings in Alliance Access, as outlined in SWIFT’s operational documentation. The CSCF Control "6.1 Security Awareness" emphasizes the importance of trained security officers, which aligns with the LSO/RSO roles.

•Option B: Their PKI certificates are stored either on an HSM Token or on an HSM-box

This is incorrect. While PKI certificates are used for authentication and are managed within the SWIFT environment, they are not specifically tied to the LSO or RSO roles in terms of storage. PKI certificates for SWIFTNet are stored and managed by the Hardware Security Module (HSM), either as an HSM token (e.g., a smart card) or an HSM-box (e.g., a physical or virtual HSM device). However, these certificates are associated with the SWIFT application or user roles (e.g., for message signing), not the LSO/RSO profiles themselves. The LSO/RSO uses these certificates as part of their duties, but the statement implies ownership or storage, which is inaccurate. CSCF Control "1.3 Cryptographic Failover" specifies HSM management, not LSO/RSO certificate storage.

•Option C: They are the business profiles that can sign the SWIFT financial transactions

This is incorrect. The LSO and RSO are security management roles, not business profiles authorized to sign financial transactions. Signing SWIFT financial transactions (e.g., MT103 messages) is the responsibility of authorized business users or automated processes within Alliance Access, who use PKI certificates managed by the HSM. The LSO/RSO’s role is to configure and oversee security, not to perform transactional activities. This distinction is clear in SWIFT’s role-based access control documentation.

•Option D: They are responsible for the configuration and management of the security functions in the messaging interface

This is correct. The LSO and RSO are tasked with configuring and managing security functions within Alliance Access, such as user access control, authentication settings, and compliance with CSCF requirements. This includes managing PKI certificate usage, setting up secure communication channels, and ensuring the messaging interface adheres to security policies. For example, the LSO can define security profiles and monitor access, as detailed in the Alliance Access Administration Guide, aligning with CSCF Control "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security."

Summary of Correct Answers:

The LSO and RSO are Alliance Security Officers (A) and are responsible for the configuration and management of security functions in the messaging interface (D). Their PKI certificates are not stored by them, and they do not sign transactions.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 6.1 highlights the role of security officers like LSO/RSO.

•SWIFT Alliance Access Documentation: Describes LSO/RSO responsibilities for security configuration.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: Details PKI certificate management by HSM, not LSO/RSO.

========

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 identifies the components with which the SwiftNet Link (SNL) communicates, based on its role in the Swift ecosystem under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand the Role of SwiftNet Link (SNL)

The SNL is a communication layer that facilitates secure connectivity between a Swift user’s environment and the Swift network. It handles encrypted data transmission and interacts with specific infrastructure components, as detailed in theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical DocumentationandControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protectionof theCSCF v2024.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. The Graphical User InterfaceThe GUI (e.g., operator interface) is used by personnel to interact with Swift applications (e.g., Alliance Access), but it does not directly communicate with the SNL. The SNL operates at the network and security layer, not the user interface layer, per theSwift User Handbook.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. The VPN boxesThe SNL communicates with VPN boxes to establish secure tunnels (e.g., using NTLS) for data transmission to the Swift network, as specified in theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restriction.Conclusion: Correct.

C. The HSM deviceThe SNL interacts with the Hardware Security Module (HSM) to manage cryptographic keys and secure communications, as outlined inControl 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Managementand theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation.Conclusion: Correct.

D. The messaging interface (such as Alliance Access)The SNL connects to the messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access or Entry) to transmit and receive Swift messages, a core function described in theCSCF v2024underControl 1.1.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areB, C, and D, as the SNL communicates with VPN boxes, HSM devices, and messaging interfaces to ensure secure and functional connectivity to the Swift network, consistent withCSCF v2024and related documentation.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection, Control 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Management, Control 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restriction.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: SNL Communication.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Network Infrastructure.

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 asks whether a Swift user can implement security controls (e.g., logging and monitoring) in systems not directly in scope of the CSCF. Let’s analyze this based on Swift CSP guidelines.

Step 1: Define CSCF Scope and Security Controls

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024defines its scope as the Swift-related infrastructure, including messaging interfaces, communication interfaces, and operator systems (asdetailed in Question 4). Security controls likelogging and monitoringare mandated underControl Objective 6: Detect Anomalous Activity, specifically in controls likeControl 6.1: Security Event Logging.

Step 2: Analyze the Question

The question focuses on whether a Swift user can apply CSCF security controls (e.g., logging and monitoring) to systemsnot directly in scopeof the CSCF. Systems not in scope include back-office systems, general-purpose servers, or other infrastructure that does not directly process Swift messages or connect to the Swift network.

Step 3: Evaluate Swift CSP Guidance

The CSCF mandates that security controls must be applied to in-scope systems to ensure the security of the Swift environment. However, Swift also encourages adefense-in-depthapproach, as outlined in theSwift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices. This approach recommends extending security practices beyond the minimum scope to enhance overall security.

Control 6.1: Security Event Loggingrequires logging and monitoring for in-scope systems to detect anomalous activity. While this control is mandatory for in-scope systems, the CSCF does not prohibit applying similar controls to out-of-scope systems. In fact, theSwift CSP FAQ(available on swift.com) clarifies that users may implement additional security measures on out-of-scope systems to reduce risks to the Swift environment (e.g., monitoring back-office systems that interact with Swift middleware).

Implementing logging and monitoring on out-of-scope systems can help detect threats that might indirectly affect the Swift environment, such as lateral movement from a compromised back-office system to a Swift-related system.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

A Swift usercanchoose to implement security controls like logging and monitoring on systems not directly in scope of the CSCF. This is not mandatory but is considered a best practice under Swift’s defense-in-depth strategy. The CSCF does not restrict users from applying additional security measures beyond its defined scope, and such actions align with the broader goal of enhancing cybersecurity across the user’s environment.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 6.1: Security Event Logging.

Swift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices, Section: Defense-in-Depth.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Scope and Applicability of Security Controls.

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.

========

This question addresses the internet connectivity restriction control and its application to CSCF in-scope components. Let’s verify this against Swift CSP guidelines.

Step 1: Understand the Internet Connectivity Restriction Control

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, underControl 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restriction, mandates that in-scope components (e.g., Swift messaging interfaces, communication interfaces) must not have direct internet access to prevent exposure to external threats. However, this control allows for exceptions under specific conditions.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The statement claims that the internet connectivity restriction control “prevents having internet access on any CSCF in-scope components.” The key is to determine if this is an absolute prohibition or if exceptions exist.

Step 3: Evaluate Against CSCF Guidelines

Control 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restrictionrequires that Swift-related systems be isolated from the internet to minimize attack surfaces. This includes components like messaging interfaces (e.g., Alliance Access) and communication interfaces (e.g., SNL).

However, theCSCF v2024andSwift CSP FAQallow for controlled internet access under specific circumstances, such as:

Use of secure tunnels (e.g., VPNs) or proxies for authorized management purposes.

Temporary access for software updates or patches, provided it is tightly controlled and monitored (perControl 6.1: Security Event Logging).

The control does not impose an absolute ban but requires that any internet access be restricted, audited, and justified. Thus, the statement that it “prevents having internet access on any CSCF in-scope components” is too absolute.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The statement isFALSEbecause, while internet access is heavily restricted for in-scope components, it is not entirely prevented under all circumstances (e.g., controlled access for maintenance). This aligns with the flexible yet secure approach of theCSCF v2024.

References

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

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Internet Access Exceptions.

CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" aims to secure the SWIFT infrastructure by isolating it from external threats and internal risks. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" details its objectives. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Restrict malicious access from external sources

This applies. Control 1.1 requires isolating the SWIFT secure zone from external sources (e.g., the Internet) to prevent malicious access, such as malware or unauthorized intrusions.

•Option B: Forbids any interactive sessions towards the SWIFT infrastructure

This does not apply. Control 1.1 does not forbid all interactive sessions. It allows controlled interactive access (e.g., via jump servers) for administrative purposes, provided sessions are secured (e.g., encrypted per Control "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security"). The "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" permits interactive sessions with proper controls.

•Option C: Limit risks of privileged accounts compromise

This applies. Control 1.1 includes measures to secure privileged accounts (e.g., by enforcing strong authentication and role-based access control) to prevent compromise, aligning with CSCF principles.

•Option D: Limit risks of lateral movement

This applies. Control 1.1 aims to segment the SWIFT environment from the general IT environment, reducing the risk of lateral movement by attackers within the network.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Forbidding any interactive sessions (B) does not apply, as Control 1.1 allows controlled interactive access.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 1.1 objectives include restricting access and limiting risks, but not banning interactive sessions.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Confirms controlled interactive sessions are permitted.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Assesses secure access controls under 1.1.

========

The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and "Independent Assessment Framework" define the scope of controls to be assessed based on the user’s architecture type (A1-A4). Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes

This is incorrect. Not all controls (mandatory and advisory) must be assessed; only those applicable to the user’s architecture and attested to are required, per the "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree."

•Option B: No, only the mandatory controls

This is incorrect. While mandatory controls must be assessed, users may also attest to advisory controls voluntarily, and these must be included in the assessment if attested, as per the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls" and "Assessment template for Advisory controls."

•Option C: No, only the attested controls (with as a minimum the mandatory ones according to the architecture type)

This is correct. The CSP requires assessment of all mandatory controls applicable to the user’s architecture type, plus any advisory controls the user chooses to attest to. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" and "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" confirm that the assessment focuses on attested controls, ensuring minimum mandatory coverage.

•Option D: No, the controls selection is agreed upfront between the SWIFT User and the assessor

This is incorrect. Control selection is not negotiable; it is determined by the architecture type and user attestation, not an ad-hoc agreement, as per the "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree."

Summary of Correct Answer:

Only the attested controls, with a minimum of mandatory ones per architecture type, must be assessed (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Defines mandatory and advisory controls.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Focuses on attested controls.

•CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree: Guides control applicability.

This question addresses the eligibility of a SWIFT CSP Certified Assessor who leaves a listed provider to continue performing assessments independently:

Step 1: SWIFT CSP Assessor Certification Rules

The SWIFT CSP Independent Assessment Framework (IAF) specifies that assessors must be certified and affiliated with a SWIFT-approved provider listed in the Directory of CSP Assessment Providers. Certification is tied to the individual but exercised through the provider’s accreditation.

Step 2: Impact of Leaving a Provider

When an assessor leaves a listed provider, they lose the organizational backing required to conduct official CSP assessments. The IAF states that "assessments must be performed by approved providers," and independent operation without SWIFT’s formal re-approval or affiliation with another provider is not permitted, even during the certification validity period.

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.

========

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 compares the SWIFT footprint (components within the CSP scope) across different infrastructures:

Step 1: Define SWIFT Footprint

The SWIFT footprint includes all systems and components handling SWIFT messaging or connectivity, as defined in CSCF Control 1.1 – SWIFT Environment Protection.

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 obligations of a Swift user who has switched from one Service Bureau (SB) to another under the Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand CSP Obligations for Changes

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequire Swift users to maintain accurate and up-to-date information regarding their infrastructure,including changes in service providers like Service Bureaus. Such changes may impact compliance and architecture types.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. To inform the SB certification office at Swift WWThere is no specific "SB certification office" mentioned in theCSCF v2024orSwift CSP Guidelines. Notifications are typically handled through attestation updates, not a dedicated office.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. To reflect that in the next attestation cycleWhile changes must be reflected in attestations, delaying this until the next cycle (e.g., annually) is insufficient if the change affects compliance. TheSwift CSP Compliance Guidelinesrequire timely updates for significant changes.Conclusion: Incorrect.

C. None if there is no impact in the architecture typeEven if the architecture type (e.g., A2, A4) remains unchanged, a switch in Service Bureau may affect security controls, vendor management, or connectivity. TheCSCF v2024underControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protectionrequires users to report changes that could impact compliance, regardless of architecture type.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. To submit an updated attestation reflecting this change within 3 monthsTheSwift CSP Compliance GuidelinesandIndependent Assessment Frameworkmandate that significant changes (e.g., switching Service Bureaus) be reported through an updated attestation within 3 months. This ensures Swift is informed of potential compliance impacts and allows for review.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isD, as theCSCF v2024andSwift CSP Compliance Guidelinesrequire an updated attestation within 3 months to reflect a change in Service Bureau.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Change Reporting.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Timely Updates.

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.

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 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.

The CSCF requires protection of operator session flows to ensure confidentiality and integrity, particularly for sessions involving SWIFT-related components. This is addressed under Control "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security" and "2.2 External Transmission Security." Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: System administrator sessions towards a host running a SWIFT-related component (on-premises or remote)

This is valid. System administrator sessions to hosts running SWIFT components (e.g., Alliance Gateway on-premises or in the cloud) must be protected using encryption (e.g., TLS) and authentication to prevent unauthorized access or data breaches, aligning with CSCF Control "2.1."

•Option B: All sessions to and from a jump server used to access a component in a secure zone

This is valid. Jump servers (bastion hosts) used to access the secure zone (e.g., for managing Alliance Access) must have all sessions encrypted and integrity-checked, as required by CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" and "2.2" to secure access points.

•Option C: All sessions towards a SWIFT-related application run by an Outsourcing Agent, a Service Bureau, or an L2BA Provider

This is valid. Sessions to applications hosted by third parties (e.g., Alliance Lite2 Business Application by an L2BA Provider) must be protected, as per CSCF Control "2.2" and the "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025," which mandates secure transmission regardless of location.

•Option D: All of the other answers are valid

This is correct. Since A, B, and C all describe session flows that require protection under the CSCF, the comprehensive answer is that all listed session types must be secured for confidentiality and integrity.

Summary of Correct Answer:

All operator session flows listed (A, B, and C) are expected to be protected, making D the correct choice.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Controls 2.1 and 2.2 mandate session protection.

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Extends protection to third-party-hosted applications.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Includes all listed session types in security testing.

========

The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" distinguish between audits and assessments within the SWIFT CSP context. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: An audit is a comprehensive review of a customer’s controls to ensure they meet regulatory requirements, while an assessment is a very high-level review of controls to identify potential weaknesses

This is incorrect. The CSP assessment is a detailed, independent evaluation of CSCF compliance, not a high-level review. Audits may focus on broader regulatory compliance, but the CSP assessment is specific to CSCF controls.

•Option B: An audit looks at the defined controls design and implementation compliance and follows recognized international audit standards, whereas an assessment is less strict but aims the same common objectives

This is correct. The CSP defines an assessment as a structured, independent process to verify CSCF control compliance, guided by SWIFT-specific guidelines rather than international audit standards (e.g., ISAE 3000). Audits, while thorough, follow broader standards and may not align with CSP’s tailored objectives. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" supports this distinction, noting assessments are CSP-specific with a focus on effectiveness.

•Option C: An audit is a one-time event, while an assessment is an ongoing process of monitoring and improving security controls

This is incorrect. Both audits and assessments can be one-time or periodic. The CSP assessment is an annual requirement, not an ongoing process, per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option D: An audit and an assessment can be used interchangeably

This is incorrect. The CSP clearly differentiates between the two, with assessments being the mandated method for CSCF compliance.

Summary of Correct Answer:

An audit follows international standards for control compliance, while an assessment is CSP-specific with similar objectives but less strict standards (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Defines assessment scope.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Distinguishes assessment from audit.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Outlines assessment process.

========

This question pertains to Local Security Officer (LSO) and Remote Security Officer (RSO) accounts on SWIFT Alliance Access, a key component of the SWIFT infrastructure. Let’s evaluate each statement:

A. They are local Security Officers

LSOs and RSOs are indeed Security Officers responsible for managing security functions on Alliance Access. LSOs operate locally, while RSOs can perform tasks remotely, but both are classified as Security Officers under SWIFT’s terminology.

CSCF Control "1.2 Physical Security" requires SWIFT users to protect the physical locations of SWIFT-related servers and infrastructure from unauthorized access. Let’s evaluate:

•The control mandates measures such as restricting physical access, using surveillance, and maintaining an access control list for individuals entering server locations.

•Regular review of physical access lists is explicitly included to ensure that only authorized personnel have access and to identify any anomalies or outdated permissions. This is part of the ongoing monitoring requirement under CSCF Control "1.2" and is detailed in the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls."

•The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" emphasize this as a mandatory practice to maintain physical security integrity.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The Physical Security control includes a regular review of physical access lists (TRUE).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 1.2 requires access list reviews.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Includes this as a compliance criterion.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Tests for regular access list reviews.

The SWIFT CSP defines architecture types (A1 to A4) based on the components a user owns and manages, as outlined in the "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" and "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025." These types determine the applicable security controls and assessment requirements. Let’s analyze the scenario and options:

•A customer connector is a component (e.g., a custom application or integration layer) that connects to SWIFT services, such as through the SWIFT API or a messaging interface. It handles data flows but is not a standard SWIFT-provided interface.

•A communication interface refers to a component like Alliance Gateway (SAG), which manages connectivity to the SWIFT network via SwiftNet Link (SNL) and VPN boxes.

•The architecture types are:

oA1: Full stack (owns messaging interface, communication interface, and network components, e.g., Alliance Access, Alliance Gateway, VPN boxes).

oA2: Owns a customer connector and communication interface, with the messaging interface hosted elsewhere (e.g., by a service bureau or SWIFT).

oA3: Owns only a customer connector, relying on external communication and messaging interfaces.

oA4: Uses a fully hosted solution (e.g., Alliance Cloud or Lite2), owning no local components.

•In this case, the user owns a customer connector and a communication interface but does not mention owning a messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access). This matches the A2 architecture type, where the user manages a custom integration (connector) and the communication layer (e.g., SAG), while the messaging interface is provided by another party (e.g., a service bureau or SWIFT-hosted environment). The "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" confirms this classification, and the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls" applies A2-specific requirements.

•Option A: A1

This is incorrect. A1 requires ownership of a messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access), which is not mentioned.

•Option B: A2

This is correct. A2 fits the scenario of owning a customer connector and communication interface without a messaging interface.

•Option C: A3

This is incorrect. A3 involves only a customer connector, not a communication interface.

•Option D: A4

This is incorrect. A4 applies to fully hosted solutions with no local ownership of connectors or interfaces.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The SWIFT user with a customer connector and a communication interface is of architecture type A2 (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Defines architecture types A1-A4.

•CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree: Classifies A2 for customer connector and communication interface ownership.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Applies to A2 architecture.

In an Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) cloud model, such as SWIFT’s Alliance Cloud, the cloud provider is responsible for the underlying infrastructure (e.g., hardware, virtualization layer, network) while the customer manages the applications and data. The SWIFT CSP, particularly the "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" and "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025," outlines the responsibilities of cloud providers. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: The cloud provider must cover all CSCF controls applicable to the related in-scope components for which the cloud provider is responsible (such as the underlying infrastructure in line with appendix G)

This is correct. In an IaaS model, the cloud provider is responsible for securing the underlying infrastructure (e.g., physical servers, network, virtualization layer) that hosts the SWIFT components. Appendix G of the CSCF (or related outsourcing guidelines) specifies the controls the provider must implement, such as those under CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" and "2.3 System Hardening." The provider must ensure these controls are met for the infrastructure it manages.

•Option B: The cloud provider must give comfort of control implementation effectiveness on the virtualization layer hosting the SWIFT users' components

This is correct. The virtualization layer (e.g., hypervisors) is part of the IaaS provider’s responsibility, and the provider must provide assurance (e.g., through audits or reports) that security controls are effectively implemented. This aligns with CSCF requirements for outsourcing agents, ensuring the virtualization layer supports the SWIFT secure zone, as noted in the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option C: The cloud provider must give full assurance on the change management process of the SWIFT-users' components/applications deployed by the user

This is incorrect. Change management for the SWIFT-users' components (e.g., Alliance Access configurations) is the customer’s responsibility in an IaaS model. The cloud provider is not accountable for the applications deployed by the user, only for the underlying infrastructure. The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" clarifies this boundary.

•Option D: The cloud provider must give comfort regarding the resiliency put in place to ensure continuity of SWIFT connectivity service

This is incorrect as a primary key element. While resiliency is important (e.g., CSCF Control 1.1), it is a broader operational concern rather than a specific IaaS responsibility. The provider ensures infrastructure availability, but continuity of SWIFT connectivity is a shared responsibility, with the customer managing the communication interface (e.g., Alliance Gateway).

Summary of Correct Answers:

The key elements for a cloud provider in an IaaS model are covering applicable CSCF controls for the infrastructure (A) and providing comfort on the effectiveness of controls on the virtualization layer (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Defines responsibilities in cloud models (Control 1.1, Appendix G).

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Outlines provider responsibilities in IaaS.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires assurance on virtualization layer security.

========

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.