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

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.

The "Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines" and "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" provide guidance on relying on previous assessments using a limited testing approach. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: There is no need for a sample for this limited testing

This is incorrect. Limited testing requires a sample to validate ongoing compliance, as per the guidelines.

•Option B: 1

This is incorrect. A sample size of 1 is insufficient to ensure statistical reliability for limited testing, per the HLTP guidelines.

•Option C: 3

This is correct. The "Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines" recommends a minimum sample size of 3 for each identified component when relying on previous assessments, allowing the assessor to confirm consistency and effectiveness without a full re-assessment.

•Option D: 5

This is incorrect. While a larger sample (e.g., 5) may be used in full assessments, the HLTP guidelines specify 3 as the minimum for limited testing.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The expected sample size is 3 for each identified component (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines: Specifies a sample size of 3.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports limited testing sample requirements.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Guides reliance testing.

========

This question concerns the assessor’s obligations during the CSP assessment kick-off:

Step 1: CSP Assessment Process

The IAF recommends a kick-off meeting to align expectations between the assessor and SWIFT user, including explaining the testing methodology (e.g., HLTP, sampling, evidence collection).

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.

This question addresses the types of Hardware Security Module (HSM) devices offered by SWIFT:

Step 1: SWIFT HSM Overview

SWIFT provides HSMs to secure Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificates and cryptographic operations for its users. The CSCF and related security documentation specify two primary types:HSM tokens(portable devices) andHSM boxes(rack-mounted hardware).

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.

The CSCF applies to all SWIFT users and components that handle SWIFT-related data or connectivity, including customer connectors and interfaces. The scope is defined by the "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and the "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree." Let’s evaluate the scenario and options:

•The application uses the SWIFT API for reporting and gpi basic tracker calls (e.g., tracking payment statuses via the SWIFT gpi Tracker) through a tailored account that does not allow business transaction management (e.g., creating or sending MT messages like MT103). This limits its functionality to read-only or monitoring activities.

•CSCF Scope: The CSCF applies to components that process or manage SWIFT business transactions (e.g., payment messages) or provide connectivity to the SWIFT network. The "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" classifies components into architecture types (A1-A4), with customer connectors and interfaces in scope if they handle transactional data or enable SWIFT connectivity. Reporting and tracking via APIs, without transaction management, do not constitute business transaction processing.

•Option A: Yes, it is in scope and considered a customer connector because it reads business transaction data

This is incorrect. While the application reads transaction data (e.g., via gpi Tracker), the CSCF scope is primarily focused on components that manage or transmit business transactions (e.g., creating or sending messages). Reading data for reporting purposes does not classify it as a customer connector requiring full CSCF compliance unless it also handles transactional flows. The "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" focuses on transactional interfaces.

•Option B: No, it can be descoped because there is no business transaction management being performed

This is correct. Since the application does not manage business transactions (e.g., it cannot initiate or modify payments), it falls outside the primary scope of the CSCF. The "Independent Assessment Framework" allows for descoping of components that do not process transactional data, provided they are isolated from the SWIFT secure zone. This aligns with the "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree," which excludes non-transactional reporting tools from mandatory assessment.

•Option C: No, it is not in scope because the API connection method is not in scope of the CSP

This is incorrect. The SWIFT API connection method is within the CSP scope if it interacts with SWIFT services (e.g., gpi Tracker), but the key factor is the lack of transaction management, not the API itself.

•Option D: Yes, it is in scope because the API connection method is less secure than SWIFT interfaces

This is incorrect. Security of the connection method (e.g., API vs. traditional interfaces) does not determine CSCF scope. The scope is based on functionality (transaction management), and the statement’s premise about security is not a valid criterion per CSCF guidelines.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The application is not in scope of the CSCF and can be descoped because it does not perform business transaction management (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Defines scope based on transaction management.

•CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree: Guides descoping of non-transactional components.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Allows descoping of reporting-only applications.

========

This question determines the scope of the CSCF for a Treasury Management System (TMS) and an MQ server (customer connector) installed on the same machine.

Step 1: Understand CSCF Scope

TheCSCF v2024defines its scope as systems directly involved in Swift messaging, connectivity, or security (e.g., customer connectors, messaging interfaces), as perControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection. Back-office systems, like TMS, are typically out of scope unless they directly process Swift messages.

Step 2: Analyze the Scenario

TMS Application: A Treasury Management System is a back-office application for financial management, not a Swift messaging component. TheCSCF v2024excludes back-office systems from mandatory scope unless they pose a direct risk to Swift components.

MQ Server (Customer Connector): This middleware server connects to a Service Bureau, facilitating Swift traffic, making it in scope perControl 1.1.

Hosting System: The machine hosting both applications is in scope only to the extent it supports the MQ server, not the TMS.

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option

A. The TMS application, the MQ server and hosting system are in the scope of the CSCF and must be placed in a secure zoneIncorrect. The TMS is out of scope, and the hosting system’s inclusion depends on the MQ server, not the TMS.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. The TMS application, the MQ server and hosting system enters the scope of the CSCF advisory and should be placed in a secure zoneIncorrect. The CSCF advisory scope applies to best practices, not mandatory controls, and does not mandate a secure zone for out-of-scope TMS.Conclusion: Incorrect.

C. Only the MQ server application is in scope of the CSCF. The TMS application is considered as back-officeCorrect. The MQ server is a customer connector, in scope perControl 1.1, while the TMS is a back-office system, excluded from mandatory scope per theCSCF v2024Introduction.Conclusion: Correct.

D. The TMS application is the highest risk and must be secured appropriately. The MQ server should be secured on a best effort basisIncorrect. The MQ server, as a Swift component, has higher CSCF priority, while TMS risk is managed outside CSCF scope.Conclusion: Incorrect.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isC, as only the MQ server is in scope, and the TMS is a back-office system excluded from CSCF requirements.

References

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

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Back-Office Systems.

CSCF Control "6.1 Security Awareness" mandates training for individuals with SWIFT-critical roles (e.g., LSO, RSO, operators) to ensure they understand security policies and procedures. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, and a track record must show that both awareness and specific training are performed annually

This is correct. Control 6.1 requires annual security awareness training for all SWIFT-critical personnel, with additional specific training as needed to maintain knowledge. The "Swift Customer SecurityControls Framework v2025" and "Assessment template for Mandatory controls" mandate annual training and require a track record (e.g., logs or certificates) to demonstrate compliance.

•Option B: No, both awareness and specific trainings are planned when deemed required

This is incorrect. The CSCF mandates annual awareness training, not just ad-hoc planning, to ensure consistent security awareness.

•Option C: No, awareness training expected to be performed yearly; specific training to maintain the required knowledge only when needed

This is incorrect. While specific training can be as needed, awareness training is explicitly required annually, making this option partially inaccurate.

•Option D: No, a track record must show that both awareness and specific training are performed at least bi-yearly (every 2 years)

This is incorrect. The CSCF requires annual awareness training, not bi-yearly, as specified in the guidelines.

Summary of Correct Answer:

It is mandated to perform security awareness and specific trainings every year, with a track record (A).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 6.1 mandates annual training.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Requires annual training records.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Verifies training frequency.

========

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 examines the messaging capabilities of Alliance Lite2 under the Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Alliance Lite2

Alliance Lite2 is a lightweight Swift solution designed for smaller financial institutions, providing access to Swift messaging services. Its capabilities are detailed in theSwift Alliance Lite2 User Guideand referenced in theCSCF v2024context.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The statement claims that Alliance Lite2 "only supports the sending and receiving of FIN messages." FIN messages are part of the FIN service for payment transactions, but Alliance Lite2’s scope extends beyond this.

Step 3: Evaluate Against Swift Guidelines

TheSwift Alliance Lite2 User Guidespecifies that Alliance Lite2 supports multiple message types, including:

FIN messages(e.g., MT103 for payments).

FileAct(for file transfers).

InterAct(for real-time messaging).

TheCSCF v2024does not restrict Alliance Lite2 to FIN messages; it applies security controls to all supported services. TheSwift CSP FAQconfirms that Alliance Lite2 users must comply with controls for all active services, not just FIN.

Thus, the statement that it "only supports" FIN messages is false, as it also supports FileAct and InterAct.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isB, as Alliance Lite2 supports more than just FIN messages, including FileAct and InterAct, per theSwift Alliance Lite2 User GuideandCSCF v2024.

References

Swift Alliance Lite2 User Guide, Section: Supported Services.

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

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Alliance Lite2 Scope.

The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" governs the conduct of CSP assessments, including location and method. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Remote assessments are not permitted under any circumstances

This is incorrect. The CSP allows remote assessments under specific conditions, as clarified in the guidelines, not an absolute prohibition.

•Option B: This is permitted provided the same level of comfort can be guaranteed

This is incorrect. While ensuring equivalent assurance is important, the CSP requires formal validation for remote assessments, not just assessor discretion.

•Option C: It is possible to perform an assessment remotely only with valid reasons. These reasons must be formally validated by SWIFT CSP office

This is correct. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" permits remote assessments when justified (e.g., geographical distance, logistical challenges), but such arrangements must be approved by the SWIFT CSP office to ensure compliance and security. This aligns with the "Independent Assessment Framework" emphasis on maintaining assessment integrity.

•Option D: It is not allowed to conduct an assessment remotely under any circumstances. However, force majeure circumstances like the global pandemic are an exception to this

This is incorrect. The CSP does not categorically ban remote assessments; it allows them with prior validation, not just as exceptions for force majeure.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Remote assessments are permitted with valid reasons and formal validation by the SWIFT CSP office (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Allows remote assessments with approval.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Ensures assessment integrity.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports validated remote methods.

========

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.

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 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 examines whether an internal audit department can submit and approve a Swift user’s attestation on the KYC-SA Swift portal.

Step 1: Understand Attestation Process

TheIndependent Assessment FrameworkandCSCF v2024require attestations to be submitted by an independent party or authorized user representative, not the internal audit department, to ensure objectivity.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Yes, providing this is agreed by the head of IT operations and the CISOInternal audit cannot submit or approve attestations, regardless of internal agreements, per theIndependent Assessment Framework.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. No, this is never an optionTheCSCF v2024andSwift CSP Compliance Guidelinesprohibit internal audit from submitting or approving attestations, as they lack independence from the audited entity.Conclusion: Correct.

C. Yes, an internal auditor can submit the attestation for approval provided they have the appropriate credentials for swift.com. The CISO remains in charge of the approval of the attestationIncorrect. Internal auditors cannot submit or approve, even with credentials, due to independence requirements.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. Yes, with approval from the Chief auditorIncorrect. Chief auditor approval does not override the independence requirement.Conclusion: Incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkprohibit internal audit from submitting or approving attestations.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Attestation Submission.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Independence Requirements.

This question assesses whether a short interview with the HR manager providing one example of security training implementation is acceptable for a small infrastructure with only two operators, under the Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Security Training Requirements

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, underControl 5.1: Security Training and Awareness, mandates that all personnel with access to Swift-related systems (including operators) receive regular, documented security training. This includes awareness of security policies, procedures, and incident response. The control applies regardless of the size of the infrastructure.

Step 2: Analyze the Scenario

The entity has a small infrastructure with two operators, and the HR manager provides a short interview with one example of security training implementation.

TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequires assessors to validate the effectiveness of controls, including evidence of training completion, content, frequency, and attendance records. A risk-based approach allows flexibility, but minimum evidence standards must still be met.

Step 3: Evaluate Against CSCF Guidelines

Control 5.1specifies that training must be documented, with evidence such as training logs, attendance records, or certification. A single interview with one example does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate:

That all operators (both in this case) have been trained.

The frequency and comprehensiveness of the training program.

The effectiveness of the training (e.g., understanding and application).

TheSwift CSP FAQandSecurity Best Practicesnote that even for small entities, assessors must see multiple pieces of evidence (e.g., training schedules, materials, test results) to confirm compliance, especially during an independent assessment.

A risk-based testing approach (mentioned in option A) allows tailoring the depth of evidence based on risk, but it does not exempt small entities from providing more than a single anecdotal example. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequires objective evidence, not just verbal assurances.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isB, as a short interview with one example is insufficient to meet the evidence requirements ofControl 5.1in theCSCF v2024. More evidence (e.g., training records, attendance logs, or test results) is required to validate compliance, even for a small infrastructure.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 5.1: Security Training and Awareness.

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Evidence Requirements.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Training Documentation.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Small Entity Compliance.

This question addresses the obligations of a Swift CSP Certified Assessor regarding the provision of evidence to Swift for quality assurance purposes.

Step 1: Understand the Role of a Swift CSP Certified Assessor

A Swift CSP Certified Assessor is an independent professional or entity authorized to conduct CSP assessments under theIndependent Assessment Framework. The certification program, managed by Swift, includes specific obligations to ensure the integrity and quality of assessments.

Step 2: Analyze the Request for Evidence

Swift has contacted the assessor to provide evidence from an assessment to support their quality assurance validation process. This request implies a review of the assessor’s work to ensure compliance with CSP standards.

TheSwift CSP Assessor Certification Program Guidelinesstate that certified assessors are obligated to cooperate with Swift’s quality assurance processes. This includes providingevidence (e.g., assessment reports, workpapers) upon request to verify the accuracy and adherence to methodology, as part of Swift’s oversight.

Confidentiality is a concern, but theCSCF v2024andAssessor Certification Programclarify that assessors must share evidence with Swift under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or similar confidentiality framework, ensuring data protection while allowing validation.

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option

A. Yes, one of the obligations of the certification programme is that quality assessment can be performed by SwiftTheSwift CSP Assessor Certification Program Guidelinesexplicitly outline that Swift may conduct quality assessments, and assessors must provide evidence to support this process. This is a contractual obligation of certification, aligning with Swift’s responsibility to maintain CSP integrity.Conclusion: This is correct.

B. No, it's confidentialWhile confidentiality is critical (protected underControl 2.3: System Access Controland Swift’s privacy policies), the certification program requires assessors to share evidence with Swift for quality assurance, subject to confidentiality agreements. Refusing to provide evidence would breach the assessor’s obligations.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isA, as theSwift CSP Assessor Certification Programmandates that certified assessors must support Swift’s quality assurance validation by providing evidence, balancing confidentiality with compliance oversight.

References

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

Swift CSP Assessor Certification Program Guidelines, Section: Obligations and Quality Assurance.

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Assessor Responsibilities.

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 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 diagram shows a SWIFT user environment with an outsourcing agent and next service provider(s). Components are labeled as follows:

•A: Middleware connector (customer connector) - Part of the SWIFT user premises.

•B: Operator GUI - Part of the SWIFT user premises, used for operator interaction.

•C: SWIFT-related application, Admin users, client - Part of the outsourcing agent’s environment.

•D: Connectors or interfaces - Part of the outsourcing agent’s environment, connecting to SWIFT.

•E: Application PC, Admin PC - Part of the outsourcing agent’s environment.

•Next Service Provider(s), SWIFT, SWIFT network - External entities.

CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" requires that all SWIFT-related components handling sensitive data or connectivity within the user’s control be placed in a secure zone. The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" extends this to components managed by outsourcing agents. Let’s analyze:

•SWIFT User premises (A, B): The middleware connector (A) must be in a secure zone as it handles SWIFT data. The Operator GUI (B) is typically outside the secure zone unless it directly processes SWIFT data, but best practice includes securing it.

•Outsourcing Agent(s) (C, D, E): The SWIFT-related application and connectors/interfaces (C, D) must be in a secure zone, as they process SWIFT transactions. Application/Admin PCs (E) are support systems and may not require secure zone placement unless directly involved.

•External entities (Next Service Provider(s), SWIFT, SWIFT network): These are out of the user’s control and not placed in the user’s secure zone.

The question asks for components in the SWIFT user premises and outsourcing agent environment. Per CSCF, the secure zone includes:

•A (Middleware connector): Must be in the secure zone.

•C (SWIFT-related application): Must be in the secure zone (outsourcing agent’s responsibility).

•D (Connectors/interfaces): Must be in the secure zone (outsourcing agent’s responsibility).

•B (Operator GUI) and E (Application/Admin PCs): Typically outside unless integrated into the secure zone.

Option D (Components A, C, D) aligns with the mandatory secure zone components (middleware connector, SWIFT application, and connectors/interfaces), excluding non-essential support systems.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Components A, C, and D must be placed in a secure zone (D).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 1.1 defines secure zone requirements.

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Extends secure zone to outsourced components.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Specifies secure zone placement.

========

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.

SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is a global cooperative that provides a secure messaging network primarily for financial transactions. Its services are designed for entities involved in the financial ecosystem, and access is restricted to members or participants who meet SWIFT’s membership criteria. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Financial institutions, such as banks and securities broker-dealers

This is correct. SWIFT’s core users are financial institutions, including banks, broker-dealers, and other entities regulated under financial authorities. These institutions are direct members of SWIFT or connect through correspondent banking relationships. The SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP) and CSCF are tailored to secure the messaging environment for these entities, with controls like "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" designed to safeguard their operations. Membership requires adherence to SWIFT’s security standards, and these institutions use SWIFTNet for payments, securities, trade, and treasury services.

•Option B: Individuals who use online banking for international transfers

This is incorrect. Individuals, including those using online banking for international transfers, do not connect directly to SWIFT. Instead, they rely on their banks or financial service providers, which act as intermediaries using SWIFT’s network. SWIFT is a business-to-business (B2B) network, not a consumer-facing platform. The CSCF does not address individual users; its focus is on institutional security controls, such as those protecting the SWIFT secure zone.

•Option C: Market infrastructures that provide financial institutions with centralized transaction processing

This is correct. Market infrastructures, such as clearinghouses, central securities depositories (CSDs), and payment systems (e.g., TARGET2 or CHAPS), are eligible to connect to SWIFT. These entities facilitate centralized transaction processing for financial institutions and are part of the broader financial ecosystem. SWIFT documentation recognizes their role, and they are subject to the same security requirements under the CSP. For example, CSCF Control "1.2 Physical Security" applies to these infrastructures when they host SWIFT-related components.

•Option D: Corporates that work with multiple banking partners

This is correct. Corporates, especially large multinational corporations with complex financial operations, can connect to SWIFT through SWIFT’s corporate connectivity options, such as Alliance Lite2 or SWIFT for Corporates. These services allow corporates to send and receive payment instructions directly via SWIFTNet, bypassing some intermediary steps with banks. This capability is outlined in SWIFT’s corporate access documentation, and such entities must comply with CSP security controls when integrating with the SWIFT network. The CSCF extends to these participants, ensuring their environments are secure (e.g., Control "6.1 Security Awareness").

Summary of Correct Answers:

Financial institutions (A), market infrastructures (C), and corporates with multiple banking partners (D) can connect to SWIFT, either as direct members or through specific connectivity options. Individuals (B) do not have direct access.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Applies to all SWIFT users, including financial institutions, market infrastructures, and corporates, with security controls tailored to their environments (Controls 1.1, 6.1).

•SWIFT Membership Guidelines: Outlines eligibility for financial institutions, market infrastructures, and corporates, excluding individuals.

•SWIFT for Corporates Documentation: Details corporate connectivity options like Alliance Lite2.

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.

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.

========

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.

This question identifies the supporting documents for a CSP assessment under theSwift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Assessment Documentation

TheIndependent Assessment FrameworkandCSCF v2024specify the documents assessors must use to evaluate compliance with CSCF controls.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. The CSP User HandbookTheSwift CSP User Handbookprovides guidance on CSP requirements, processes, and best practices, making it a key supporting document for assessors.Conclusion: Correct.

B. The mapping to industry standards articleWhile useful for context, this article is not a primary document for conducting assessments. TheCSCF v2024focuses on its own controls, not industry mappings, which are advisory.Conclusion: Incorrect.

C. The Controls Matrix and High Level Test PlanTheControls Matrix(part of the CSCF) maps controls to components, and theHigh Level Test Planoutlines assessment procedures. Both are essential for structuring and executing the assessment, per theIndependent Assessment Framework.Conclusion: Correct.

D. The Customer Security Controls FrameworkTheCSCF v2024is the foundational document defining controls and requirements, mandatory for all assessments.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areA, C, and D, as these documents are explicitly referenced in theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkfor conducting CSP assessments.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Supporting Documents.

Swift CSP User Handbook, Section: Assessment Process.

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.

Control 4.2 of the Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) mandates the implementation of Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to "prevent compromise of a single authentication factor allowing access to SWIFT systems." The control applies to various access points within the SWIFT environment to ensure robust security. Let’s evaluate each option against CSCF v2024 and related guidelines:

A. When accessing an outsourcing agent or an L2BA Swift-related application

CSCF v2024 Control 4.2 explicitly states that MFA is required for "SWIFT-related applications or components managed by third-party service providers" (e.g., outsourcing agents) and Level 2 Business Applications (L2BA). This ensures that external entitieshandling SWIFT-related processes adhere to the same security standards. The scope includes any operator access to these applications, making MFA mandatory here.