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

The High-Level Test Plan (HLTP) guidelines, as part of the SWIFT CSP Independent Assessment Framework (IAF), provide instructions for assessing compliance with CSCF controls. The question asks whether selecting only one component (e.g., a SWIFT connector, middleware server, or back-office system) from the SWIFT secure zone is a representative sample for testing:

Step 1: Understand the SWIFT Secure Zone

The SWIFT secure zone is a segregated environment containing all SWIFT-related components critical to transaction processing, including connectors (e.g., SWIFT Alliance Gateway), middleware servers, and back-office systems (CSCF v2024, Control 1.1 –SWIFT Environment Protection). These components collectively form the "SWIFT footprint."

Step 2: HLTP Guidelines on Sampling

The HLTP requires assessors to test a "representative sample" of systems to verify compliance. However, the guidelines emphasize that the sample must cover the "full scope of the SWIFT environment" to ensure all critical components and their interactions are assessed (IAF, Section 3 – Assessment Methodology). Selecting only one component (e.g., just the connector) ignores the others (middleware and back-office), which may have different security configurations or risks.

Step 3: Application to the Scenario

In this case, the secure zone comprises three distinct components. Testing only one (e.g., the connector) would not provide a comprehensive view of the secure zone’s compliance with controls like 1.1 (environment protection), 2.1 (system hardening), or 4.2 (MFA). The HLTP expects a sample that reflects the diversity and interdependence of these components, not a single point.

Conclusion: No, selecting only one component is not a representative sample per HLTP guidelines, as it fails to address the full scope and complexity of the SWIFT secure zone.

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

Step 1: Understand Internet Access Restrictions

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

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

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

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option

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

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

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

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

References

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

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Internet Access Controls.

Swift Outsourcing Guidelines, Section: Operator PC Security.

The 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.

========

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 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.

This question concerns the location and management of Swift HSM boxes, which are critical for secure key management.

Step 1: Understand the Role of Swift HSM

The Hardware Security Module (HSM) in the Swift environment is used to store and manage cryptographic keys, as perControl 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Managementof theCSCF v2024. The HSM ensures the security of Swift transactions by protecting private keys.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Are located at the network partner premises and managed by SwiftNetwork partners (e.g., service providers) may host connectivity infrastructure, but HSMs are typically located at the user’s premises for direct control, as perSwift Security Best Practices. Swift does not manage user HSMs; users are responsible for their operation.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

B. Are located at the Swift user premises and managed by SwiftWhile HSMs are located at the user’s premises, Swift does not manage them. Users are responsible for HSM management, as outlined inControl 2.5B, which requires users to secure and maintain their HSMs.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

C. Are located at the Swift user premises and managed by the Swift userTheCSCF v2024andSwift HSM Deployment Guidespecify that HSMs are deployed at the Swift user’s premises to ensure local control and security. Users are responsible for managing and maintaining the HSM, including key generation and backups, as part of their compliance obligations.Conclusion: This is correct.

D. Are located at the network partner premises and managed by Swift the network partnerHSMs are not managed by network partners or Swift. Users retain control, and network partners only facilitate connectivity, not HSM management.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The verified answer isC, as it accurately reflects the standard deployment and management model for Swift HSMs, consistent with Swift CSP documentation.

References

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

Swift HSM Deployment Guide, Section: Installation and Management.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: HSM Location and Control.

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.

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.

========

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.

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.

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 revisits the role of the Swift Alliance Gateway (SAG), similar to Question 6, but with different statements.

Step 1: Recap the Role of Alliance Gateway

The Swift Alliance Gateway (SAG) is a connectivity and security layer that facilitates interaction with the Swift network, as detailed in theSwift Alliance Gateway User Guideand referenced inControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protectionof theCSCF v2024.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. It is used to exchange messages over the Swift networkThe SAG acts as a gateway to concentrate and securely route SwiftNet traffic, enabling the exchange of messages over the Swift network. It handles connectivity, security (e.g., PKI), and message routing, as confirmed in theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation. This aligns with its role in the Swift ecosystem.Conclusion: This is correct.

B. It is used to create messages to send over the Swift networkAs noted in Question 6, the SAG does not create messages. Message creation is handled by applications like Alliance Access or Entry. The SAG’s role is to route and secure messages, not generate them, per theSwift Alliance Gateway User Guide.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct statement isA, as the Alliance Gateway’s primary function is to facilitate the secure exchange of messages over the Swift network, consistent with Swift CSP documentation.

References

Swift Alliance Gateway User Guide, Section: Functionality Overview.

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

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Message Routing.

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 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 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.

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

Step 1: Understand the Role of SwiftNet Security Officers

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

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

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

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

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

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

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

References

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

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

Swift User Handbook, Section: Security Officer Authentication.

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.

========

The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" mandates record-keeping for CSP assessments. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: To support quality review (audit) processes

This applies. Minutes are required to facilitate quality reviews or audits by SWIFT or third parties, ensuring assessment integrity, as per the guidelines.

•Option B: For documentation purpose

This applies. Documentation is a core requirement to maintain a record of decisions and findings, supporting the "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" and assessment traceability.

•Option C: To keep key information that can be used as input for the next step in the assessment process

This applies. Minutes capture critical details (e.g., scope changes) that inform subsequent assessment phases, aligning with the assessment workflow.

•Option D: To be uploaded in KYC-SA at the end of the assessment (mandated by SWIFT)

This does not apply. The KYC-SA portal requires the assessment report and completion letter, not meeting minutes, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

Summary of Correct Answers:

Minutes are kept to support quality reviews (A), for documentation (B), and as input for the next step (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Mandates minutes for these purposes.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Supports documentation and review.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Relies on documented records.

========

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.

This question addresses the implementation requirements for CSCF security controls.

Step 1: Understand CSCF Compliance

TheCSCF v2024emphasizes achieving control objectives and mitigating risk drivers for in-scope components, allowing flexibility in implementation, as perControl Objectives Overview.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. A solution that maps the implementation guidelines described for a controls in scope componentsWhile implementation guidelines exist, strict adherence is not mandatory. TheCSCF v2024allows custom solutions if they meet objectives.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. A solution that meets the control objectives and addresses the risk drivers for the in scope componentsTheCSCF v2024andSwift CSP FAQrequire solutions to align with control objectives (e.g., security, detection) and mitigate identified risks, offering flexibility in approach.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as theCSCF v2024prioritizes meeting objectives and addressing risks over rigid guideline mapping.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Section: Control Objectives.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Implementation Flexibility.

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

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

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

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

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

•Option C: The control definition has not changed

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answers:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires unchanged definitions and designs.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports reliance criteria.

========

The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" mandate that CSP assessments and attestations be conducted by an independent, certified assessor, not the user’s internal audit department. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, providing this is agreed by the head of IT operations and the CISO

This is incorrect. Internal agreement does not override the CSP’s requirement for independence.

•Option B: No, this is never an option

This is correct. The CSP prohibits internal audit departments from submitting or approving attestations on the KYC-SA portal, as they lack the independence required by the "Independent Assessment Framework." Only an external, certified assessor can perform and approve the assessment, with the CISO or designated user submitting the attestation based on the assessor’s report.

•Option 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 attestation

This is incorrect. Internal auditors cannot submit or approve attestations, even with credentials, due to the independence requirement.

•Option D: Yes, with approval from the Chief Auditor

This is incorrect. Chief Auditor approval does not satisfy the CSP’s independence mandate.

Summary of Correct Answer:

An internal audit department cannot submit or approve the attestation (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires independent assessors.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Prohibits internal assessments for attestation.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Specifies external assessor input.

========

Bridging servers facilitate data exchange between the back-office systems (e.g., Treasury Management Systems) and the SWIFT infrastructure (e.g., Alliance Access or Gateway). The CSCF scope includes components that handle SWIFT-related data or connectivity. Let’s evaluate:

•The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" defines the secure zone and includes internal data transmission components. Bridging servers, as part of the data flow between back-office and SWIFT infrastructure, are considered in scope, particularly under Control "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security" (mandatory) and related advisory controls (e.g., 2.3 System Hardening).

•The "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" includes such servers when they are part of the SWIFT environment, even if some controls are advisory depending on the architecture (e.g., A1 or A2).

•The "Assessment template for Advisory controls" applies to bridging servers for non-mandatory measures, while mandatory controls ensure secure data exchange.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Bridging servers are in scope of CSCF security controls, with some being advisory (TRUE).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 2.1 includes bridging servers.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Lists applicable controls.

•Assessment template for Advisory controls: Applies to bridging servers.

========

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

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

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

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

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

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Recommends HLTP usage.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Allows flexibility.

========

This question explores the process for updating an attestation after remediating an exception identified by an assessor:

Step 1: CSP Attestation and Remediation Process

The SWIFT CSP requires users to submit an annual attestation via the KYC Security Attestation (KYC-SA) application, reflecting compliance with CSCF controls. If anexception (non-compliance) is reported, remediation must occur, followed by validation before updating the attestation.

The SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) defines the scope of components that must comply with its security controls, particularly those handling SWIFT-related data or connectivity. Let’s analyze the scenario:

•A Treasury Management System (TMS) application is a back-office system used to manage financial operations, such as payments or liquidity management. A customer connector is a custom application or integration layer that connects the user’s systems (e.g., TMS) to the SWIFT infrastructure, in this case via a Service Bureau. The hosting system is the physical or virtual machine on which both applications are installed.

•The TMS and customer connector are on the same machine, and the customer connector connects to a Service Bureau, which hosts the SWIFT communication infrastructure (e.g., Alliance Gateway).

•CSCF Scope: The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" define the scope as including:

oCustomer connectors: These are in scope because they facilitate SWIFT connectivity (e.g., sending/receiving SWIFT messages), even if connecting via a Service Bureau.

oSystems hosting in-scope components: The hosting system (machine) is in scope because it runs the customer connector, which is directly involved in SWIFT data flows.

oBack-office systems (e.g., TMS): Normally, back-office systems are out of scope unless they are closely integrated with SWIFT infrastructure. In this case, the TMS is installed on the same machine as the customer connector, creating a shared environment. The CSCF considers systems in the same environment as in-scope if they could impact the security of SWIFT-related components (e.g., Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection").

•Service Bureau Context: Connecting to a Service Bureau (architecture type A2) does not exempt the local components from CSCF scope. The "Independent Assessment Framework" requires assessing all local components that interact with SWIFT, even if the communication layer is outsourced.

•Option A: The TMS application, the customer connector, and the hosting system are in the scope of the CSCF

This is correct. The customer connector is explicitly in scope as it handles SWIFT data flows. The hosting system is in scope because it runs the connector. The TMS, while typically a back-office system, is in scope because it shares the same machine, creating a risk of lateral movement or privilege escalation (e.g., CSCF Control "1.1"). The "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" includes shared environments in the assessment scope.

•Option B: Only the customer connector application is in scope of the CSCF. The TMS application is a back-office

This is incorrect. While the TMS is a back-office system, its co-location on the same machine as the customer connector brings it into scope due to shared risks, as per CSCF guidelines.

•Option C: The TMS application is the highest risk and must be secured appropriately. The customer connector should be secured on a best effort basis

This is incorrect. The CSCF does not prioritize the TMS as the "highest risk" nor suggest "best effort" security for the customer connector. Both components must be secured per mandatory controls when in scope.

•Option D: The TMS application, the customer connector, and the hosting system are in scope only if they connect directly to SWIFT, not towards a Service Bureau

This is incorrect. The CSCF scope includes components connecting via a Service Bureau, as they still handle SWIFT data and are part of the user’s architecture (e.g., A2).

Summary of Correct Answer:

The TMS application, customer connector, and hosting system are all in scope of the CSCF (A) due to their shared environment and connectivity to SWIFT via a Service Bureau.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 1.1 includes shared environments in scope.

•CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree: Classifies A2 for Service Bureau setups with local connectors.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires assessing all components in shared environments.

========

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 SWIFT users are restricted to exchanging only FIN messages:

Step 1: SWIFT Messaging Overview

FIN messages are traditional SWIFT financial messages (e.g., MT messages). However, SWIFT supports additional message types, such as FileAct (file transfers) and InterAct (real-time messaging), depending on the interface and service.

The Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) defines the scope of components that must comply with its security controls. This scope is detailed in theCSCF v2024(and prior versions like CSCF v2023), which specifies that the CSCF applies to systems directly involved in the Swift messaging and connectivity ecosystem. Let’s analyze the diagram to identify which components fall within this scope.

Step 1: Understand the Scope of CSCF

According to theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, the scope includes:

Swift messaging interfaces(e.g., Alliance Access/Entry, RMA).

Communication interfacesto the Swift network (e.g., SNL, HSM, PKI).

Operator systemsdirectly interacting with Swift components (e.g., GUIs, admin/operator workstations).

Middlewareor connectors directly facilitating Swift message flows.Systems that are not directly involved in Swift messaging or connectivity (e.g., back-office systems, general-purpose servers) are typically out of scope unless they pose a direct risk to the Swift environment.

Step 2: Analyze the Diagram and Identify Components

The diagram includes the following labeled components:

A. Back Office: A system for back-office operations, not directly part of Swift messaging.

B. Back Office Using Middleware Client: A back-office system with middleware for data exchange.

C. Messaging Interface: Likely a Swift messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access).

D. RMA: Relationship Management Application, a Swift component for managing messaging relationships.

E. GUI: Graphical User Interface for operators to interact with the messaging interface.

F. Communication Interface: Interface for connecting to the Swift network.

G. SNL: SwiftNet Link, a communication layer for Swift connectivity.

H. HSM & PKI: Hardware Security Module and Public Key Infrastructure, used for secure Swift connectivity.

I. Middleware File Transfer Servers: Servers facilitating data exchange between back-office and Swift systems.

J, K, L. Data Exchange Paths: Represent data flows between systems (not components themselves).

M. Operator (End User): The operator’s workstation interacting with the Swift GUI.

N. Connector: The connection point to the Swift network.

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option Against CSCF Scope

A. Components A, B, K

A (Back Office): Back-office systems are not in scope unless they directly process Swift messages. The CSCF focuses on Swift-specific infrastructure, and back-office systems are typically considered out of scope unless they pose a direct risk (e.g., via middleware).

B (Back Office Using Middleware Client): While this system uses middleware to exchange data with Swift components, it is still a back-office system, not a core Swift component. The middleware itself (I) may be in scope, but the client (B) is not.

K (Data Exchange Path): This is a data flow, not a component, and thus not directly in scope.Conclusion: This option is incorrect.

B. Components J, K, I

J, K (Data Exchange Paths): These are data flows, not components, and are not directly in scope.

I (Middleware File Transfer Servers): Middleware that facilitates Swift message flows (e.g., between back-office and messaging interface) can be in scope if it directlyprocesses or transmits Swift messages. PerControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection, middleware in the Swift data flow must be secured, making it in scope. However, this option pairs I with J and K, which are not components.Conclusion: This option is incorrect due to J and K, though I alone would be in scope.

C. Components F, G, H

F (Communication Interface): This is the interface connecting to the Swift network, clearly in scope perControl 1.1.

G (SNL): SwiftNet Link is a core communication component for Swift connectivity, in scope perControl 1.1.

H (HSM & PKI): HSM and PKI are critical for secure Swift connectivity, in scope perControl 1.1.Conclusion: This option is correct.

D. Components C, E, M

C (Messaging Interface): This is a core Swift component (e.g., Alliance Access), in scope perControl 1.1.

E (GUI): The GUI used by operators to interact with the messaging interface is in scope, as specified inControl 1.2: Logical Access Control, which includes operator systems.

M (Operator End User): The operator’s workstation is in scope as it directly interacts with Swift systems, perControl 1.2.Conclusion: This option is correct.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The components in scope of the CSCF are those directly involved in Swift messaging, connectivity, and operator interaction. Based on the analysis:

C (F, G, H)includes communication components, all in scope.

D (C, E, M)includes the messaging interface, GUI, and operator workstation, all in scope.Components A, B, and data exchange paths (J, K, L) are not directly in scope, though middleware (I) would be if considered separately.

References

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

Swift Customer Security Programme – Scope and Applicability, Section: CSCF Scope Definition.

CSCF v2024, Control 1.2: Logical Access Control.

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.

========