Pass the Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP) CSP-Assessor Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

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.

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

Step 1: Understand Penetration Testing Requirements

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

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

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

Step 3: Evaluate Against Swift Guidelines

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

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

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

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

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

References

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

Swift Testing Policy, Section: Scope Definition.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Penetration Testing.

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

Step 1: Define the Scenario

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

Step 2: SWIFT Architecture Types Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•Option D: Any implementation if approved by the CIO

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

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

========

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.

========

A Hardware Security Module (HSM) box in the SWIFT context is a secure device used to manage cryptographic keys and perform security operations, such as signing and encryption for SWIFT transactions. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Private keys

This is correct. The primary function of an HSM box in the SWIFT environment is to securely store and manage private keys, which are part of the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) used for asymmetric cryptography. Private keys are used for signing messages to ensure authenticity and integrity, and for decryption to maintain confidentiality. The HSM protects these private keys from unauthorized access, aligning with CSCF Control "1.3 Cryptographic Failover," which mandates the use of HSMs to safeguard cryptographic materials. SWIFT documentation specifies that private keys are stored within the HSM, while public keys are distributed separately (e.g., via certificates).

•Option B: Public keys

This is incorrect. Public keys are not stored in the HSM box. Instead, they are embedded in PKI certificates and distributed to other parties (e.g., SWIFT or counterparties) for verification and encryption purposes. The HSM’s role is to protect the sensitive private keys, not to store public keys, which are openly shared as part of the PKI ecosystem.

•Option C: Both private and public keys

This is incorrect. While the HSM may temporarily handle public keys during cryptographic operations (e.g., for certificate validation), its primary and secure storage function is limited to private keys. Storing both types of keys is not a standard practice in SWIFT’s HSM usage, as public keys are managed outside the HSM in certificate repositories or directories.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The HSM box stores private keys (A), ensuring the security of cryptographic operations in the SWIFT environment.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.3 mandates HSMs for storing private keys securely.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: Details the HSM’s role in managing private keys for PKI operations.

•SWIFT HSM Documentation: Confirms that private keys are stored in the HSM, with public keys managed externally.

========

Verifying the applicability of a CSCF control to a specific component involves consulting relevant SWIFT documentation and processes. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and associated guidelines provide the framework for this determination. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Check in the CSP Policy document

This does not apply. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Policy" is a high-level document outlining the CSP’s objectives and requirements but does not provide detailed guidance on control applicability to specific components. Control applicability is determined by the CSCF itself (e.g., through appendices or the control matrix), not the policy document, which is more strategic than operational.

•Option B: Check appendix F of the CSCF

This applies. Appendix F of the CSCF (or a similar appendix in the v2025 version) typically includes guidance on control applicability, mapping controls to different architecture types and components. This is a standard action for assessors, as noted in the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option C: Check carefully the Introduction section of the CSCF

This applies. The Introduction section of the CSCF provides an overview of the framework’s scope, objectives, and how controls apply to various components, making it a relevant resource for verification.

•Option D: Open a case with SWIFT support via the case manager on swift.com if further information or solution cannot be found in the documentation

This applies. If documentation does not resolve the applicability question, SWIFT support via the case manager on swift.com is a recognized escalation path, as outlined in the "Independent Assessment Framework" and SWIFT operational guidelines.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Checking the CSP Policy document (A) does not apply, as it is not the appropriate resource for verifying control applicability to specific components.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Provides applicability guidance in appendices (e.g., Appendix F) and the Introduction.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Recommends using CSCF appendices and support channels.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports control applicability analysis.

========

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

Step 1: Understand Reliance on Previous Assessments

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

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

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

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

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

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

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

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

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Reliance Conditions.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Assessment Continuity.

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.