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

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.

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

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

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

•The architecture types are:

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

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

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

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

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

•Option A: A1

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

•Option B: A2

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

•Option C: A3

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

•Option D: A4

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

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

SWIFT PKI certificates are critical for securing communications and require a formal request process to SWIFT for issuance or renewal. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Using both online and offline methods

This is correct. SWIFT provides multiple channels for submitting PKI certificate requests to accommodate different customer needs and security requirements. The online method involves submitting requests through the SWIFT Alliance Web Platform or SWIFT’s customer portal, where users can generate and upload certificate signing requests (CSRs). The offline method involves physical submission, such as sending a signed request via secure mail or courier, often used for initial setups or high-security environments. SWIFT documentation confirms both methods are supported, aligning with CSCF Control "1.3 Cryptographic Failover" for secure certificate management.

•Option B: Using an online method

This is incorrect as a standalone answer. While the online method is available and widely used, it is not the only method. Excluding the offline option does not reflect SWIFT’s flexible process.

•Option C: Using an offline method

This is incorrect as a standalone answer. The offline method is an option, but it is not the only method. SWIFT supports both approaches depending on the customer’s infrastructure and security policies.

•Option D: None of the above

This is incorrect. Both online and offline methods are valid, making this option invalid.

Summary of Correct Answer:

PKI certificate requests can be submitted to SWIFT using both online and offline methods (A), providing flexibility and security.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.3 supports secure certificate request processes.

•SWIFT PKI Management Guide: Details online and offline submission methods for certificate requests.

•SWIFT Alliance Documentation: Confirms dual submission channels for PKI certificates.

Alliance Access (SAA) is a SWIFT product used by financial institutions to manage the creation, processing, and transmission of SWIFT messages. In the context of the SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP), we need to classify its role within the SWIFT architecture:

•Option A: A Messaging Interface

This is correct. Alliance Access is classified as a messaging interface in SWIFT terminology. It allows users to create, validate, and send SWIFT messages (e.g., FIN MT messages like MT103 for payments) and receive incoming messages. It interfaces with the institution’s back-office systems and connects to the SWIFT network via a communication interface like Alliance Gateway (SAG). The CSCF categorizes components like Alliance Access as messaging interfaces, as they handle the business logic of message processing, and applies specific controls (e.g., "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security") to secure these interfaces.

•Option B: A Communication Interface

This is incorrect. A communication interface in SWIFT terminology refers to components like Alliance Gateway (SAG), which manage the network-level connectivity to SWIFTNet via SwiftNet Link (SNL). Alliance Access does not handle network connectivity directly; it relies on SAG for this purpose. Alliance Access focuses on message creation and processing, not communication with the SWIFT network.

•Option C: A SWIFT Connector

This is incorrect. The term "SWIFT Connector" is not a standard classification in the CSP or SWIFT documentation. It might refer to integration tools like the SWIFT Integration Layer (SIL) used in cloud deployments, but Alliance Access does not fit this category. Alliance Access is a full-fledged messaging interface, not a connector.

•Option D: A Secure Server

This is incorrect. While Alliance Access operates on a server and must be secured as per CSCF controls (e.g., "2.3 System Hardening"), it is not classified as a "secure server." This term is too vague and does not reflect Alliance Access’s specific role as a messaging interface.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Alliance Access is a messaging interface (A), responsible for creating, processing, and managing SWIFT messages within the CSP framework.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Classifies Alliance Access as a messaging interface (Control 2.1).

•SWIFT Alliance Access Documentation: Describes its role in message creation and processing.

•SWIFT Architecture Glossary: Distinguishes messaging interfaces (e.g., Alliance Access) from communication interfaces (e.g., Alliance Gateway).

========

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Specifies secure zone placement.

========

SWIFT Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificates are cryptographic credentials used to secure communications over the SWIFT network. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Asymmetric signing and encryption end to end

This is correct. SWIFT PKI certificates utilize asymmetric cryptography (public and private key pairs) for both signing and encryption. Signing ensures the authenticity and integrity of messages (e.g., verifying the sender), while encryption provides confidentiality end to end—from the sender’s environment to the receiver’s environment across the SWIFT network. This end-to-end security is achieved using PKI certificates managed by Hardware Security Modules (HSMs), as mandated by CSCF Control "1.3 Cryptographic Failover." SWIFT documentation confirms that PKI supports full message security throughout the transmission process.

•Option B: Asymmetric signing and encryption end to SWIFT only

This is incorrect. The security provided by PKI certificates extends beyond just the connection to SWIFT (e.g., to the SWIFT Secure IP Network). It covers the entire message journey, including the recipient’s environment, ensuring end-to-end protection rather than stopping at SWIFT’s boundary.

•Option C: Symmetric encryption only

This is incorrect. SWIFT PKI relies on asymmetric cryptography for key exchange and signing, not symmetric encryption alone. While symmetric encryption may be used internally (e.g., for session keys derived from asymmetric key exchange), the PKI certificates themselves are based on asymmetric algorithms (e.g., RSA), as outlined in SWIFT’s security guidelines.

•Option D: Asymmetric signing only

This is incorrect. PKI certificates are used for both asymmetric signing (for authenticity and integrity) and encryption (for confidentiality), not just signing. The dual purpose is essential for the secure transmission of SWIFT messages.

Summary of Correct Answer:

SWIFT PKI certificates are used for asymmetric signing and encryption end to end (A), ensuring comprehensive security.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.3 specifies the use of PKI for end-to-end security.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: Details PKI usage for asymmetric signing and encryption.

•SWIFT PKI Documentation: Confirms end-to-end cryptographic protection using PKI certificates.

========

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 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 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.