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

This question addresses the process for resolving uncertainty about the applicability of a CSCF control to a specific component.

Step 1: Understand the CSCF Documentation Structure

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024provides detailed guidance on control applicability, including sections like the Introduction and appendices, as well as support mechanisms for users.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Call your Swift contactWhile contacting a Swift representative might be helpful, it is not the first recommended step inthe CSCF documentation. The framework prioritizes self-service through documentation and support channels like swift.com before direct contact.Conclusion: This is not a primary step.

B. Check appendix F of the CSCFAppendix F of theCSCF v2024provides detailed guidance on control applicability, including scenarios, architecture types, and component mappings. It is a key resource for clarifying whether a control applies to a specific component.Conclusion: This is correct.

C. Check carefully the Introduction section of the CSCFThe Introduction section of theCSCF v2024outlines the scope, objectives, and applicability of controls, including definitions of in-scope components and architecture types. It’s a critical starting point for understanding control applicability.Conclusion: This is correct.

D. Open a case with Swift support via the case manager on swift.com if further information or solution cannot be found in the documentationIf the CSCF documentation (e.g., Introduction, Appendix F) does not resolve the uncertainty, theSwift CSP FAQandSwift Support Guidelinesrecommend opening a case via the swift.com case manager. This ensures users can get official clarification from Swift support.Conclusion: This is correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The verified steps areB, C, and D, as they align with the recommended process in theCSCF v2024for resolving uncertainty about control applicability: first consult the documentation (Introduction and Appendix F), then escalate to Swift support if needed.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Introduction Section and Appendix F.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Resolving Control Applicability.

Swift Support Guidelines, Section: Case Manager Usage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Aligns controls with these objectives.

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

========

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 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 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.

The SWIFT CSP Assessor certification program, governed by the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" and related documents, requires assessors to maintain relevant professional qualifications. Let’s evaluate:

•Option A: No, a valid external cybersecurity certification is mandatory to keep the CSP Certified Assessor certification

This is correct. The SWIFT CSP Assessor certification requires assessors to hold a valid external cybersecurity certification (e.g., CISA, CISSP) as a prerequisite for initial certification and ongoing eligibility. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" specifies that expiration of this certification invalidates the CSP Assessor status until renewed, ensuring assessors maintain current expertise.

•Option B: Yes, if the SWIFT CSP Assessor certification is still valid

This is incorrect. The validity of the CSP Assessor certification is contingent on maintaining an active external cybersecurity certification. The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Assessment template for Mandatory controls" emphasize this dual requirement to uphold assessment quality.

Summary of Correct Answer:

A valid external cybersecurity certification is mandatory; an expired certification disqualifies the assessor (A).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Requires active external certification.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Links assessor eligibility to professional credentials.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Validates assessor qualifications.

========

This question pertains to the scope of controls assessed under the SWIFT CSP assessment process:

Step 1: Understand CSCF Control Types

The SWIFT CSCF (e.g., v2024) categorizes controls intoMandatoryandAdvisory. Mandatory controls are required for all SWIFT users to attest compliance, while Advisory controls are recommended but not obligatory for attestation.

The CSCF defines the scope of environments for a SWIFT user CSP assessment, focusing on environments that handle live SWIFT transactions or are critical to operational continuity. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and "Independent Assessment Framework" provide guidance on scope. Let’s evaluate each option, assuming the environments are separated:

•Option A: SWIFT infrastructure (sometimes known as Live)

This is in scope. The live environment, where actual SWIFT transactions are processed (e.g., Alliance Access sending MT103 messages), is the primary focus of the CSCF. Controls like "1.1 SWIFTEnvironment Protection" and "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security" apply directly to this environment.

•Option B: Development

This is not in scope. Development environments, used for building or testing applications before deployment, are typically out of scope if they are fully separated from live systems and do not process real SWIFT data. The "Independent Assessment Framework" excludes development environments unless they are integrated with live systems, which the question assumes is not the case.

•Option C: Disaster Recovery

This is in scope. Disaster Recovery (DR) environments are designed to take over in case of a failure in the live environment. Since they can process live SWIFT transactions during a failover, they must comply with CSCF controls (e.g., Control "1.1") to ensure continuity and security.

•Option D: Cold backup systems

This is in scope. Cold backup systems, while not actively processing transactions, are part of the SWIFT infrastructure’s resilience strategy. They must be secured to prevent compromise (e.g., CSCF Control "1.2 Physical Security") and are included in the assessment scope per the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls."

Summary of Correct Answer:

The Development environment (B) is not in scope for a SWIFT user CSP assessment if separated from live systems.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Excludes development environments from scope if separated.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Focuses on live, DR, and backup environments.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Includes DR and backup systems in scope.

========

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

Step 1: CSP Assessment Process

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

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.

========