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

This question addresses the obligations of Swift users regarding the submission of assessment-related documents to Swift under the Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand CSP Assessment Submission Requirements

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024and theIndependent Assessment Frameworkoutline the process for CSP assessments, including what must be submitted to Swift. The focus is on ensuring compliance through attestation, with specific deliverables defined.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Yes, all documents produced from the assessment must be provided proactively to SwiftThis is incorrect. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkdoes not require proactive submission of all assessment documents (e.g., detailed reports, working papers). Only the completion letter and attestation are typically submitted unless otherwise requested by Swift.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. No, it is not required to provide Swift with any documents by default. However, Swift can request a copy of the Assessment completion letterTheCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkstate that users are not required to proactively submit the full assessment report or other documents. However, Swift retains the right to request the completion letter (certifying assessment completion) or additional evidence during quality assurance reviews. This aligns with theSwift CSP Compliance Guidelines.Conclusion: Correct.

C. Yes, a copy of (only) the assessment report must be provided to Swift, no other documentsThis is incorrect. The full assessment report is not mandated for proactive submission; only the completion letter is typically required unless requested. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkemphasizes the completion letter as the key deliverable.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. Yes, in cases where a customer performs an Independent assessment rather than an audit then a copy of the assessment report must be provided. However, it is not required for the Swift user to provide any forms when an Internal/External Audit is performedThis is partially misleading. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkdoes not distinguish between independent assessments and audits in terms of mandatory report submission. For both, the completion letter is the default submission, with reports requested only if needed. The differentiation based on assessment type is not supported byCSCF v2024guidelines.Conclusion: Incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkdo not require proactive submission of the full assessment report, but Swift can request the completion letter as part of its oversight process.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Deliverables and Submission.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Document Submission Rules.

=========================

This question identifies which operator session flows must be protected for confidentiality and integrity under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand Session Protection Requirements

TheCSCF v2024, underControl 2.4: Secure Session Management, mandates that all sessions involving access to Swift-related components or secure zones must be protected using strong encryption (e.g., TLS) and integrity controls to prevent unauthorized access or data tampering. This applies to operator and administrator sessions interacting with the Swift environment.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. System administrator sessions towards a host running a Swift related componentAdministrator sessions to hosts running Swift components (e.g., Alliance Access, Gateway) are in scope, as they require protection perControl 2.4to ensure confidentiality and integrity of administrative actions.Conclusion: Correct.

B. All sessions to and from a jump server used to access a component in a secure zoneJump servers are used to access secure zones (perControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection), and all sessions to and from them must be encrypted and integrity-protected, as specified inControl 2.4.Conclusion: Correct.

C. All sessions towards a secure zone (on-premises or hosted by a third-party or a Cloud Provider)Secure zones, whether on-premises or hosted (e.g., by outsourcing agents or cloud providers), contain Swift components and must have all incoming sessions protected perControl 2.4andControl 1.1.Conclusion: Correct.

D. All sessions towards a Swift related application run by an Outsourcing Agent, a Service Bureau or an L2BA ProviderSessions to Swift-related applications managed by outsourcing agents or service bureaus (e.g., Components C, D, E in the diagram) are in scope, as they handle Swift traffic and must be secured perControl 2.4and theSwift Outsourcing Guidelines.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

All options (A, B, C, D) are correct, asControl 2.4of theCSCF v2024requires protection of all listed session types to ensure confidentiality and integrity across the Swift ecosystem, including secure zones, hosted environments, and outsourced applications.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.4: Secure Session Management, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Session Security.

Swift Outsourcing Guidelines, Section: Session Protection.

The "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.

========

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•Option D: Corporates that work with multiple banking partners

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

Summary of Correct Answers:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

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

The 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 compares the SWIFT footprint (components within the CSP scope) across different infrastructures:

Step 1: Define SWIFT Footprint

The SWIFT footprint includes all systems and components handling SWIFT messaging or connectivity, as defined in CSCF Control 1.1 – SWIFT Environment Protection.

The Local Security Officer (LSO) and Remote Security Officer (RSO) are roles defined within the SWIFT Alliance suite, particularly for managing security in messaging interfaces like Alliance Access. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: They are Alliance Security Officers

This is correct. The LSO and RSO are collectively referred to as Alliance Security Officers within the SWIFT ecosystem. The LSO is typically an on-site officer responsible for local security management, while the RSO can perform similar functions remotely, often for distributed environments. These roles are critical for configuring and maintaining security settings in Alliance Access, as outlined in SWIFT’s operational documentation. The CSCF Control "6.1 Security Awareness" emphasizes the importance of trained security officers, which aligns with the LSO/RSO roles.

•Option B: Their PKI certificates are stored either on an HSM Token or on an HSM-box

This is incorrect. While PKI certificates are used for authentication and are managed within the SWIFT environment, they are not specifically tied to the LSO or RSO roles in terms of storage. PKI certificates for SWIFTNet are stored and managed by the Hardware Security Module (HSM), either as an HSM token (e.g., a smart card) or an HSM-box (e.g., a physical or virtual HSM device). However, these certificates are associated with the SWIFT application or user roles (e.g., for message signing), not the LSO/RSO profiles themselves. The LSO/RSO uses these certificates as part of their duties, but the statement implies ownership or storage, which is inaccurate. CSCF Control "1.3 Cryptographic Failover" specifies HSM management, not LSO/RSO certificate storage.

•Option C: They are the business profiles that can sign the SWIFT financial transactions

This is incorrect. The LSO and RSO are security management roles, not business profiles authorized to sign financial transactions. Signing SWIFT financial transactions (e.g., MT103 messages) is the responsibility of authorized business users or automated processes within Alliance Access, who use PKI certificates managed by the HSM. The LSO/RSO’s role is to configure and oversee security, not to perform transactional activities. This distinction is clear in SWIFT’s role-based access control documentation.

•Option D: They are responsible for the configuration and management of the security functions in the messaging interface

This is correct. The LSO and RSO are tasked with configuring and managing security functions within Alliance Access, such as user access control, authentication settings, and compliance with CSCF requirements. This includes managing PKI certificate usage, setting up secure communication channels, and ensuring the messaging interface adheres to security policies. For example, the LSO can define security profiles and monitor access, as detailed in the Alliance Access Administration Guide, aligning with CSCF Control "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security."

Summary of Correct Answers:

The LSO and RSO are Alliance Security Officers (A) and are responsible for the configuration and management of security functions in the messaging interface (D). Their PKI certificates are not stored by them, and they do not sign transactions.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 6.1 highlights the role of security officers like LSO/RSO.

•SWIFT Alliance Access Documentation: Describes LSO/RSO responsibilities for security configuration.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: Details PKI certificate management by HSM, not LSO/RSO.

========

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 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 "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" govern the frequency and reliance on previous assessments. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, full reliance can be provided without the need of an independent assessment if nothing has changed

This is incorrect. The CSP requires an annual independent assessment, even if no changes occur, to verify ongoing compliance, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option B: No, even if nothing has changed, an independent assessor needs to assess the conditions before being able to rely on the previous year’s assessment

This is correct. While the previous report can be used as a baseline, the assessor must perform a review (e.g., walkthroughs, spot checks) to confirm no changes or degradation in compliance, as outlined in the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" and "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025."

•Option C: No, even if nothing has changed, an independent assessor needs to perform a full assessment including full testing every year

This is incorrect. A full assessment is not always required; a review of conditions can suffice if no changes are identified, per CSP guidelines.

•Option D: Yes, full reliance can be provided if the CISO of the SWIFT user signs a letter which confirms that nothing has changed

This is incorrect. CISO confirmation does not replace the assessor’s independent review, as mandated by the "Independent Assessment Framework."

Summary of Correct Answer:

An assessor cannot rely fully on a previous report without assessing conditions (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Requires annual review.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Mandates assessor validation.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports conditional reliance.

========