CSP-Assessor Swift Customer Security Programme Assessor Certification(CSPAC) Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

The "Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines" and "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" provide guidance on relying on previous assessments using a limited testing approach. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: There is no need for a sample for this limited testing

This is incorrect. Limited testing requires a sample to validate ongoing compliance, as per the guidelines.

•Option B: 1

This is incorrect. A sample size of 1 is insufficient to ensure statistical reliability for limited testing, per the HLTP guidelines.

•Option C: 3

This is correct. The "Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines" recommends a minimum sample size of 3 for each identified component when relying on previous assessments, allowing the assessor to confirm consistency and effectiveness without a full re-assessment.

•Option D: 5

This is incorrect. While a larger sample (e.g., 5) may be used in full assessments, the HLTP guidelines specify 3 as the minimum for limited testing.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The expected sample size is 3 for each identified component (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines: Specifies a sample size of 3.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports limited testing sample requirements.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Guides reliance testing.

========

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.

SWIFT Alliance Cloud is a managed cloud service provided by SWIFT to deliver a fully hosted SWIFT infrastructure, reducing the local footprint for users. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT cloud-based solution. It provides a universal channel to the financial community and to SWIFT Value Added services and initiatives

This is partially correct but incomplete. Alliance Cloud is indeed a SWIFT-managed cloud solution, and it facilitates connectivity to the financial community and SWIFT Value Added Services (e.g., SWIFT gpi, Sanctions Screening). However, the term "universal channel" is vague and not a precise description of Alliance Cloud’s functionality, which is more accurately defined as a hosted messaging and connectivity platform. This option lacks specificity about the deployment model.

•Option B: Alliance Cloud is a cloud-based solution. It is offered by the 3 official public cloud providers. This allows customers the choice to select their preferred cloud provider

This is incorrect. Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT-managed service deployed on specific public cloud providers approved by SWIFT, not a solution where customers can choose any of the "3 official public cloud providers." SWIFT partners with select providers (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud) but controls the deployment and configuration, limiting customer choice to SWIFT-approved instances.

•Option C: Alliance Cloud is a cloud-based solution. It is offered by any public cloud provider that subscribed to the digital connectivity initiative

This is incorrect. Alliance Cloud is not available on any public cloud provider that subscribes to a "digital connectivity initiative." It is hosted exclusively on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers, ensuring compliance with SWIFT’s security and operational standards. The term "digital connectivity initiative" is not a recognized framework in SWIFT documentation for Alliance Cloud.

•Option D: Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT cloud-based solution. It consists of an Alliance Access instance deployed at one of the three SWIFT-approved public cloud providers

This is correct. Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT-managed cloud solution that includes a hosted Alliance Access instance (a messaging interface) deployed on one of the three SWIFT-approved public cloud providers (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud). This setup provides a fully managed environment for SWIFT connectivity, reducing the user’s local infrastructure needs. The CSCF applies to this cloud deployment, with SWIFT managing many security controls (e.g., "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection"). SWIFT documentation confirms this model, emphasizing the use of approved providers.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The correct statement is D, accurately describing Alliance Cloud as a SWIFT-managed solution with an Alliance Access instance on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Supports cloud deployments on approved providers (Control 1.1).

•SWIFT Alliance Cloud Documentation: Details the deployment on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers with Alliance Access.

•SWIFT Cloud Partnership Guidelines: Lists approved providers like AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.

========

CSCF Control "3.1 Database Integrity" focuses on ensuring the integrity of databases used by SWIFT-related components. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Nothing is further expected when the messaging interface or connector integrates/embeds an integrity check functionality at each SWIFT transaction record level

This is incorrect as a sole expectation. While embedding integrity checks (e.g., checksums or hashes) in a messaging interface or connector is a valid measure, the CSCF expects additional protections for the database itself, not just reliance on application-level checks. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" requires broader database security.

•Option B: When a database is used by a messaging interface or connector, the related hosted database and its supporting system is expected to be protected as a SWIFT-related component, the identified exceptions alerted and followed-up

This is correct. Control 3.1 mandates that databases supporting SWIFT components (e.g., storing transaction data for Alliance Access) be protected as in-scope components. This includes securing the database and its system (e.g., via access controls, encryption) and addressing integrity exceptions through alerts and follow-up, as detailed in the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls."

•Option C: Alerts generated from performed integrity checks are captured and analyzed for appropriate treatment

This is correct. The CSCF expects institutions to monitor database integrity (e.g., via logging) and analyze alerts to detect and respond to anomalies, aligning with Control "3.1" and "5.1 Operational Incident Response." The "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" includes this as a compliance criterion.

Summary of Correct Answers:

The CSCF expects the database and its system to be protected with alerts and follow-up (B) and alerts to be captured and analyzed (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 3.1 defines database integrity requirements.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Includes protection and alert management.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Tests database integrity measures.

========

The Hardware Security Module (HSM) Box is a critical component for managing cryptographic keys in the SWIFT environment. Hardening at the system level involves securing the HSM’s operating system and configuration against vulnerabilities. Let’s evaluate:

•CSCF Control "2.3 System Hardening" mandates that all SWIFT-related systems, including the HSM Box, be hardened to reduce the attack surface. This is the responsibility of the SWIFT user owning the equipment, as outlined in the "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025."

•The "Assessment template for Mandatory controls" requires users to demonstrate hardening of owned HSMs, including patching, disabling unused services, and enforcing access controls.

•If the HSM is owned by the user (e.g., in an on-premises A1 or A2 architecture), the user must perform hardening. This differs from cloud deployments (e.g., A4), where the provider may handle it, but the question specifies user-owned equipment.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The SWIFT user owning the HSM Box must harden it at the system level (TRUE).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 2.3 requires system hardening.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Specifies user responsibility for owned HSMs.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Includes HSM hardening in assessments.

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.

========

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.

This question addresses the terminology related to VPN boxes in the Swift environment and their association with managed-customer premises equipment (M-CPE). Let’s verify this based on Swift CSP documentation.

Step 1: Understand VPN Boxes and M-CPE in Swift Context

In the Swift ecosystem, VPN boxes are typically part of the connectivity infrastructure used to establish secure tunnels (e.g., Network Transport Layer Security - NTLS) for communication with the Swift network. The term "managed-customer premises equipment (M-CPE)" generally refers to hardware or devices managed by a service provider or third party on the customer’s premises, often in telecommunications or IT contexts. TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024and related technical documentation provide insights into Swift’s infrastructure terminology.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The statement claims that the "cluster of VPN boxes is also called managed-customer premises equipment (M-CPE)." We need to determine if this is an official or recognized designation within the Swift CSP.

Step 3: Evaluate Against Swift CSP Guidelines

TheSwift Alliance Gateway Technical DocumentationandSwift Security Best Practicesdescribe VPN boxes (or similar connectivity devices) as part of the SwiftNet Link (SNL) infrastructure, often deployed at the user’s premises to secure communications. These devices are typically managed by the Swift user or a designated service provider, depending on the architecture (e.g., A2 or A4).

The term "M-CPE" is not specifically defined or used in Swift CSP documentation (e.g.,CSCF v2024,Swift User Handbook, orSwift Network Security Guidelines). Instead, Swift refers to such equipment as part of the "customer premises equipment (CPE)" when managed by the user, or as "managed services" when outsourced to a provider. However, "M-CPE" as a specific term for a cluster of VPN boxes is not corroborated.

In some IT contexts outside Swift, M-CPE might imply managed equipment, but Swift’s documentation does not adopt this terminology for VPN clusters, which are considered part of the broader connectivity infrastructure.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The statement isFALSEbecause theCSCF v2024and related Swift documentation do not use "managed-customer premises equipment (M-CPE)" as a term for a cluster of VPN boxes. The correct terminology aligns with "customer premises equipment" or "managed connectivity devices," depending on the setup, but not specifically M-CPE.

References

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

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Connectivity Infrastructure.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Network Security Devices.

SwiftNet Security Officers (e.g., Local Security Officer [LSO] or Remote Security Officer [RSO]) are responsible for managing security functions in the SWIFT environment, such as configuring accesscontrols and managing PKI certificates. Authentication for online access to SwiftNet services (e.g., via the Alliance Web Platform) is a critical security measure. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Via their PKI certificate

This is incorrect. While PKI certificates are used for authenticating and signing SWIFT messages or securing communications, they are not the primary method for authenticating security officers’ online access to SwiftNet management interfaces. PKI certificates are managed by the HSM and used by applications or users for message-level security, not for logging into administrative portals.

•Option B: Via their swift.com account and secure code card

This is correct. Online SwiftNet Security Officers are authenticated using a combination of their swift.com account (a username and password managed through SWIFT’s customer portal) and a secure code card (a physical or virtual token providing a one-time password or multi-factor authentication code). This two-factor authentication (2FA) method ensures robust access control, aligning with CSCF Control "6.1 Security Awareness" and SWIFT’s emphasis on multi-layered security. SWIFT documentation for the Alliance suite and SwiftNet confirms this authentication process for security officers accessing online tools.

•Option C: Via their swift.com account

This is incorrect. Relying solely on a swift.com account (username and password) is insufficient for authenticating security officers, as it lacks the additional security layer required for sensitive administrative access. SWIFT mandates multi-factor authentication, typically involving a secure code card, to comply with security standards.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Online SwiftNet Security Officers are authenticated via their swift.com account and secure code card (B), ensuring secure access to management functions.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 6.1 supports multi-factor authentication for security officers.

•SWIFT Alliance Security Documentation: Details the use of swift.com accounts and secure code cards for LSO/RSO authentication.

•SWIFT SwiftNet Guidelines: Confirms 2FA for online security officer access.

========

This question addresses the internet connectivity restriction control and its application to CSCF in-scope components. Let’s verify this against Swift CSP guidelines.

Step 1: Understand the Internet Connectivity Restriction Control

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, underControl 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restriction, mandates that in-scope components (e.g., Swift messaging interfaces, communication interfaces) must not have direct internet access to prevent exposure to external threats. However, this control allows for exceptions under specific conditions.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The statement claims that the internet connectivity restriction control “prevents having internet access on any CSCF in-scope components.” The key is to determine if this is an absolute prohibition or if exceptions exist.

Step 3: Evaluate Against CSCF Guidelines

Control 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restrictionrequires that Swift-related systems be isolated from the internet to minimize attack surfaces. This includes components like messaging interfaces (e.g., Alliance Access) and communication interfaces (e.g., SNL).

However, theCSCF v2024andSwift CSP FAQallow for controlled internet access under specific circumstances, such as:

Use of secure tunnels (e.g., VPNs) or proxies for authorized management purposes.

Temporary access for software updates or patches, provided it is tightly controlled and monitored (perControl 6.1: Security Event Logging).

The control does not impose an absolute ban but requires that any internet access be restricted, audited, and justified. Thus, the statement that it “prevents having internet access on any CSCF in-scope components” is too absolute.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The statement isFALSEbecause, while internet access is heavily restricted for in-scope components, it is not entirely prevented under all circumstances (e.g., controlled access for maintenance). This aligns with the flexible yet secure approach of theCSCF v2024.

References

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

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Internet Access Exceptions.

This question addresses the types of Hardware Security Module (HSM) devices offered by SWIFT:

Step 1: SWIFT HSM Overview

SWIFT provides HSMs to secure Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificates and cryptographic operations for its users. The CSCF and related security documentation specify two primary types:HSM tokens(portable devices) andHSM boxes(rack-mounted hardware).

The SWIFT CSP requires an independent assessment to ensure compliance with the CSCF, as outlined in the "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines." Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes

This is incorrect. The CSP mandates that an independent assessor, not the user’s first line of defence, conducts the assessment to provide an unbiased evaluation. Relying solely on a self-assessment, even if detailed, does not meet the requirement for independence, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option B: Yes, but only if the CISO signs the completion letter at the end of the assessment

This is incorrect. While the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) may sign the "CSCF Assessment Completion Letter" to acknowledge the assessment, this does not replace the need for independent testing. The signature is a formal step, but the assessor must still perform their own validation.

•Option C: No, even if it could support the compliance level, additional testing will always be required by the independent assessor to confirm a controls compliance level

This is correct. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" requires assessors to conduct their own testing, even if the user provides a valid self-assessment. This ensures objectivity and verifies the effectiveness of controls (e.g., Control 1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection). The self-assessment can serve as supporting evidence, but additional testing is mandatory, as detailed in the "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025."

•Option D: No, except if the SWIFT user’s chief auditor approves this approach

This is incorrect. Chief auditor approval does not override the CSP’s requirement for independent assessor testing. The assessment process is governed by SWIFT standards, not internal approvals.

Summary of Correct Answer:

An assessor cannot fully rely on the user’s self-assessment; additional testing is always required (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Mandates independent assessor testing.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Requires additional validation.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Outlines assessor testing requirements.

========

This question concerns the deliverables following a CSP assessment, specifically whether a completion letter is mandated alongside a detailed assessment report.

Step 1: Understand CSP Assessment Deliverables

The Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP) requires an independent assessment to validate compliance with theCustomer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkoutlines the process and deliverables, including the submission of assessment reports and related documentation to Swift.

Step 2: Analyze the Requirement for a Completion Letter

TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkmandates that, following an assessment, the assessor provides a detailed report to the Swift user, documenting the findings, control effectiveness, and any remediation actions.

Additionally, Swift requires acompletion letterto confirm that the assessment has been conducted in accordance with CSP guidelines. This letter, typically signed by the assessor or the user’s authorized representative, certifies the completion of the assessment and is submitted to Swift as part of the attestation process. This is detailed in theSwift CSP Compliance Guidelinesand theIndependent Assessment Framework, which specify that both the report and the completion letter are required for formal submission.

The completion letter serves as an official acknowledgment that the assessment meets Swift’s quality and procedural standards, complementing the detailed report.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isA, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkmandate that a completion letter must be supplied alongside the detailed assessment report to fulfill Swift’s compliance requirements.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Deliverables and Attestation.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Assessment Submission Process.