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

The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" mandates record-keeping for CSP assessments. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: To support quality review (audit) processes

This applies. Minutes are required to facilitate quality reviews or audits by SWIFT or third parties, ensuring assessment integrity, as per the guidelines.

•Option B: For documentation purpose

This applies. Documentation is a core requirement to maintain a record of decisions and findings, supporting the "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" and assessment traceability.

•Option C: To keep key information that can be used as input for the next step in the assessment process

This applies. Minutes capture critical details (e.g., scope changes) that inform subsequent assessment phases, aligning with the assessment workflow.

•Option D: To be uploaded in KYC-SA at the end of the assessment (mandated by SWIFT)

This does not apply. The KYC-SA portal requires the assessment report and completion letter, not meeting minutes, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

Summary of Correct Answers:

Minutes are kept to support quality reviews (A), for documentation (B), and as input for the next step (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Mandates minutes for these purposes.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Supports documentation and review.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Relies on documented records.

========

This question requires identifying the component types of the numbered components (1, 2, 3, and 4) in the provided diagram, which illustrates a Swift infrastructure with Architecture Type A4 (user environment) and Architecture Type A1 (group hub). The classification is based on theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024and related architecture definitions.

Step 1: Understand the Diagram and Component Types

The diagram shows two environments:

Architecture Type A4: The user’s local environment with back-office systems using middleware clients and servers.

Architecture Type A1: A group hub hosting Swift components like Alliance Access, Alliance Gateway, and HSM/PKI, connecting to the Swift network.

Component Types:

Customer Connector: A system or server that facilitates connectivity between the user’s environment and the Swift infrastructure (e.g., middleware servers interfacing with the group hub).

Bridging Server (Middleware Server): A server that bridges data flows between back-office systems and the Swift messaging environment, often handling message queuing or transformation.

Step 2: Analyze Each Numbered Component

Component 1 (Middleware Server connected to Back Office 1):This server is part of the A4 architecture, interfacing the back-office middleware client with the group hub (A1). It acts as a connector, facilitating data exchange to the MQHA (Message Queue High Availability) server in the group hub. Per theCSCF v2024andSwift Architecture Types Explained, this is aCustomer Connector.

Component 2 (MQHA Middleware Server in the Group Hub):This server is within the A1 group hub, bridging the user’s data (via the customer connector) tothe Alliance Access and Gateway. It handles message queuing and acts as aBridging Server (Middleware Server), as defined in theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation.

Component 3 (Middleware Server connected to Back Office 2):Similar to Component 1, this server connects the second back-office middleware client to the MQHA server in the group hub, functioning as aCustomer Connector.

Component 4 (MQ Middleware Server connected to MQHA):This server within the A1 group hub supports the MQHA, bridging data flows to the Swift messaging components (Alliance Access/Gateway). It is aBridging Server (Middleware Server), consistent with theCSCF v2024definitions.

Step 3: Match with Options

A. 1. Customer Connector, 2. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 3. Customer Connector, 4. Bridging Server (Middleware Server): Matches the analysis above.

B. 1. Customer Connector, 2. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 3. Customer Connector, 4. Customer Connector: Incorrect, as Component 4 is a bridging server, not a customer connector.

C. 1. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 2. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 3. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 4. Bridging Server (Middleware Server): Incorrect, as Components 1 and 3 are customer connectors, not bridging servers.

D. 1. Customer Connector, 2. Customer Connector, 3. Customer Connector, 4. Customer Connector: Incorrect, as Components 2 and 4 are bridging servers.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isA, as it accurately identifies the component types based on their roles in the A4 and A1 architectures, consistent withCSCF v2024andSwift Architecture Types Explained.

References

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

Swift Architecture Types Explained, Section: Component Roles.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Middleware and Connectors.

This question identifies the authentication methods supported by Alliance Interfaces (e.g., Alliance Access, Alliance Gateway) under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand Authentication on Alliance Interfaces

TheCSCF v2024, underControl 2.3: System Access Control, mandates strong authentication for access to Swift-related components, including Alliance Interfaces. TheSwift Alliance Gateway Technical DocumentationandAlliance Access User Guidedetail supported methods.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. PasswordAlliance Interfaces support basic password authentication as a standard method, as noted in theAlliance Access User Guide. While not the strongest alone, it is permitted with additional controls.Conclusion: Correct.

B. LDAP AuthenticationLDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) is supported for centralized authentication, integrating with enterprise directory services, per theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.3.Conclusion: Correct.

C. Radius One-time passwordRADIUS with one-time passwords (OTP) is not a standard authentication method for Alliance Interfaces. TheAlliance Gateway Technical Documentationdoes not list RADIUS OTP as supported, focusing instead on password, LDAP, and TOTP.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. Password and TOTPTime-based One-Time Password (TOTP) combined with password (multi-factor authentication) is supported for enhanced security, as required byControl 2.3and detailed in theSwift Security Best Practicesfor privileged access.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areA, B, and D, as these methods are supported by Alliance Interfaces, aligning withCSCF v2024and related documentation.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.3: System Access Control.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Authentication Methods.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Multi-Factor Authentication.

The Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP) defines specific architecture types in itsCustomer Security Controls Framework (CSCF)documentation to classify how Swift users connect to the Swift network. These architecture types help determine the applicable security controls based on the user’s connectivity and infrastructure setup. The architecture types relevant to this question—A1, A2, A3, and A4—are outlined in theCSCF v2024(and prior versions like CSCF v2023), which is the latest framework as of March 06, 2025, unless superseded by a newer release.

Step 1: Understand the Scenario

The question specifies that the Swift user relies on ansFTP server(Secure File Transfer Protocol) to connect through anexternally exposed connectionwith aservice provider or a group hub. This implies that the user’s Swift environment involves external connectivity, potentially managed by a third party (service provider) or a centralized entity (group hub), rather than a fully self-managed, local setup.

Step 2: Define Swift Architecture Types

According to theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF)and supporting documentation (e.g.,Swift Customer Security Programme – Architecture Types Explained), the architecture types are categorized as follows:

A1: Messaging Interface Only (Local Deployment)

The user operates a local Swift messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access/Entry) with no external connectivity to a service provider or hub.

Connectivity to Swift is direct and locally managed.

A2: Messaging Interface with Connectivity Service (External Connectivity)

The user operates a local Swift messaging interface but connects to Swift via anexternally provided connectivity service(e.g., through a service provider or third-party connection).

The connection point is exposed externally to the service provider.

A3: Hosted Messaging Interface

The Swift messaging interface itself is hosted externally by a service provider, and the user accesses it remotely (e.g., via a browser or client application).

No local messaging interface exists at the user’s site.

A4: Group Hub or Shared Connectivity

The user connects to Swift via agroup hubor shared infrastructure operated by a parent entity, affiliate, or third-party provider.

This may involve centralized messaging and connectivity services shared across multiple entities.

Step 3: Analyze the Scenario Against Architecture Types

sFTP Server Usage: The use of an sFTP server suggests a file transfer mechanism, commonly employed in Swift environments to exchange payment messages or files with external parties (e.g., service providers or hubs). This aligns with scenarios where connectivity extends beyond the user’s local environment.

Externally Exposed Connection: The phrase “externally exposed connection” indicates that the Swift user’s infrastructure interfaces with an external entity (service provider or group hub), ruling out a fully self-contained setup.

Service Provider or Group Hub:

Aservice providertypically implies a third-party entity managing connectivity or hosting services, which could align withA2(external connectivity) orA3(hosted interface).

Agroup hubsuggests a shared infrastructure within a corporate group or consortium, pointing towardA4.

Step 4: Match to Architecture Types

A1: Does not apply. A1 requires a fully local deployment with no external connectivity reliance. The externally exposed sFTP connection contradicts this.

A2: Applies. If the Swift user maintains a local messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) and uses the sFTP server to connect to a service provider’s external infrastructure, this fits A2. The “externally exposed connection” aligns with A2’s requirement of relying on an external connectivity service.

A3: Unlikely, but possible with clarification. A3 involves a fully hosted messaging interface (e.g., no local Alliance software). The question does not explicitly state that the messaging interface is hosted externally, only that an sFTP server is used for connectivity. Without evidence of a hosted interface, A3 is not a strong fit.

A4: Applies if a group hub is involved. If the sFTP server connects to a centralized group hub (e.g., a shared Swift infrastructure within a corporate group), this matches A4. The “group hub” reference in the question supports this possibility.

Step 5: Conclusion and Verification

Based on theCSCF v2024architecture definitions and theSwift CSP Architecture Types Explainedguidance:

A2is confirmed because the sFTP server and externally exposed connection suggest reliance on a service provider for connectivity, with a local messaging interface assumed unless otherwise specified.

A4is also applicable if the “group hub” scenario is active, indicating shared connectivity infrastructure.

The question asks to “choose all that apply,” and since it specifies “service providerorgroup hub,” both A2 and A4 are valid depending on the context. However, A2 is the most universally applicable based on the sFTP and external connection details, with A4 as an additional fit for group hub cases.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Section: Architecture Types.

Swift Customer Security Programme – Architecture Types Explained, available via Swift’s official documentation portal (swift.com).

Swift CSP FAQ, clarifying connectivity and hosting scenarios.

This question addresses database integrity expectations under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand Database Integrity Requirements

TheCSCF v2024, underControl 2.7: Database Integrity, mandates protection and monitoring of databases supporting Swift-related components to ensure data integrity and detect anomalies.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Nothing is needed when the messaging or connector integrates/embeds an integrity check functionality at each Swift transaction record levelIncorrect. Even with embedded checks,Control 2.7requires additional protection and monitoring of the database and supporting systems, not just reliance on transaction-level checks.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. When a database is used by a messaging interface or connector, the related hosted database and its supporting system must be protected as a Swift-related component and exceptions alertedCorrect.Control 2.7requires that databases supporting messaging interfaces or connectors be secured (e.g., in a secure zone) and that exceptions (e.g., integrity breaches) be alerted, per theCSCF v2024.Conclusion: Correct.

C. Alerts generated from performed integrity checks are captured and analysed for appropriate treatmentCorrect.Control 2.7andControl 6.1: Security Event Loggingmandate capturing and analyzing integrity check alerts to address potential issues, as detailed in theSwift Security Best Practices.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areB and C, as these align withControl 2.7andControl 6.1requirements for database integrity and monitoring in theCSCF v2024.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.7: Database Integrity, Control 6.1: Security Event Logging.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Database Security.

This question addresses the type of control effectiveness that must be validated during an independent assessment under the Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP). Let’s analyze this based on theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF)and related guidelines.

Step 1: Understand Independent Assessments in Swift CSP

The Swift CSP mandates that users undergo an independent assessment to validate their compliance with the CSCF controls. This requirement is detailed in theCSCF v2024, under theIndependent Assessment Framework. The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that controls are not only designed appropriately but also implemented and operating effectively.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Effectiveness is never validated only the control designThis statement is incorrect. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkexplicitly requiresvalidation of both the design and theoperational effectivenessof controls. Assessing only the design without confirming that the control is working as intended does not meet Swift’s compliance requirements.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

B. An independent assessment is a point in time review with possible reviews of older evidence as appropriateWhile this statement is factually true (an independent assessment is indeed a point-in-time review, as per theCSCF v2024), it does not directly answer the question about what type of control effectiveness needs to be validated. It describes the nature of the assessment, not the focus of validation.Conclusion: This does not address the question directly.

C. Operational effectiveness needs to be validatedTheIndependent Assessment Frameworkspecifies that an independent assessment must validate both the design and the operational effectiveness of CSCF controls. Operational effectiveness ensures that controls are functioning as intended over a period of time, not just designed correctly on paper. This includes testing controls (e.g., logging, access controls) to confirm they are working in practice, as required for attestation.Conclusion: This is correct.

D. None of the aboveSince option C is correct, this option is not applicable.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isC, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequire validation of the operational effectiveness of controls during an independent assessment, ensuring that controls are not only designed but also implemented and functioning effectively.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Assessment Scope and Objectives.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Independent Assessment Guidelines.

This question identifies the key components of Alliance Lite2 under theSwift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Alliance Lite2 Components

Alliance Lite2 is a browser-based Swift solution for smaller institutions, with a simplified architecture. Its components are detailed in theSwift Alliance Lite2 User Guideand referenced in theCSCF v2024context.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. A web interfaceThe web interface is the primary user access point for Alliance Lite2, enabling message sending and receiving via a browser. This is a core component, as confirmed in theSwift Alliance Lite2 User Guide.Conclusion: Correct.

B. An AutoClientThe AutoClient is an optional automated client for batch processing and integration with back-office systems, considered a key component for enhanced functionality, per theSwift Alliance Lite2 Technical Documentation.Conclusion: Correct.

C. A HSM boxWhile HSMs are used for cryptographic security in Swift environments, Alliance Lite2 relies on Swift-managed HSM infrastructure, not user-managed HSM boxes. It is not a key user-side component, per theSwift Security Best Practices.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. A WebSphere MQ ServerWebSphere MQ is a middleware solution not integral to Alliance Lite2, which uses a lightweight architecture without requiring such servers. TheSwift Alliance Lite2 User Guidedoes not list it as a component.Conclusion: Incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areAandB, as the web interface and AutoClient are the key user-side components of Alliance Lite2, consistent with theSwift Alliance Lite2 User GuideandCSCF v2024.

References

Swift Alliance Lite2 User Guide, Section: System Components.

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

Swift Alliance Lite2 Technical Documentation, Section: Architecture.

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 pertains to Local Security Officer (LSO) and Remote Security Officer (RSO) accounts on SWIFT Alliance Access, a key component of the SWIFT infrastructure. Let’s evaluate each statement:

A. They are local Security Officers

LSOs and RSOs are indeed Security Officers responsible for managing security functions on Alliance Access. LSOs operate locally, while RSOs can perform tasks remotely, but both are classified as Security Officers under SWIFT’s terminology.

The SWIFT CSP requires a consistent and independent assessment process, as specified in the "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines." Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, a SWIFT user can combine multiple assessment types (internal and external assessment) as long as all controls are covered

This is incorrect. The CSP mandates that the assessment be conducted by a single, independent assessor or firm to ensure uniformity and objectivity. Mixing internal audits (which lack independence) with external assessments does not meet the requirement, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option B: No, because the SWIFT user cannot be sure the same approach and quality will be delivered

This is incorrect as the primary reason. While consistency is a concern, the main issue is the lack of independence, not just quality variation.

•Option C: Yes, but only if there is a signed agreement between all involved assessors

This is incorrect. A signed agreement does not resolve the CSP’s requirement for a single independent assessment. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" does not allow hybrid assessments.

•Option D: No, SWIFT can reject the attestation in such situations

This is correct. SWIFT reserves the right to reject attestations if the assessment process does not comply with the requirement for a fully independent assessment by a certified assessor. The "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" and "CSCF Assessment Completion Letter" must reflect a single, consistent evaluation, and the "Independent Assessment Framework" explicitly prohibits reliance on internal audits for compliance attestation.

Summary of Correct Answer:

This approach is not acceptable, and SWIFT can reject the attestation (D).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires a single independent assessor.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Prohibits mixed assessment types.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Reflects a unified assessment process.

========

This question focuses on the authentication method for online SwiftNet Security Officers (SOs), who manage security-related functions for a Swift user.

Step 1: Understand the Role of SwiftNet Security Officers

SwiftNet Security Officers are responsible for managing security settings, such as PKI certificates and user roles, within the Swift environment. Their authentication is critical to ensure secure access, as outlined inControl 2.3: System Access Controlof theCSCF v2024.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Via their PKI certificatePKI certificates are used for securing message exchanges and connectivity within the SwiftNet environment (e.g., signing messages), but they are not the primary method for authenticating Security Officers when accessing SwiftNet services online (e.g., via swift.com). Security Officerstypically use a user account for such access, not a PKI certificate directly.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

B. Via their swift.com account and secure code cardSwiftNet Security Officers authenticate to swift.com using their swift.com account credentials combined with a secure code card (a physical token that generates one-time codes). This two-factor authentication method is standard for high-privilege roles like Security Officers, as detailed in theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.3, which mandates multi-factor authentication for privileged users.Conclusion: This is correct.

C. Via their swift.com accountWhile a swift.com account is part of the authentication process, relying solely on the account (e.g., username and password) does not meet Swift’s security requirements for Security Officers. Multi-factor authentication, including a secure code card, is required for such roles.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as SwiftNet Security Officers are authenticated using their swift.com account and a secure code card, aligning with Swift’s multi-factor authentication requirements for privileged users.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.3: System Access Control.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Authentication for Security Officers.

Swift User Handbook, Section: Security Officer Authentication.

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.

This question revisits the role of the Swift Alliance Gateway (SAG), similar to Question 6, but with different statements.

Step 1: Recap the Role of Alliance Gateway

The Swift Alliance Gateway (SAG) is a connectivity and security layer that facilitates interaction with the Swift network, as detailed in theSwift Alliance Gateway User Guideand referenced inControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protectionof theCSCF v2024.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. It is used to exchange messages over the Swift networkThe SAG acts as a gateway to concentrate and securely route SwiftNet traffic, enabling the exchange of messages over the Swift network. It handles connectivity, security (e.g., PKI), and message routing, as confirmed in theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation. This aligns with its role in the Swift ecosystem.Conclusion: This is correct.

B. It is used to create messages to send over the Swift networkAs noted in Question 6, the SAG does not create messages. Message creation is handled by applications like Alliance Access or Entry. The SAG’s role is to route and secure messages, not generate them, per theSwift Alliance Gateway User Guide.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct statement isA, as the Alliance Gateway’s primary function is to facilitate the secure exchange of messages over the Swift network, consistent with Swift CSP documentation.

References

Swift Alliance Gateway User Guide, Section: Functionality Overview.

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

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Message Routing.

Alliance Lite2 is a cloud-based solution for smaller institutions, providing a lightweight interface to the SWIFT network. The messaging operator in Alliance Lite2 is a role responsible for managing message-related activities, typically through the Alliance Lite2 Business Application (L2BA) interface. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Can create and modify messages

This is correct. The primary role of a messaging operator in Alliance Lite2 is to create and modify SWIFT messages, such as payment instructions (e.g., MT103) or other FIN messages. This is a core function of the L2BA interface, which provides a browser-based platform for operators to input, edit, and send messages. SWIFT documentation for Alliance Lite2 confirms that messaging operators have the necessary permissions to perform these tasks, aligning with the operational workflows supported by the platform.

•Option B: Can assign RBAC roles to RMA operators and messaging operators

This is incorrect. Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) role assignment in Alliance Lite2 is typically managed by a security officer or administrator role, not the messaging operator. The messaging operator’s scope is limited to message-related activities, not user or role management. In Alliance Lite2, RBAC is managed through the Alliance Web Platform, where a security officer (e.g., LSO) assigns roles to operators, including RMA (Relationship Management Application) operators and messaging operators. The CSCF Control "6.1 Security Awareness" emphasizes the separation of duties, ensuring that operational roles like messaging operators do not overlap with administrative roles.

•Option C: Can approve the Customer Security Officer change requests

This is incorrect. Approving Customer Security Officer (CSO) change requests is a high-level administrative task that falls under the purview of SWIFT’s security and compliance processes, often involving SWIFT’s support team or a designated administrator within the institution. In Alliance Lite2, this responsibility does not lie with the messaging operator, whose role is focused on message handling. The CSCF mandates strict controls for CSO changes, typically requiring multi-party approval outside the messaging operator’s scope.

•Option D: Can approve messages

This is correct. In Alliance Lite2, messaging operators can approve messages as part of the workflow, depending on the institution’s configuration. For example, a message created by one operator may require approval by another operator (or the same operator if configured with dual roles) before it is sent to the SWIFT network. This approval process ensures accuracy and compliance with internal controls, a feature supported by the L2BA interface in Alliance Lite2. SWIFT documentation highlights this capability as part of the messaging workflow.

Summary of Correct Answers:

The messaging operator in Alliance Lite2 can create and modify messages (A) and can approve messages (D), consistent with their operational role.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 6.1 emphasizes role separation, limiting messaging operators to message-related tasks.

•SWIFT Alliance Lite2 Documentation: Details the messaging operator’s role in creating, modifying, and approving messages via L2BA.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: Highlights administrative roles for RBAC and CSO changes, excluding messaging operators.

Alliance Access (SAA) is a SWIFT messaging interface that allows financial institutions to create, process, and send SWIFT financial messages (e.g., MT messages like MT103 for payments). The "Alliance Access OS administrator" likely refers to an administrator managing the operating system (OS) on which Alliance Access runs, such as a system administrator responsible for server maintenance, patches, and infrastructure. Let’s evaluate the statement:

•The OS administrator’s role is to ensure the underlying hardware and software environment (e.g., Windows or Linux servers) is secure and operational, aligning with CSCF Control "2.3 System Hardening." However, this role does not include creating or sending financial messages, which are business functions performed by authorized users or automated workflows within Alliance Access.

•Creating and sending financial messages requires access to the Alliance Access application, which involves logging into the system with a business user profile and using PKI certificates managed by the HSM for authentication and signing. The OS administrator does not have this authority unless explicitly granted a separate business role, which is not implied by the term "OS administrator."

•SWIFT’s role-based access control separates administrative and operational duties. For example, the Local Security Officer (LSO) or business operators handle message creation, while the OS administrator ensures the platform’s integrity. The CSCF and Alliance Access documentation emphasize that only authorized business users can perform transactional activities.

There is no evidence in SWIFT documentation that an OS administrator has the capability or authorization to create and send financial messages by default. Thus, the statement is false.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 2.3 focuses on system hardening by OS administrators, not message creation.

•SWIFT Alliance Access Documentation: Details that message creation and sending are business user functions, not OS administrator tasks.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: Emphasizes role separation for security and operational duties.

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 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 Swift Alliance Gateway is a critical component in the Swift ecosystem, designed to facilitate secure messaging and connectivity. Let’s evaluate each option based on theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024and related documentation.

Step 1: Understand the Role of Swift Alliance Gateway

The Swift Alliance Gateway (SAG) is a software component that serves as a centralized entry point for SwiftNet messaging services. It handles traffic concentration, security, and connectivity management. This is detailed in theSwift Alliance Gateway User Guideand referenced in theCSCF v2024underControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. It acts as the single window to SwiftNet messaging services by concentrating your traffic flowsThe SAG is designed to consolidate and manage all SwiftNet traffic from a user’s environment,acting as a single point of access to SwiftNet services. This is a primary function, as confirmed in theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentationand aligns withControl 1.1, which emphasizes secure traffic management.Conclusion: This statement is correct.

B. It allows sharing of PKI profiles between application or individuals, through the use of virtual profilesThe SAG supports the use of virtual PKI profiles to enable secure sharing of cryptographic identities across applications or users within the Swift environment. This feature enhances flexibility while maintaining security, as noted in theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Management.Conclusion: This statement is correct.

C. It allows the creation and/or modification of some Swift messages (depending on the types &/or formats)The SAG is a gateway for message routing and security, not a tool for creating or modifying Swift messages. Message creation and modification are handled by applications like Alliance Access or Entry, not the Gateway. This is clarified in theSwift Alliance Gateway User Guide, which specifies its role as a connectivity and security layer.Conclusion: This statement is incorrect.

D. The Alliance Gateway can only be accessed by a SWIFTNet userThe SAG is accessed by authorized systems and users within the Swift user’s environment, not exclusively by SwiftNet users. It interfaces with operator systems, middleware, and other components, as perControl 1.2: Logical Access Control, which allows controlled access by authorized entities, not just SwiftNet users.Conclusion: This statement is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The verified statements areAandB, as they accurately reflect the SAG’s role in traffic concentration and PKI profile management, consistent with Swift CSP documentation.

References

Swift Alliance Gateway User Guide, Section: Functionality Overview.

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection, Control 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Management.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Alliance Gateway Configuration.

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.

========