Swift CSP-Assessor Customer Security Programme Assessor Certification(CSPAC) Exam Practice Test

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

•Option A: A Messaging Interface

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

•Option B: A Communication Interface

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

•Option C: A SWIFT Connector

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

•Option D: A Secure Server

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

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

========

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Aligns controls with these objectives.

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

========

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

•Option A: Asymmetric signing and encryption end to end

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

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

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

•Option C: Symmetric encryption only

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

•Option D: Asymmetric signing only

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

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

========

The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" governs the conduct of CSP assessments, including location and method. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Remote assessments are not permitted under any circumstances

This is incorrect. The CSP allows remote assessments under specific conditions, as clarified in the guidelines, not an absolute prohibition.

•Option B: This is permitted provided the same level of comfort can be guaranteed

This is incorrect. While ensuring equivalent assurance is important, the CSP requires formal validation for remote assessments, not just assessor discretion.

•Option C: It is possible to perform an assessment remotely only with valid reasons. These reasons must be formally validated by SWIFT CSP office

This is correct. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" permits remote assessments when justified (e.g., geographical distance, logistical challenges), but such arrangements must be approved by the SWIFT CSP office to ensure compliance and security. This aligns with the "Independent Assessment Framework" emphasis on maintaining assessment integrity.

•Option D: It is not allowed to conduct an assessment remotely under any circumstances. However, force majeure circumstances like the global pandemic are an exception to this

This is incorrect. The CSP does not categorically ban remote assessments; it allows them with prior validation, not just as exceptions for force majeure.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Remote assessments are permitted with valid reasons and formal validation by the SWIFT CSP office (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Allows remote assessments with approval.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Ensures assessment integrity.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports validated remote methods.

========

SwiftNet Link (SNL) is the mandatory network interface software that enables connectivity to the SWIFTNet network, providing transport, security, and service management functionalities. The Swift Alliance Gateway (SAG) is a communication interface that consolidates message flows and relies on SNL to connect to SWIFTNet. According to SWIFT documentation, SAG is built on top of SNL, making SNL a prerequisite for SAG operation. This dependency is consistent across on-premises and cloud-based deployments (e.g., Alliance Connect Virtual), where SNL ensures secure communication over the SWIFT Secure IP Network (SIPN). The CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" underscores the need for secure connectivity components like SNL. There are no documented scenarios where SAG can operate without SNL, confirming the statement is true.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.1 mandates secure connectivity components like SNL.

•SWIFT Alliance Gateway Documentation: SAG requires SNL for SWIFTNet connectivity.

•SWIFTNet Link Documentation: SNL is the mandatory interface for all SWIFTNet communications.

========

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.

This question asks whether a Swift user can implement security controls (e.g., logging and monitoring) in systems not directly in scope of the CSCF. Let’s analyze this based on Swift CSP guidelines.

Step 1: Define CSCF Scope and Security Controls

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024defines its scope as the Swift-related infrastructure, including messaging interfaces, communication interfaces, and operator systems (asdetailed in Question 4). Security controls likelogging and monitoringare mandated underControl Objective 6: Detect Anomalous Activity, specifically in controls likeControl 6.1: Security Event Logging.

Step 2: Analyze the Question

The question focuses on whether a Swift user can apply CSCF security controls (e.g., logging and monitoring) to systemsnot directly in scopeof the CSCF. Systems not in scope include back-office systems, general-purpose servers, or other infrastructure that does not directly process Swift messages or connect to the Swift network.

Step 3: Evaluate Swift CSP Guidance

The CSCF mandates that security controls must be applied to in-scope systems to ensure the security of the Swift environment. However, Swift also encourages adefense-in-depthapproach, as outlined in theSwift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices. This approach recommends extending security practices beyond the minimum scope to enhance overall security.

Control 6.1: Security Event Loggingrequires logging and monitoring for in-scope systems to detect anomalous activity. While this control is mandatory for in-scope systems, the CSCF does not prohibit applying similar controls to out-of-scope systems. In fact, theSwift CSP FAQ(available on swift.com) clarifies that users may implement additional security measures on out-of-scope systems to reduce risks to the Swift environment (e.g., monitoring back-office systems that interact with Swift middleware).

Implementing logging and monitoring on out-of-scope systems can help detect threats that might indirectly affect the Swift environment, such as lateral movement from a compromised back-office system to a Swift-related system.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

A Swift usercanchoose to implement security controls like logging and monitoring on systems not directly in scope of the CSCF. This is not mandatory but is considered a best practice under Swift’s defense-in-depth strategy. The CSCF does not restrict users from applying additional security measures beyond its defined scope, and such actions align with the broader goal of enhancing cybersecurity across the user’s environment.

References

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

Swift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices, Section: Defense-in-Depth.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Scope and Applicability of Security Controls.

The SWIFT CSP 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 outlines conditions for relying on a previous year’s control assessment under theCSCF v2024.

Step 1: Understand Reliance on Previous Assessments

TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkallows reliance on prior assessments to reduce redundancy, provided specific conditions are met, as detailed in theCSCF v2024andSwift CSP Compliance Guidelines.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. The control compliance conclusion must have already been relied on the past two yearsThere is no requirement in theCSCF v2024orIndependent Assessment Frameworkthat reliance must have occurred for two prior years. Reliance is assessed annually based on current conditions.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. The previous assessment was performed on the (correct) CSCF version of the previous yearThe assessment must align with the CSCF version active at the time, ensuring relevance. This is a condition in theIndependent Assessment Framework.Conclusion: Correct.

C. The control definition has not changedIf the control definition in theCSCF v2024has not been updated, prior conclusions remain valid, per theSwift CSP FAQ.Conclusion: Correct.

D. The control-design and implementation are the sameContinuity in design and implementation is required to ensure the control’s effectiveness has not changed, as specified in theIndependent Assessment Framework.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areB, C, and D, as these conditions ensure the prior assessment’s relevance and accuracy under theCSCF v2024.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Reliance Conditions.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Assessment Continuity.

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

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

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

•The architecture types are:

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

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

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

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

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

•Option A: A1

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

•Option B: A2

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

•Option C: A3

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

•Option D: A4

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

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

This question determines the minimum number of Swift Security Officers (SOs) required by an organization under theSwift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Security Officer Requirements

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, underControl 2.3: System Access Control, and theSwift User Handbookoutline the roles and minimum requirements for Security Officers, who manage security settings and keys.

Step 2: Analyze the Requirement

TheSwift User HandbookandSwift Security Best Practicesspecify that at least two Security Officers are required to ensure segregation of duties and continuity (e.g., in case one is unavailable).

This minimum is enforced to prevent single points of failure and align withControl 2.3, which mandates multi-factor authentication and role separation for privileged access.

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option

A. 1: Insufficient, as a single SO risks unavailability or lack of segregation, perSwift Security Best Practices.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. 2: Meets the minimum requirement for redundancy and segregation, as stated in theSwift User Handbook.Conclusion: Correct.

C. 3: Exceeds the minimum but is not required unless the organization’s risk assessment demands it, per theCSCF v2024.Conclusion: Incorrect (not minimum).

D. 4: Also exceeds the minimum, not mandated as a baseline.Conclusion: Incorrect (not minimum).

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as theCSCF v2024andSwift User Handbookmandate a minimum of two Swift Security Officers.

References

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

Swift User Handbook, Section: Security Officer Roles.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Segregation of Duties.

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 explores the process for updating an attestation after remediating an exception identified by an assessor:

Step 1: CSP Attestation and Remediation Process

The SWIFT CSP requires users to submit an annual attestation via the KYC Security Attestation (KYC-SA) application, reflecting compliance with CSCF controls. If anexception (non-compliance) is reported, remediation must occur, followed by validation before updating the attestation.

The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" distinguish between audits and assessments within the SWIFT CSP context. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: An audit is a comprehensive review of a customer’s controls to ensure they meet regulatory requirements, while an assessment is a very high-level review of controls to identify potential weaknesses

This is incorrect. The CSP assessment is a detailed, independent evaluation of CSCF compliance, not a high-level review. Audits may focus on broader regulatory compliance, but the CSP assessment is specific to CSCF controls.

•Option B: An audit looks at the defined controls design and implementation compliance and follows recognized international audit standards, whereas an assessment is less strict but aims the same common objectives

This is correct. The CSP defines an assessment as a structured, independent process to verify CSCF control compliance, guided by SWIFT-specific guidelines rather than international audit standards (e.g., ISAE 3000). Audits, while thorough, follow broader standards and may not align with CSP’s tailored objectives. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" supports this distinction, noting assessments are CSP-specific with a focus on effectiveness.

•Option C: An audit is a one-time event, while an assessment is an ongoing process of monitoring and improving security controls

This is incorrect. Both audits and assessments can be one-time or periodic. The CSP assessment is an annual requirement, not an ongoing process, per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option D: An audit and an assessment can be used interchangeably

This is incorrect. The CSP clearly differentiates between the two, with assessments being the mandated method for CSCF compliance.

Summary of Correct Answer:

An audit follows international standards for control compliance, while an assessment is CSP-specific with similar objectives but less strict standards (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Defines assessment scope.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Distinguishes assessment from audit.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Outlines assessment process.

========

The "SWIFT footprint" refers to the extent of SWIFT-related infrastructure (hardware, software, and connectivity components) that a user must manage within their environment. A smaller footprint means less local infrastructure to maintain, typically achieved through cloud-based or managed services. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Full stack of products up to the Messaging Interface

This refers to an on-premises deployment where the user manages a complete set of SWIFT components, including the messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access), communication interface (e.g., Alliance Gateway), SwiftNet Link (SNL), HSM, and VPN boxes for connectivity to the SWIFT network. This setup requires significant local infrastructure, including servers, security devices, and network components, resulting in a large SWIFT footprint.

•Option B: Alliance Remote Gateway

Alliance Remote Gateway (ARG) is a service where the Alliance Gateway is hosted remotely by SWIFT or a third party, but the user still maintains a messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) locally. While this reduces the footprint slightly by outsourcing the communication interface, the user still manages the messaging interface, HSM, and local connectivity components, resulting in a moderate footprint.

•Option C: Lite 2 or Alliance Cloud

This is the correct answer. Alliance Lite2 and Alliance Cloud are cloud-based solutions designed for smaller institutions or those seeking a minimal local footprint. In Alliance Lite2, the user connects to SWIFT via a lightweight client (Alliance Lite2 AutoClient) or a browser-based interface, with most infrastructure (e.g., messaging interface, communication interface, HSM) hosted by SWIFT in the cloud. Alliance Cloud similarly hosts the full SWIFT stack (including Alliance Access and Alliance Gateway) in a SWIFT-managed cloud environment, requiring only minimal local infrastructure (e.g., a secure connection to the cloud). This results in the smallest SWIFT footprint, as the user manages very little on-premises infrastructure. The CSCF still applies, but many controls are managed by SWIFT (e.g., "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection").

•Option D: A user with a Messaging Interface behind a Service Bureau

A Service Bureau is a third-party provider that hosts SWIFT infrastructure (e.g., Alliance Gateway, SNL) for multiple users, but the user still maintains a local messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) to connect to the Service Bureau. This setup reduces the footprint compared to a full on-premises deployment, as the user does not manage the communication interface or network connectivity components. However, the local messaging interface and associated security components (e.g., HSM) still constitute a larger footprint than a fully cloud-based solution like Alliance Lite2 or Alliance Cloud.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Alliance Lite2 or Alliance Cloud (C) has the smallest SWIFT footprint, as most infrastructure is hosted in the cloud by SWIFT, minimizing the user’s local management responsibilities.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.1 applies to cloud deployments like Alliance Cloud, reducing the user’s local footprint.

•SWIFT Alliance Lite2 Documentation: Describes the minimal infrastructure required for Lite2 users.

•SWIFT Alliance Cloud Documentation: Highlights the fully hosted nature of the solution, minimizing the SWIFT footprint.

========

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 location and management of Swift HSM boxes, which are critical for secure key management.

Step 1: Understand the Role of Swift HSM

The Hardware Security Module (HSM) in the Swift environment is used to store and manage cryptographic keys, as perControl 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Managementof theCSCF v2024. The HSM ensures the security of Swift transactions by protecting private keys.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Are located at the network partner premises and managed by SwiftNetwork partners (e.g., service providers) may host connectivity infrastructure, but HSMs are typically located at the user’s premises for direct control, as perSwift Security Best Practices. Swift does not manage user HSMs; users are responsible for their operation.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

B. Are located at the Swift user premises and managed by SwiftWhile HSMs are located at the user’s premises, Swift does not manage them. Users are responsible for HSM management, as outlined inControl 2.5B, which requires users to secure and maintain their HSMs.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

C. Are located at the Swift user premises and managed by the Swift userTheCSCF v2024andSwift HSM Deployment Guidespecify that HSMs are deployed at the Swift user’s premises to ensure local control and security. Users are responsible for managing and maintaining the HSM, including key generation and backups, as part of their compliance obligations.Conclusion: This is correct.

D. Are located at the network partner premises and managed by Swift the network partnerHSMs are not managed by network partners or Swift. Users retain control, and network partners only facilitate connectivity, not HSM management.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The verified answer isC, as it accurately reflects the standard deployment and management model for Swift HSMs, consistent with Swift CSP documentation.

References

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

Swift HSM Deployment Guide, Section: Installation and Management.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: HSM Location and Control.

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

Step 1: Understand the CSCF Documentation Structure

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

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

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

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

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

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

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

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

References

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

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Resolving Control Applicability.

Swift Support Guidelines, Section: Case Manager Usage.

The CSCF, under Control "6.1 Security Awareness" and related security controls, mandates the definition and implementation of a Password/PIN Policy for components requiring user authentication to protect the SWIFT environment. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Operator PCs, (physical or virtual) systems running SWIFT-related components, network devices protecting the secure zone(s), bridging servers

This requires a Password/PIN Policy. Operator PCs, systems running SWIFT components (e.g., Alliance Access), network devices (e.g., VPN boxes), and bridging servers need authentication policies to secure access, as per CSCF Control "2.3 System Hardening" and "6.1."

•Option B: Jump server(s), SWIFT-related components at application level

This requires a Password/PIN Policy. Jump servers and application-level components (e.g., Alliance Gateway) must have authentication mechanisms to protect the secure zone, aligning with CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection."

•Option C: Personal tokens or mobile devices used as a possession factor

This does not require a Password/PIN Policy. Personal tokens or mobile devices (e.g., secure code cards or soft tokens) are possession factors used in multi-factor authentication (MFA), typically alongside a password or PIN. However, the CSCF does not mandate defining a Password/PIN Policy for thetokens/devices themselves, as their security relies on physical possession and manufacturer hardening, not user-defined policies. The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" supports this by focusing policy requirements on systems, not possession factors.

•Option D: All equipment within the user environment

This requires a Password/PIN Policy. The CSCF applies policies to all in-scope equipment to ensure comprehensive security, contradicting the question’s intent to identify an exception.

Summary of Correct Answer:

A Password/PIN Policy must not be defined and implemented for personal tokens or mobile devices used as a possession factor (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 6.1 and 2.3 mandate password policies for systems.

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Excludes possession factors from policy requirements.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Focuses on system authentication policies.

========

This question identifies the components with which the SwiftNet Link (SNL) communicates, based on its role in the Swift ecosystem under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand the Role of SwiftNet Link (SNL)

The SNL is a communication layer that facilitates secure connectivity between a Swift user’s environment and the Swift network. It handles encrypted data transmission and interacts with specific infrastructure components, as detailed in theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical DocumentationandControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protectionof theCSCF v2024.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. The Graphical User InterfaceThe GUI (e.g., operator interface) is used by personnel to interact with Swift applications (e.g., Alliance Access), but it does not directly communicate with the SNL. The SNL operates at the network and security layer, not the user interface layer, per theSwift User Handbook.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. The VPN boxesThe SNL communicates with VPN boxes to establish secure tunnels (e.g., using NTLS) for data transmission to the Swift network, as specified in theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restriction.Conclusion: Correct.

C. The HSM deviceThe SNL interacts with the Hardware Security Module (HSM) to manage cryptographic keys and secure communications, as outlined inControl 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Managementand theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation.Conclusion: Correct.

D. The messaging interface (such as Alliance Access)The SNL connects to the messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access or Entry) to transmit and receive Swift messages, a core function described in theCSCF v2024underControl 1.1.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areB, C, and D, as the SNL communicates with VPN boxes, HSM devices, and messaging interfaces to ensure secure and functional connectivity to the Swift network, consistent withCSCF v2024and related documentation.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection, Control 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Management, Control 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restriction.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: SNL Communication.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Network Infrastructure.

This question pertains to the Alliance Web Platform (AWP) Single Edition (SE) Administrator’s capabilities:

Step 1: AWP SE Overview

AWP SE is a web-based interface for managing SWIFT services (e.g., Alliance Lite2, monitoring tools). It’s primarily GUI-driven, unlike Alliance Access, which supports command-line operations.

The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" and "Independent Assessment Framework" provide guidance on using external audit reports (e.g., ISAE 3000) to support CSP assessments. ISAE 3000 is an international standard for assurance engagements. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: No, that is too old, the maximum is 18 months

This is correct. The CSP specifies that external reports like ISAE 3000 must be no older than 18 months to ensure relevance, as security environments can change. The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" set this time limit to validate current compliance status.

•Option B: Yes, there is no time limit for an ISAE 3000 report

This is incorrect. A time limit is enforced to ensure the report reflects the current security posture, as per CSP guidelines.

•Option C: No, an ISAE 3000 report is no valid substitute as a rule

This is incorrect. An ISAE 3000 report can be used as supporting evidence if relevant and recent, but it is not a full substitute for the independent assessment, per the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option D: Yes, provided there is no change to the SWIFT user’s infrastructure

This is incorrect. Even with no changes, the 18-month limit applies to ensure the report’s currency, not just infrastructure stability.

Summary of Correct Answer:

An assessor cannot rely on an ISAE 3000 report dating back 2 years; the maximum is 18 months (A).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Limits ISAE 3000 reports to 18 months.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Specifies timeframe for external evidence.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Enforces currency of supporting reports.

========

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.

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.

The CSCF and "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" define responsibilities for securing virtualization or cloud platforms hosting SWIFT-related components. Let’s evaluate each combination:

•Option A: For on-premises virtualization platform: by the platform provider

This is not correct. An on-premises virtualization platform (e.g., VMware or Hyper-V hosting Alliance Gateway) is managed by the SWIFT user, not the platform provider (e.g., VMware). The "platform provider" supplies the software, but the user is responsible for securing the on-premises environment, including hardening, patching, and compliance with CSCF Control "2.3 System Hardening."

•Option B: For virtualization platform deployed at a third party on which user’s SWIFT-related components are virtually hosted: by the third party

This is correct. If the virtualization platform is hosted by a third party (e.g., a service provider hosting SWIFT components), the third party is responsible for securing the platform, as per the "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" and CSCF Control "1.1."

•Option C: For on-premises container platform: by the SWIFT user

This is correct. An on-premises container platform (e.g., Docker or Kubernetes hosting SWIFT applications) is the user’s responsibility to secure, aligning with CSCF Control "1.1" and the user’s ownership of on-premises infrastructure.

•Option D: For Cloud Provider: the cloud provider

This is correct. In a cloud model (e.g., IaaS like Alliance Cloud on AWS), the cloud provider (e.g., AWS) is responsible for securing the underlying platform, as outlined in the "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025."

Summary of Correct Answer:

The combination that is not correct is A, as the SWIFT user, not the platform provider, is responsible for securing an on-premises virtualization platform.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 1.1 defines responsibilities for on-premises platforms.

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Specifies third-party and cloud provider responsibilities.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Confirms user responsibility for on-premises setups.

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

Step 1: CSP Assessment Process

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

The Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) defines the scope of components that must comply with its security controls. This scope is detailed in theCSCF v2024(and prior versions like CSCF v2023), which specifies that the CSCF applies to systems directly involved in the Swift messaging and connectivity ecosystem. Let’s analyze the diagram to identify which components fall within this scope.

Step 1: Understand the Scope of CSCF

According to theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, the scope includes:

Swift messaging interfaces(e.g., Alliance Access/Entry, RMA).

Communication interfacesto the Swift network (e.g., SNL, HSM, PKI).

Operator systemsdirectly interacting with Swift components (e.g., GUIs, admin/operator workstations).

Middlewareor connectors directly facilitating Swift message flows.Systems that are not directly involved in Swift messaging or connectivity (e.g., back-office systems, general-purpose servers) are typically out of scope unless they pose a direct risk to the Swift environment.

Step 2: Analyze the Diagram and Identify Components

The diagram includes the following labeled components:

A. Back Office: A system for back-office operations, not directly part of Swift messaging.

B. Back Office Using Middleware Client: A back-office system with middleware for data exchange.

C. Messaging Interface: Likely a Swift messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access).

D. RMA: Relationship Management Application, a Swift component for managing messaging relationships.

E. GUI: Graphical User Interface for operators to interact with the messaging interface.

F. Communication Interface: Interface for connecting to the Swift network.

G. SNL: SwiftNet Link, a communication layer for Swift connectivity.

H. HSM & PKI: Hardware Security Module and Public Key Infrastructure, used for secure Swift connectivity.

I. Middleware File Transfer Servers: Servers facilitating data exchange between back-office and Swift systems.

J, K, L. Data Exchange Paths: Represent data flows between systems (not components themselves).

M. Operator (End User): The operator’s workstation interacting with the Swift GUI.

N. Connector: The connection point to the Swift network.

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option Against CSCF Scope

A. Components A, B, K

A (Back Office): Back-office systems are not in scope unless they directly process Swift messages. The CSCF focuses on Swift-specific infrastructure, and back-office systems are typically considered out of scope unless they pose a direct risk (e.g., via middleware).

B (Back Office Using Middleware Client): While this system uses middleware to exchange data with Swift components, it is still a back-office system, not a core Swift component. The middleware itself (I) may be in scope, but the client (B) is not.

K (Data Exchange Path): This is a data flow, not a component, and thus not directly in scope.Conclusion: This option is incorrect.

B. Components J, K, I

J, K (Data Exchange Paths): These are data flows, not components, and are not directly in scope.

I (Middleware File Transfer Servers): Middleware that facilitates Swift message flows (e.g., between back-office and messaging interface) can be in scope if it directlyprocesses or transmits Swift messages. PerControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection, middleware in the Swift data flow must be secured, making it in scope. However, this option pairs I with J and K, which are not components.Conclusion: This option is incorrect due to J and K, though I alone would be in scope.

C. Components F, G, H

F (Communication Interface): This is the interface connecting to the Swift network, clearly in scope perControl 1.1.

G (SNL): SwiftNet Link is a core communication component for Swift connectivity, in scope perControl 1.1.

H (HSM & PKI): HSM and PKI are critical for secure Swift connectivity, in scope perControl 1.1.Conclusion: This option is correct.

D. Components C, E, M

C (Messaging Interface): This is a core Swift component (e.g., Alliance Access), in scope perControl 1.1.

E (GUI): The GUI used by operators to interact with the messaging interface is in scope, as specified inControl 1.2: Logical Access Control, which includes operator systems.

M (Operator End User): The operator’s workstation is in scope as it directly interacts with Swift systems, perControl 1.2.Conclusion: This option is correct.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The components in scope of the CSCF are those directly involved in Swift messaging, connectivity, and operator interaction. Based on the analysis:

C (F, G, H)includes communication components, all in scope.

D (C, E, M)includes the messaging interface, GUI, and operator workstation, all in scope.Components A, B, and data exchange paths (J, K, L) are not directly in scope, though middleware (I) would be if considered separately.

References

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

Swift Customer Security Programme – Scope and Applicability, Section: CSCF Scope Definition.

CSCF v2024, Control 1.2: Logical Access Control.

The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" and "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" define provider categories and CSP impact. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: The public cloud provider is considered a L2BA provider, and therefore not in scope of the CSP

This is incorrect. An L2BA (Lite2 Business Application) provider hosts the full SWIFT stack for users, but a public cloud provider offering a virtual machine is not an L2BA provider unless it provides the full service. The CSP still applies to the provider’s infrastructure.

•Option B: The public cloud provider is considered a SWIFT connectivity provider, and therefore not in scope of the CSP

This is incorrect. A SWIFT connectivity provider (e.g., Alliance Connect) is a specific role, but a public cloud provider (e.g., AWS) hosting a communication interface is an outsourcing agent, subject to CSP requirements.

•Option C: The public cloud provider is considered an outsourcing agent, and therefore in scope of the CSP

This is correct. The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" classifies public cloud providers hosting SWIFT components (e.g., a virtual machine with Alliance Gateway) as outsourcing agents. The CSP impacts the provider by requiring them to secure the underlying infrastructure (e.g., Control 1.1), while the user secures the communication interface.

•Option D: This type of implementation is not allowed by the CSP

This is incorrect. The CSP permits cloud-based deployments, including user-installed components on public cloud VMs, as long as security controls are met.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The public cloud provider is an outsourcing agent, in scope of the CSP (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Defines cloud providers as outsourcing agents.

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Applies controls to outsourced environments.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Includes cloud provider assessments.

========

This question assesses whether a short interview with the HR manager providing one example of security training implementation is acceptable for a small infrastructure with only two operators, under the Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Security Training Requirements

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, underControl 5.1: Security Training and Awareness, mandates that all personnel with access to Swift-related systems (including operators) receive regular, documented security training. This includes awareness of security policies, procedures, and incident response. The control applies regardless of the size of the infrastructure.

Step 2: Analyze the Scenario

The entity has a small infrastructure with two operators, and the HR manager provides a short interview with one example of security training implementation.

TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequires assessors to validate the effectiveness of controls, including evidence of training completion, content, frequency, and attendance records. A risk-based approach allows flexibility, but minimum evidence standards must still be met.

Step 3: Evaluate Against CSCF Guidelines

Control 5.1specifies that training must be documented, with evidence such as training logs, attendance records, or certification. A single interview with one example does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate:

That all operators (both in this case) have been trained.

The frequency and comprehensiveness of the training program.

The effectiveness of the training (e.g., understanding and application).

TheSwift CSP FAQandSecurity Best Practicesnote that even for small entities, assessors must see multiple pieces of evidence (e.g., training schedules, materials, test results) to confirm compliance, especially during an independent assessment.

A risk-based testing approach (mentioned in option A) allows tailoring the depth of evidence based on risk, but it does not exempt small entities from providing more than a single anecdotal example. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequires objective evidence, not just verbal assurances.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isB, as a short interview with one example is insufficient to meet the evidence requirements ofControl 5.1in theCSCF v2024. More evidence (e.g., training records, attendance logs, or test results) is required to validate compliance, even for a small infrastructure.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 5.1: Security Training and Awareness.

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Evidence Requirements.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Training Documentation.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Small Entity Compliance.