CSP-Assessor Questions and Answers

This question addresses the use of ISAE 3000 reports in CSP assessments:

Step 1: ISAE 3000 in CSP Context

ISAE 3000 (International Standard on Assurance Engagements) reports provide assurance on controls but are not specifically tailored to SWIFT CSP requirements. The IAF allows their use as supporting evidence, not as a primary assessment substitute.

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 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 addresses valid implementations ofControl 2.9: Transaction Business Controlsunder theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, which focuses on detecting and preventing fraudulent transactions.

Step 1: Understand Control 2.9 Transaction Business Controls

Control 2.9 requires Swift users to implement measures to validate transaction flows against expected business patterns, aiming to detect anomalies that could indicate fraud or error. TheCSCF v2024emphasizes flexibility in implementation, provided the controls mitigate identified risks effectively.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Multiple measures must be implemented by the Swift user to validate the flows of transactions are in the bounds of the normal expected businessTheCSCF v2024, underControl 2.9, mandates the use of multiple detection measures (e.g., transaction monitoring, threshold limits, anomaly detection) to ensure transaction flows align with normal business expectations. This multi-layered approach is essential to address diverse fraud risks.Conclusion: This is correct.

B. A customer designed implementation or a combination of different measures are deemed valid if they sufficiently mitigate the control risksTheCSCF v2024allows flexibility in how users implement Control 2.9, permitting custom solutions or combinations of measures (e.g., AI-based monitoring, manual reviews) as long as they effectively mitigate the risks identified in the user’s risk assessment. This is supported by theSwift CSP FAQon control customization.Conclusion: This is correct.

C. Reliance on a recent business assessment or regulator response confirming the effectiveness of the control (as an example CPMI's requirement) is especially poignant to this controlWhile a business assessment or regulator input (e.g., CPMI-IOSCO guidelines) can inform the implementation, Control 2.9 requires the user to implement specific measures, not just rely on external validations. TheCSCF v2024does not allow sole dependence on such assessments; users must demonstrate their own controls.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

D. Any solution is acceptable so long as the CISO approves the implementationTheCSCF v2024requires that implementations meet objective criteria for risk mitigation, not just internal approval by the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). The independent assessment must validate effectiveness, not just rely on CISO endorsement.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The verified answers areAandB, as they align with the requirements and flexibility ofControl 2.9 Transaction Business Controlsin theCSCF v2024, ensuring robust and tailored transaction validation.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.9: Transaction Business Controls.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Control Implementation Flexibility.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Transaction Monitoring.

This question relates to Control 5.2 – Token Management in the CSCF, which outlines requirements for managing physical or software-based tokens used for authentication or cryptographic operations in the SWIFT environment. Let’s evaluate each option:

A. Similar to user accounts, individual assignment and ownership for accurate traceability and revocation in case of potential tampering, loss or in case of user role change

CSCF Control 5.2 mandates that tokens (e.g., HSM tokens or software tokens) be uniquely assigned to individuals to ensure traceability and accountability. This allows for revocation in cases of tampering, loss, or role changes, mirroring user account management principles under Control 5.1 – Logical Access Control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

•Independent Assessment Framework: Mandates assessor validation.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports conditional reliance.

========

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.

This question assesses whether SWIFT users are restricted to exchanging only FIN messages:

Step 1: SWIFT Messaging Overview

FIN messages are traditional SWIFT financial messages (e.g., MT messages). However, SWIFT supports additional message types, such as FileAct (file transfers) and InterAct (real-time messaging), depending on the interface and service.

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.

SWIFT PKI certificates are critical for securing communications and require a formal request process to SWIFT for issuance or renewal. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Using both online and offline methods

This is correct. SWIFT provides multiple channels for submitting PKI certificate requests to accommodate different customer needs and security requirements. The online method involves submitting requests through the SWIFT Alliance Web Platform or SWIFT’s customer portal, where users can generate and upload certificate signing requests (CSRs). The offline method involves physical submission, such as sending a signed request via secure mail or courier, often used for initial setups or high-security environments. SWIFT documentation confirms both methods are supported, aligning with CSCF Control "1.3 Cryptographic Failover" for secure certificate management.

•Option B: Using an online method

This is incorrect as a standalone answer. While the online method is available and widely used, it is not the only method. Excluding the offline option does not reflect SWIFT’s flexible process.

•Option C: Using an offline method

This is incorrect as a standalone answer. The offline method is an option, but it is not the only method. SWIFT supports both approaches depending on the customer’s infrastructure and security policies.

•Option D: None of the above

This is incorrect. Both online and offline methods are valid, making this option invalid.

Summary of Correct Answer:

PKI certificate requests can be submitted to SWIFT using both online and offline methods (A), providing flexibility and security.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.3 supports secure certificate request processes.

•SWIFT PKI Management Guide: Details online and offline submission methods for certificate requests.

•SWIFT Alliance Documentation: Confirms dual submission channels for PKI certificates.

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

Step 1: Understand CSP Assessment Submission Requirements

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

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

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

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

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

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

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

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

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Deliverables and Submission.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Document Submission Rules.

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

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

Step 1: Understand Session Protection Requirements

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

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

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

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

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

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

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

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

References

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

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Session Security.

Swift Outsourcing Guidelines, Section: Session Protection.

In the SWIFT architecture, VPN boxes (e.g., Alliance Connect boxes or virtual VPN appliances) are network devices that establish a secure connection to the SWIFT Secure IP Network (SIPN) using Virtual Private Network (VPN) technology. Let’s evaluate the statement:

•The "Messaging Interface" refers to components like Alliance Access (SAA), which create, process, and manage SWIFT messages (e.g., MT103). The "Communication Interface" refers to components like Alliance Gateway (SAG), which consolidate message flows and connect to the SWIFT network via SwiftNet Link (SNL).

•The SWIFT VPN boxes are located at the network boundary, connecting the customer’s internal SWIFT environment (including both messaging and communication interfaces) to the external SIPN. They are not positioned between the messaging interface and the communication interface; instead, they sit outside the SWIFT secure zone, linking the entire local infrastructure to SWIFTNet.

•In a typical deployment, the architecture flows as follows: Messaging Interface (e.g., Alliance Access) → Communication Interface (e.g., Alliance Gateway with SNL) → VPN Boxes → SWIFTNet. The VPN boxes are part of the external connectivity layer, not an intermediary between internal components. This is supported by CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection," which defines the secure zone as including messaging and communication interfaces, with VPN boxes providing the external link.

•The statement’s implication that VPN boxes separate the messaging and communication interfaces is incorrect, as they are part of the broader connectivity infrastructure.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The SWIFT VPN boxes are not located between the Messaging and Communication interface; they connect the entire local SWIFT environment to the SIPN, making the statement false.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.1 defines the secure zone and external connectivity via VPN boxes.

•SWIFT Alliance Gateway Documentation: Describes the placement of VPN boxes outside the communication interface.

•SWIFT Network Architecture Guide: Confirms VPN boxes as the external connection point to SIPN.

This question identifies the supporting documents for a CSP assessment under theSwift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Assessment Documentation

TheIndependent Assessment FrameworkandCSCF v2024specify the documents assessors must use to evaluate compliance with CSCF controls.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. The CSP User HandbookTheSwift CSP User Handbookprovides guidance on CSP requirements, processes, and best practices, making it a key supporting document for assessors.Conclusion: Correct.

B. The mapping to industry standards articleWhile useful for context, this article is not a primary document for conducting assessments. TheCSCF v2024focuses on its own controls, not industry mappings, which are advisory.Conclusion: Incorrect.

C. The Controls Matrix and High Level Test PlanTheControls Matrix(part of the CSCF) maps controls to components, and theHigh Level Test Planoutlines assessment procedures. Both are essential for structuring and executing the assessment, per theIndependent Assessment Framework.Conclusion: Correct.

D. The Customer Security Controls FrameworkTheCSCF v2024is the foundational document defining controls and requirements, mandatory for all assessments.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areA, C, and D, as these documents are explicitly referenced in theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkfor conducting CSP assessments.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Supporting Documents.

Swift CSP User Handbook, Section: Assessment Process.

CSCF Control "6.1 Security Awareness" mandates training for individuals with SWIFT-critical roles (e.g., LSO, RSO, operators) to ensure they understand security policies and procedures. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, and a track record must show that both awareness and specific training are performed annually

This is correct. Control 6.1 requires annual security awareness training for all SWIFT-critical personnel, with additional specific training as needed to maintain knowledge. The "Swift Customer SecurityControls Framework v2025" and "Assessment template for Mandatory controls" mandate annual training and require a track record (e.g., logs or certificates) to demonstrate compliance.

•Option B: No, both awareness and specific trainings are planned when deemed required

This is incorrect. The CSCF mandates annual awareness training, not just ad-hoc planning, to ensure consistent security awareness.

•Option C: No, awareness training expected to be performed yearly; specific training to maintain the required knowledge only when needed

This is incorrect. While specific training can be as needed, awareness training is explicitly required annually, making this option partially inaccurate.

•Option D: No, a track record must show that both awareness and specific training are performed at least bi-yearly (every 2 years)

This is incorrect. The CSCF requires annual awareness training, not bi-yearly, as specified in the guidelines.

Summary of Correct Answer:

It is mandated to perform security awareness and specific trainings every year, with a track record (A).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 6.1 mandates annual training.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Requires annual training records.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Verifies training frequency.

========

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.

========

The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" and "Independent Assessment Framework" define the roles of assessors and SWIFT users in the KYC-SA (Know Your Customer - Security Attestation) process. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, if the KYC-SA application is set up in 2-eyes mode, it is possible for the assessor to submit and approve an attestation on behalf of the SWIFT user’s

This is incorrect. The 2-eyes mode (dual approval) applies to the user’s internal process, not the assessor’s role. The assessor conducts the assessment and provides a report, but the submission and approval of the attestation on the KYC-SA portal are the user’s responsibility, typically by the CISO or an authorized officer.

•Option B: Yes, with agreement from the CISO of the SWIFT User

This is incorrect. CISO agreement does not authorize the assessor to approve the attestation; the CSP reserves this authority for the user.

•Option C: No, the approval always remains the responsibility of the CISO of the SWIFT User (or similar level of responsibility)

This is correct. The "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" and "CSCF Assessment Completion Letter" indicate that the assessor provides an independent evaluation, but the final approval and submission of the attestation on KYC-SA are the responsibility of the SWIFT user’s CISO or an equivalent senior officer, as per the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option D: No, it is the responsibility of the SWIFT user’s internal audit to submit a CSP attestation

This is incorrect. Internal audit cannot submit or approve attestations due to the independence requirement; this role belongs to the CISO or designated user representative.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The assessor cannot approve the attestation; this responsibility lies with the CISO or similar user officer (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Defines assessor and user roles.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Specifies user responsibility for attestation approval.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Outlines the assessment process.

========

This question addresses the obligations of a Swift user who has switched from one Service Bureau (SB) to another under the Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand CSP Obligations for Changes

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequire Swift users to maintain accurate and up-to-date information regarding their infrastructure,including changes in service providers like Service Bureaus. Such changes may impact compliance and architecture types.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. To inform the SB certification office at Swift WWThere is no specific "SB certification office" mentioned in theCSCF v2024orSwift CSP Guidelines. Notifications are typically handled through attestation updates, not a dedicated office.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. To reflect that in the next attestation cycleWhile changes must be reflected in attestations, delaying this until the next cycle (e.g., annually) is insufficient if the change affects compliance. TheSwift CSP Compliance Guidelinesrequire timely updates for significant changes.Conclusion: Incorrect.

C. None if there is no impact in the architecture typeEven if the architecture type (e.g., A2, A4) remains unchanged, a switch in Service Bureau may affect security controls, vendor management, or connectivity. TheCSCF v2024underControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protectionrequires users to report changes that could impact compliance, regardless of architecture type.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. To submit an updated attestation reflecting this change within 3 monthsTheSwift CSP Compliance GuidelinesandIndependent Assessment Frameworkmandate that significant changes (e.g., switching Service Bureaus) be reported through an updated attestation within 3 months. This ensures Swift is informed of potential compliance impacts and allows for review.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isD, as theCSCF v2024andSwift CSP Compliance Guidelinesrequire an updated attestation within 3 months to reflect a change in Service Bureau.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Change Reporting.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Timely Updates.

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

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

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

•Option B: 1

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

•Option C: 3

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

•Option D: 5

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports limited testing sample requirements.

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

========

This question addresses the scope of penetration testing for Swift-related components under theSwift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Penetration Testing Requirements

TheCSCF v2024, underControl 4.1: Penetration Testing, mandates penetration testing to identify vulnerabilities in Swift-related systems. The scope is defined by theSwift Testing Policy, not arbitrarily applied to all components.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The statement suggests that penetration testing "must be performed at application level against the Swift-related components, such as the interfaces, Swift and customer connectors." We need to verify if this is a mandatory scope.

Step 3: Evaluate Against Swift Guidelines

Control 4.1: Penetration Testingrequires testing of in-scope components, but theSwift Testing Policy(referenced in theCSCF v2024andSecurity Best Practices) specifies which components (e.g., messaging interfaces, connectors) must be tested based on risk and architecture.

The policy does not mandate testing all listed components (e.g., interfaces, connectors) at the application level unless they are identified as high-risk or in-scope per the user’s assessment. For example, customer connectors might be excluded if managed by a Service Bureau, per theSwift Outsourcing Guidelines.

The statement’s assertion of a broad mandate is incorrect; the scope is limited to components defined in theSwift Testing Policy, which provides a tailored approach.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isB, as penetration testing must follow theSwift Testing Policy, which defines the specific components to test, rather than mandating all Swift-related components like interfaces and connectors.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 4.1: Penetration Testing.

Swift Testing Policy, Section: Scope Definition.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Penetration Testing.

A Hardware Security Module (HSM) in the SWIFT context is a physical or virtual device used to manage cryptographic keys and perform security operations. Its purpose is critical to ensuring the integrity and confidentiality of SWIFT transactions. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: To encrypt the database of the messaging interface

This is incorrect. While HSMs can perform encryption, their primary role in the SWIFT ecosystem is not to encrypt databases of messaging interfaces (e.g., Alliance Access). Database encryption is typically handled by the institution’s own security measures or software, not the HSM. The CSCF focuses on HSMs for key management and message security, not database-level encryption (e.g., Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection").

•Option B: To store PKI certificates

This is correct. The SWIFT HSM is used to securely store and manage Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificates, which are essential for authentication, message signing, and encryption within the SWIFT network. SWIFT uses PKI for role-based access control and to secure communications over SWIFTNet. The HSM ensures that these certificates are protected against unauthorized access and tampering, aligning with CSCF Control "1.3 Cryptographic Failover." For example, in Alliance Gateway setups, the HSM stores SWIFTNet PKI certificates used for secure message transmission.

•Option C: To connect to the SWIFT Secure IP Network (SIPN)

This is incorrect. Connection to the SIPN is managed by components like SwiftNet Link (SNL) and VPN boxes, not the HSM. The HSM’s role is security-focused, handling cryptographic operations, not network connectivity. CSCF Control "1.1" specifies that connectivity is achieved through network components, while the HSM supports security within that environment.

•Option D: To format the FIN MT messages

This is incorrect. Message formatting (e.g., creating FIN MT messages like MT103) is handled by messaging interfaces like Alliance Access or Alliance Gateway, not the HSM. The HSM’s function is limited to cryptographic tasks, such as signing and verifying messages after they are formatted, as per CSCF Control "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security."

Summary of Correct Answer:

The primary purpose of a SWIFT HSM is to store PKI certificates, ensuring secure cryptographic operations for SWIFT transactions.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.3 mandates the use of HSMs for cryptographic failover and certificate management.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: HSMs are described as key management devices for PKI certificates in SWIFTNet communications.

•Alliance Gateway Documentation: Details the HSM’s role in storing and managing PKI certificates for secure message processing.

This question examines the timing of a CSP assessment relative to the activation of a new CSCF version, a key aspect of compliance under the Swift Customer Security Programme.

Step 1: Understand CSP Assessment Timing

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF)requires users to perform an independent assessment annually or as mandated, based on the active version of the CSCF at the time of attestation. TheIndependent Assessment FrameworkandSwift CSP Compliance Guidelinesprovide rules on version applicability and assessment scheduling.

Step 2: Analyze the Scenario

The scenario states that the Swift user wants to perform their CSP assessment in May for a CSCF version that will become active in July of the same year. We need to determine if this is permissible.

Step 3: Evaluate Against Swift CSP Guidelines

TheCSCF v2024andSwift CSP FAQallow users to prepare for upcoming CSCF versions before their activation date. Swift releases new versions with advance notice (typically 6-12 months), and users are encouraged to align their compliance efforts with the upcoming version to ensure readiness.

TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkspecifies that assessments must be based on the CSCF version in effect at the time of attestation (e.g., submission to Swift). However, users can conduct preparatory assessments or self-assessments on a future version before its activation date to plan and implement necessary changes. The official attestation must still align with the active version, but early assessment is not prohibited.

For example, if the assessment in May is a preparatory exercise (e.g., a pre-assessment or gap analysis) for the July version, it is allowed. The final attestation would then be submitted once the version is active (e.g., in July or later), ensuring compliance with the active framework.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isB, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkpermit users to start assessments on a particular version before its activation date for planning purposes, provided the official attestation aligns with the active version at the time of submission.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Version Applicability.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Assessment Scheduling and Version Updates.

Alliance Messaging Hub (AMH) is a SWIFT product designed as a centralized messaging platform for financial institutions, enabling them to manage multiple messaging flows, including SWIFT and non-SWIFT networks. Let’s evaluate each statement:

•Statement A: AMH is highly resilient, and can consist of multiple instances and sites in parallel

This is true. AMH is designed for high availability and resilience, supporting deployments across multiple instances and sites to ensure continuity of operations. This capability is critical for large financial institutions handling high volumes of transactions. SWIFT documentation highlights AMH’s ability to operate in a distributed architecture, with instances running in parallel across primary and backup sites. This aligns with CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection," which emphasizes the need for resilient infrastructure to prevent disruptions in the SWIFT environment.

•Statement B: AMH provides advanced integration capabilities

This is true. AMH offers advanced integration features, allowing institutions to connect various back-office systems, payment engines, and other financial applications to a single hub. It supports multiple message standards (e.g., SWIFT MT, ISO 20022) and provides transformation and routing capabilities, making it a versatile integration platform. This is a key selling point of AMH, as noted in SWIFT’s product documentation, enabling seamless interoperability across diverse systems.

•Statement C: AMH is a messaging interface able to connect to other financial networks, not only SWIFT

This is true. AMH is not limited to SWIFT messaging; it can connect to other financial networks, such as domestic payment systems, real-time gross settlement (RTGS) systems, or proprietary networks. AMH acts as a universal messaging hub, supporting multiple protocols and standards beyond SWIFT’s ecosystem (e.g., FIX for securities trading). This capability is well-documented in SWIFT’s AMH product overview, positioning it as a flexible solution for institutions with diverse connectivity needs.

•Statement D: All of the above

Since all three statements (A, B, and C) are true, this option is the correct answer. AMH’s design for resilience, advanced integration, and multi-network connectivity makes it a comprehensive messaging solution.

Summary of Correct Answer:

All statements about AMH are true, making "All of the above" (D) the correct choice.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.1 emphasizes resilience, which AMH supports through its architecture.

•SWIFT Alliance Messaging Hub Documentation: Highlights AMH’s multi-site resilience, integration capabilities, and support for non-SWIFT networks.

•SWIFT Product Overview: Describes AMH as a universal messaging hub for SWIFT and other financial networks.

========

SWIFT, which stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is a global member-owned cooperative that provides a network for financial institutions to securely exchange information, primarily for financial transactions. Let’s break down the options and evaluate them against SWIFT’s official services as outlined in the SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP) and related documentation.

Option A: A platform for messagingThis is correct. SWIFT’s core function is to provide a secure, standardized messaging platform for financial institutions to exchange information. SWIFT operates a messaging network that enables banks, financial institutions, and other entities to send and receive standardized financial messages (such as payment instructions, securities transactions, and trade messages). This is facilitated through services like SWIFTNet, which is the messaging infrastructure that ensures secure and reliable communication. The SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) emphasizes the security of this messaging platform, with controls designed to protect the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the messaging environment. For example, the CSCF includes controls like "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection," which ensures the messaging platform is isolated and secure.

Option B: Standards for communicatingThis is also correct. SWIFT is well-known for developing and maintaining global standards for financial messaging, most notably the SWIFT message types (MT) and the newer ISO 20022 standard, which is increasingly being adopted for cross-border payments and reporting. These standards define the format and structure of messages, ensuring consistency and interoperability across the global financial community. For instance, a payment instruction sent via SWIFT follows a standardized format (e.g., MT103 for a customer payment), which ensures that the sending and receiving institutions can process it efficiently. The SWIFT CSP documentation, including the CSCF, indirectly references these standards by focusing on the secure transmission of standardized messages, as seen in controls like "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security," which ensures data integrity during communication.

Option C: Hosting for financial institutionsThis is incorrect. SWIFT does not provide hosting services for financial institutions. SWIFT’s role is focused on messaging and standards, not on hosting infrastructure like data centers or cloud services for financial institutions. While SWIFT does offer some cloud-based connectivity options (e.g., Alliance Cloud for smaller institutions to connect to the SWIFT network), this is not the same as providing hosting services for the institutions’ broader IT operations. Hosting infrastructure is typically managed by the institutions themselves or third-party providers, and the CSCF emphasizes that institutions are responsible for securing their own environments (e.g., Control "6.1 Security Awareness" highlights the need for institutions to manage their own security).

Option D: A high-level programming languageThis is incorrect. SWIFT does not provide a programming language. SWIFT’s focus is on messaging protocols and standards, not on developing or providing programming languages.Financial institutions may use various programming languages (like Java, Python, or C++) to integrate with SWIFT’s messaging system via APIs or interfaces like SWIFT Alliance Access, but SWIFT itself does not develop or distribute programming languages. The CSCF does not reference programming languages as a SWIFT offering; instead, it focuses on secure integration with SWIFT services, such as Control "2.3 System Hardening," which ensures that systems interacting with SWIFT are secure.

Summary of Correct Answers:SWIFT provides a platform for messaging (Option A) through its SWIFTNet network and standards for communicating (Option B) via its message formats like MT and ISO 20022. The other options—hosting services and a high-level programming language—are not part of SWIFT’s offerings.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: The CSCF outlines the security controls that protect the SWIFT messaging environment, emphasizing SWIFT’s role in secure messaging (e.g., Control 1.1, 2.1).

SWIFT User Handbook: Details SWIFT’s messaging services and standards, including SWIFTNet and message types like MT and ISO 20022.

SWIFT CSP Implementation Guide: Highlights that institutions are responsible for their own infrastructure, ruling out hosting as a SWIFT service.

This question determines which components in the outsourcing agent diagram are in scope and applicable for the Swift user under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand CSCF Scope and the Diagram

TheCSCF v2024defines the scope as systems directly involved in Swift messaging, connectivity, or security within the user’s control or responsibility, including those managed by outsourcing agents. The diagram includes:

A. Middleware server (customer connector): Part of the Swift user’s environment.

B. General-purpose PC Operator GUI: An operator system in the user’s environment.

C. Swift-related OAA: The messaging interface in the outsourcing agent’s environment.

D. Customer connector: A connector in the outsourcing agent’s environment interfacing with the next service provider.

E. Dedicated PC Admin users: Administrative systems in the outsourcing agent’s environment.

TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkholds the Swift user accountable for in-scope components, even when outsourced, perControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection.

Step 2: Analyze Component Applicability

A. Middleware server (customer connector): Located in the Swift user’s environment, this connects to the outsourcing agent. While it facilitates Swift traffic, it is typically considered part of the user’s local infrastructure and not directly in the outsourcing agent’s scope for user responsibility, unless explicitly outsourced. TheCSCF v2024scope focuses on Swift-related systems managed by the outsourcing agent when the user relies on them.

B. General-purpose PC Operator GUI: This is a user-side operator system, not a core Swift component. PerControl 1.2: Logical Access Control, it is out of the secure zone and not in scope for the outsourcing agent’s responsibility.

C. Swift-related OAA: This is the messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) managed by the outsourcing agent. It is in scope for the Swift user, as they are responsible for its security and compliance, perControl 1.1.

D. Customer connector: This connector, within the outsourcing agent’s environment, interfaces with the next service provider (e.g., SB, L2BA). It is in scope, as the user must ensure its security underControl 1.1.

E. Dedicated PC Admin users: These administrative systems, managed by the outsourcing agent, are in scope because they control Swift-related components, perControl 1.2.

Step 3: Match with Options

A. Components A, B, C, D and E: Includes A and B, which are not in scope for the outsourcing agent’s responsibility under the user’s purview.

B. Components A and B: Only includes user-side components, not the outsourcing agent’s in-scope systems.

C. Components C, D and E: Includes the outsourcing agent’s Swift-related OAA, customer connector, and admin PCs, which are in scope for the user’s compliance responsibility.

D. None of the above: Incorrect, as C, D, and E are applicable.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isC, as Components C, D, and E, managed by the outsourcing agent, are in scope and applicable for the Swift user’s compliance under theCSCF v2024.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection, Control 1.2: Logical Access Control.

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Outsourcing Scope.

Swift Outsourcing Guidelines, Section: User Responsibility.

The restriction of Internet access is a key control under the CSCF, specifically tied to Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection," which mandates that SWIFT-related components in the secure zone be isolated from the general IT environment and the Internet to prevent unauthorized access and attacks. Let’s evaluate the options:

•Option A: Yes, because if there is no secure zone, then the internet connectivity does not need to be restricted

This is incorrect. The CSCF applies to all SWIFT users, regardless of whether they maintain a local secure zone. Even if SWIFT-related components (e.g., a customer connector or operator PC) are hosted externally (e.g., by a service provider), the user’s endpoints (e.g., operator PCs accessing the application) must still adhere to security controls, including restricting Internet access where applicable. The "Independent Assessment Framework" requires assessing all in-scope components, not just those in a secure zone.

•Option B: No, because there can be in-scope general operator PCs used to access a SWIFT-related application hosted at a service provider

This is correct. General operator PCs used to access SWIFT-related applications (e.g., Alliance Lite2 Business Application hosted by a service provider) are in scope of the CSCF, as they handle sensitive SWIFT data or credentials. Control "1.1" and "6.1 Security Awareness" require these PCs to have restricted Internet access to prevent malware or unauthorized access, even if the application is hosted externally. The "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" includes such endpoints in the assessment scope, making Internet access restriction relevant beyond the secure zone.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The restriction of Internet access is not only relevant when having SWIFT-related components in a secure zone; it applies to in-scope general operator PCs accessing hosted applications (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 1.1 mandates Internet access restriction for in-scope components.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Includes operator PCs in scope, even with external hosting.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Applies controls to endpoints accessing SWIFT services.

========

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.

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.

========

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.