CSP-Assessor Exam Dumps - Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP) Questions and Answers

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 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.

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.

This question pertains to the scope of controls assessed under the SWIFT CSP assessment process:

Step 1: Understand CSCF Control Types

The SWIFT CSCF (e.g., v2024) categorizes controls intoMandatoryandAdvisory. Mandatory controls are required for all SWIFT users to attest compliance, while Advisory controls are recommended but not obligatory for attestation.

CSCF Control "1.2 Physical Security" requires SWIFT users to protect the physical locations of SWIFT-related servers and infrastructure from unauthorized access. Let’s evaluate:

•The control mandates measures such as restricting physical access, using surveillance, and maintaining an access control list for individuals entering server locations.

•Regular review of physical access lists is explicitly included to ensure that only authorized personnel have access and to identify any anomalies or outdated permissions. This is part of the ongoing monitoring requirement under CSCF Control "1.2" and is detailed in the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls."

•The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" emphasize this as a mandatory practice to maintain physical security integrity.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The Physical Security control includes a regular review of physical access lists (TRUE).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 1.2 requires access list reviews.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Includes this as a compliance criterion.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Tests for regular access list reviews.

Application Hardening is a key concept within theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF), specifically addressed under security controls related to protecting systems and reducing vulnerabilities. The CSCF outlines principles to secure applications by minimizing risks, particularly in the context of Swift-related systems. Let’s break down the options and verify them against Swift CSP guidelines.

Step 1: Understand Application Hardening in the Context of Swift CSP

Application Hardening refers to the process of securing an application by reducing its attack surface, limiting access, and mitigating potential vulnerabilities. This aligns with Swift CSP’s overarching goal of enhancing the security of the Swift user community, as outlined in theCSCF v2024(and prior versions like CSCF v2023). Relevant controls fall under domains likeControl Objective 2: Protect Critical SystemsandControl Objective 6: Detect Anomalous Activity.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option Against Swift CSP Principles

A. Least PrivilegesThe principle of least privilege is a core tenet of application hardening. It ensures that applications (and users) only have the minimum permissions necessary to perform their functions, reducing the risk of misuse or exploitation. This is explicitly referenced in theCSCF v2024, underControl 2.1: Operating System Privileged Account Control, which emphasizes restricting privileges to the minimum required. Application Hardening extends this to software processes, ensuring they run with minimal rights.Conclusion: This applies.

B. Access on a need to haveThis principle, often phrased as “need-to-know” or “need-to-have” in security contexts, ensures that access to applications or their components is granted only to entities that require it for their role. In the Swift CSP, this aligns withControl 2.3: System Access Control, which mandates that access to Swift-related systems (including applications) is restricted to authorized users or processes. Application Hardening incorporates this by ensuring that applications only expose interfaces or resources to authorized entities.Conclusion: This applies.

C. Reduced footprint for less potential vulnerabilitiesReducing the attack surface (or “footprint”) of an application is a fundamental hardening technique. This involves disabling unnecessary features, services, or modules that could be exploited. TheCSCF v2024addresses this underControl 2.5A: Application Hardening, which explicitly requires users to minimize the attack surface of Swift-related applications by removing unused components and limiting exposed services. This directly correlates with reducing potential vulnerabilities.Conclusion: This applies.

D. Enhanced Straight Through Processing (STP)Straight Through Processing refers to the automated, end-to-end processing of transactions without manual intervention, a concept often associated with operational efficiency in financial systems. While STP is relevant to Swift’s messaging and transaction workflows, it is not a principle of Application Hardening. The CSCF does not link STP to security hardening practices, which focus on reducing vulnerabilities rather than optimizing transaction flows.Conclusion: This does not apply.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

Application Hardening, as per theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF), focuses on security principles that minimize risks to applications. The verified principles areLeast Privileges (A),Access on a need to have (B), andReduced footprint for less potential vulnerabilities (C). These align with Swift CSP’s emphasis on securing critical systems and reducing attack surfaces.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.5A: Application Hardening.

Swift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices, Section: Application Security.

CSCF v2024, Control 2.1: Operating System Privileged Account Control, and Control 2.3: System Access Control.

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 Policy" and "Independent Assessment Framework" outline the consequences of non-compliance with the CSP. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: To be reported to their supervisors (if applicable)

This does not apply. Non-compliance is managed by SWIFT, not internal reporting to supervisors, unless specified by the user’s internal governance (not a CSP requirement).

•Option B: To be seen as non-compliant to their counterparts in KYC-SA

This applies. Non-compliance is reflected in the KYC-SA portal, where counterparties can view the user’s status, impacting trust and business relationships, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option C: To be contacted by SWIFT to provide the CSP assessment report and detailed information about the reason of non-compliance

This applies. SWIFT engages with non-compliant users, requesting assessment reports and remediation plans, as outlined in the "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option D: To be delisted from the BIC directory

This does not apply. Delisting is an extreme measure not automatically triggered by non-compliance; it requires persistent failure to remediate after engagement, which is not guaranteed.

Summary of Correct Answers:

Possible impacts include being seen as non-compliant in KYC-SA (B) and being contacted by SWIFT for reports (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Details non-compliance impacts.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Supports SWIFT follow-up.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Reflects KYC-SA visibility.

========

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

Step 1: Understand CSP Assessment Deliverables

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

Step 2: Analyze the Requirement for a Completion Letter

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

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

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

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

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

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Deliverables and Attestation.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Assessment Submission Process.

This question addresses the implementation requirements for CSCF security controls.

Step 1: Understand CSCF Compliance

TheCSCF v2024emphasizes achieving control objectives and mitigating risk drivers for in-scope components, allowing flexibility in implementation, as perControl Objectives Overview.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. A solution that maps the implementation guidelines described for a controls in scope componentsWhile implementation guidelines exist, strict adherence is not mandatory. TheCSCF v2024allows custom solutions if they meet objectives.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. A solution that meets the control objectives and addresses the risk drivers for the in scope componentsTheCSCF v2024andSwift CSP FAQrequire solutions to align with control objectives (e.g., security, detection) and mitigate identified risks, offering flexibility in approach.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as theCSCF v2024prioritizes meeting objectives and addressing risks over rigid guideline mapping.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Section: Control Objectives.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Implementation Flexibility.