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

The SWIFT CSP requires users to maintain compliance with the CSCF controls and submit attestations via the KYC-SA (Know Your Customer - Security Attestation) portal. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" outline the process for handling non-compliance. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: The user must remediate all the exceptions within 3 months before submitting the CSP attestation in KYC-SA

This is incorrect. While SWIFT encourages prompt remediation, there is no strict 3-month deadline mandated by the CSP for resolving all exceptions before submission. The "Independent Assessment Framework" allows submission with open exceptions, provided they are documented and a remediation plan is in place.

•Option B: The SWIFT user may remediate the exceptions and then re-submit an attestation reflecting the new compliance status, but only after compliance validation by the same independent assessor

This is incorrect. The CSP does not require the same independent assessor to re-validate compliance. Any certified assessor can perform the follow-up assessment, as per the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option C: The SWIFT user may remediate the exceptions and re-submit an updated attestation reflecting the new compliance status but only after compliance validation by an independent assessor

This is correct. The "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" and "Independent Assessment Framework" allow users to remediate exceptions and submit an updated attestation. However, the updated compliance status must be validated by an independent assessor to ensure objectivity and meet CSP requirements. The user can submit an initial attestation with exceptions, followed by a re-assessment after remediation.

•Option D: The attestation cannot be submitted before all exceptions are resolved

This is incorrect. The CSP permits submission of an attestation with open exceptions, provided they are disclosed and a remediation plan is submitted, as outlined in the "CSCF Assessment Completion Letter" guidelines.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The SWIFT user may remediate exceptions and re-submit an updated attestation after validation by an independent assessor (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Allows submission with exceptions and remediation plans.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Requires independent validation for updated attestations.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Supports re-assessment after remediation.

========

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.

========

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answers:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Tests database integrity measures.

========

The 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:

•A local 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 user owns this interface locally as their main channel.

•A connector (or customer connector) is a custom application or integration layer that connects to SWIFT services, often used as an alternative or backup channel. In this case, it serves as a contingency backup.

•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.

•The scenario indicates the user owns a local communication interface (e.g., SAG) as the primary channel and a connector as a backup. However, there is no mention of owning a messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) locally. This suggests the messaging interface is likely hosted externally (e.g., by a service bureau or SWIFT), which aligns with the A2 architecture type. The "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" classifies A2 as a user with a communication interface and a customer connector, where the messaging interface is not locally owned. The backup connector does not change the primary architecture type, as it is an additional component within the A2 framework.

•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 communication interface and a customer connector, with the messaging interface potentially hosted elsewhere.

•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 local communication interface as the main channel and a connector as a backup 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 communication interface and customer connector ownership.

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

========

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.

This question examines the applicability of internet access restrictions under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand Internet Access Restrictions

Control 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restrictionof theCSCF v2024requires restricting internet access for Swift-related components to minimize exposure, applicable to both secure zones and other in-scope systems.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The question asks if the restriction is only relevant when Swift-related components are in a secure zone, implying a scope limitation.

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option

A. Yes, because if there is no secure zone then the internet connectivity does not need to be restrictedIncorrect.Control 2.6applies to all in-scope components, not just those in secure zones. For example, operator PCs accessing hosted applications (e.g., via A3 architecture) must have restricted internet access, per theSwift Security Best Practices.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. No, because there can be in-scope general operator PCs used to access a Swift-related application hosted at a service providerCorrect. General operator PCs (e.g., Component B in the diagram) are in scope when accessing Swift applications (e.g., hosted by a service provider in A3 architecture).Control 2.6requires internet restriction for these systems, even outside a secure zone, as confirmed in theCSCF v2024andSwift Outsourcing Guidelines.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, asControl 2.6mandates internet access restrictions for all in-scope components, including operator PCs accessing hosted Swift applications, not just those in secure zones.

References

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

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Internet Access Controls.

Swift Outsourcing Guidelines, Section: Operator PC Security.

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.

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.

In a fully on-premises infrastructure, all SWIFT-related components (e.g., Alliance Gateway, SwiftNet Link, HSM) are hosted and managed locally by the customer. This setup contrasts with cloud-based deployments (e.g., Alliance Cloud), where some management is outsourced to SWIFT or third-party providers. The security management profiles refer to roles responsible for overseeing the security of the SWIFT environment. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Alliance Security Officer (LSO/RSO)

This is involved. The Local Security Officer (LSO) and Remote Security Officer (RSO) are roles defined by SWIFT for managing security settings within the Alliance suite (e.g., Alliance Gateway, Alliance Access). In an on-premises setup, the LSO/RSO is typically an internal staff member who configures security parameters, manages user access, and ensures compliance with CSCF controls like "6.1 Security Awareness." These roles are mandatory for on-premises deployments.

•Option B: HSM Administrator

This is involved. The HSM Administrator is responsible for managing the Hardware Security Module, which stores PKI certificates and performs cryptographic operations. In an on-premises environment, the customer maintains the HSM locally, and the HSM Administrator oversees its configuration and security, aligning with CSCF Control "1.3 Cryptographic Failover." This role is essential for on-premises security management.

•Option C: swift.com Administrator

This is not involved. The "swift.com Administrator" is not a standard SWIFT-defined role. It appears to be a misnomer or typo, possibly intended to refer to a SWIFT-hosted service administrator (e.g., someone managing swift.com-related cloud services). In a fully on-premises infrastructure, there is no reliance on SWIFT-hosted services or cloud management, as all components are locally controlled. SWIFT’s cloud offerings (e.g., Alliance Cloud) involve administrators managing SWIFT-hosted infrastructure, but this is irrelevant in an on-premises context. The CSCF does not reference a "swift.com Administrator" role for on-premises setups.

•Option D: Customer Security Officer

This is involved. The Customer Security Officer is a role mandated by the SWIFT CSP, responsible for overseeing the institution’s compliance with the CSCF. In an on-premises environment, this officer ensures that local security controls (e.g., physical security under Control "1.2") are implemented and audited, making this role essential.

Summary of Correct Answer:

In a fully on-premises infrastructure, the "swift.com Administrator" (Option C) is not involved, as it does not apply to locally managed environments and is likely a reference to a cloud-based role.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Defines roles like LSO/RSO, HSM Administrator, and Customer Security Officer for on-premises security (Controls 1.1, 1.3, 6.1).

•SWIFT Alliance Documentation: Describes the LSO/RSO and HSM Administrator roles in on-premises deployments.

•SWIFT CSP Compliance Guidelines: Mandates the Customer Security Officer role for all SWIFT users, including on-premises setups.

========

Additional Notes

•Typing Corrections: Corrected "ijp" to "P" for consistency in category labels. Adjusted "c" to "C" and "0" to "D" in question options for proper formatting.

•Context of Categories: The categories ("Connectivity," "Generic," "Products Cloud," "Products OnPrem," "Security") likely indicate the scope of the certification test, with "Products OnPrem" being relevant to Questions 4 and 5.

•SWIFT CSP Alignment: Answers align with the CSP’s focus on security roles and infrastructure types, as documented in the CSCF and SWIFT operational guides.

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.