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

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

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

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

•Option B: For documentation purpose

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answers:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

•Independent Assessment Framework: Supports documentation and review.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Relies on documented records.

========

This question 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 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.

========

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.

========

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires a single independent assessor.

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

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Reflects a unified assessment process.

========

This question examines whether an internal audit department can submit and approve a Swift user’s attestation on the KYC-SA Swift portal.

Step 1: Understand Attestation Process

TheIndependent Assessment FrameworkandCSCF v2024require attestations to be submitted by an independent party or authorized user representative, not the internal audit department, to ensure objectivity.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Yes, providing this is agreed by the head of IT operations and the CISOInternal audit cannot submit or approve attestations, regardless of internal agreements, per theIndependent Assessment Framework.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. No, this is never an optionTheCSCF v2024andSwift CSP Compliance Guidelinesprohibit internal audit from submitting or approving attestations, as they lack independence from the audited entity.Conclusion: Correct.

C. Yes, an internal auditor can submit the attestation for approval provided they have the appropriate credentials for swift.com. The CISO remains in charge of the approval of the attestationIncorrect. Internal auditors cannot submit or approve, even with credentials, due to independence requirements.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. Yes, with approval from the Chief auditorIncorrect. Chief auditor approval does not override the independence requirement.Conclusion: Incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkprohibit internal audit from submitting or approving attestations.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Attestation Submission.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Independence Requirements.

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

Step 1: Understand the Scenario

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

Step 2: Define Swift Architecture Types

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

A1: Messaging Interface Only (Local Deployment)

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

Connectivity to Swift is direct and locally managed.

A2: Messaging Interface with Connectivity Service (External Connectivity)

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

The connection point is exposed externally to the service provider.

A3: Hosted Messaging Interface

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

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

A4: Group Hub or Shared Connectivity

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

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

Step 3: Analyze the Scenario Against Architecture Types

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

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

Service Provider or Group Hub:

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

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

Step 4: Match to Architecture Types

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

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

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

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

Step 5: Conclusion and Verification

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Swift CSP FAQ, clarifying connectivity and hosting scenarios.

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

Step 1: Understand Alliance Lite2 Components

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

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

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

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

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

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

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

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

References

Swift Alliance Lite2 User Guide, Section: System Components.

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

Swift Alliance Lite2 Technical Documentation, Section: Architecture.

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.

========