Pass the Swift Customer Security Programme Assessor Certification(CSPAC) CSP-Assessor Questions and answers with ValidTests

SWIFT Alliance Cloud is a managed cloud service provided by SWIFT to deliver a fully hosted SWIFT infrastructure, reducing the local footprint for users. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT cloud-based solution. It provides a universal channel to the financial community and to SWIFT Value Added services and initiatives

This is partially correct but incomplete. Alliance Cloud is indeed a SWIFT-managed cloud solution, and it facilitates connectivity to the financial community and SWIFT Value Added Services (e.g., SWIFT gpi, Sanctions Screening). However, the term "universal channel" is vague and not a precise description of Alliance Cloud’s functionality, which is more accurately defined as a hosted messaging and connectivity platform. This option lacks specificity about the deployment model.

•Option B: Alliance Cloud is a cloud-based solution. It is offered by the 3 official public cloud providers. This allows customers the choice to select their preferred cloud provider

This is incorrect. Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT-managed service deployed on specific public cloud providers approved by SWIFT, not a solution where customers can choose any of the "3 official public cloud providers." SWIFT partners with select providers (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud) but controls the deployment and configuration, limiting customer choice to SWIFT-approved instances.

•Option C: Alliance Cloud is a cloud-based solution. It is offered by any public cloud provider that subscribed to the digital connectivity initiative

This is incorrect. Alliance Cloud is not available on any public cloud provider that subscribes to a "digital connectivity initiative." It is hosted exclusively on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers, ensuring compliance with SWIFT’s security and operational standards. The term "digital connectivity initiative" is not a recognized framework in SWIFT documentation for Alliance Cloud.

•Option D: Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT cloud-based solution. It consists of an Alliance Access instance deployed at one of the three SWIFT-approved public cloud providers

This is correct. Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT-managed cloud solution that includes a hosted Alliance Access instance (a messaging interface) deployed on one of the three SWIFT-approved public cloud providers (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud). This setup provides a fully managed environment for SWIFT connectivity, reducing the user’s local infrastructure needs. The CSCF applies to this cloud deployment, with SWIFT managing many security controls (e.g., "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection"). SWIFT documentation confirms this model, emphasizing the use of approved providers.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The correct statement is D, accurately describing Alliance Cloud as a SWIFT-managed solution with an Alliance Access instance on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Supports cloud deployments on approved providers (Control 1.1).

•SWIFT Alliance Cloud Documentation: Details the deployment on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers with Alliance Access.

•SWIFT Cloud Partnership Guidelines: Lists approved providers like AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.

========

A Hardware Security Module (HSM) box in the SWIFT context is a secure device used to manage cryptographic keys and perform security operations, such as signing and encryption for SWIFT transactions. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Private keys

This is correct. The primary function of an HSM box in the SWIFT environment is to securely store and manage private keys, which are part of the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) used for asymmetric cryptography. Private keys are used for signing messages to ensure authenticity and integrity, and for decryption to maintain confidentiality. The HSM protects these private keys from unauthorized access, aligning with CSCF Control "1.3 Cryptographic Failover," which mandates the use of HSMs to safeguard cryptographic materials. SWIFT documentation specifies that private keys are stored within the HSM, while public keys are distributed separately (e.g., via certificates).

•Option B: Public keys

This is incorrect. Public keys are not stored in the HSM box. Instead, they are embedded in PKI certificates and distributed to other parties (e.g., SWIFT or counterparties) for verification and encryption purposes. The HSM’s role is to protect the sensitive private keys, not to store public keys, which are openly shared as part of the PKI ecosystem.

•Option C: Both private and public keys

This is incorrect. While the HSM may temporarily handle public keys during cryptographic operations (e.g., for certificate validation), its primary and secure storage function is limited to private keys. Storing both types of keys is not a standard practice in SWIFT’s HSM usage, as public keys are managed outside the HSM in certificate repositories or directories.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The HSM box stores private keys (A), ensuring the security of cryptographic operations in the SWIFT environment.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.3 mandates HSMs for storing private keys securely.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: Details the HSM’s role in managing private keys for PKI operations.

•SWIFT HSM Documentation: Confirms that private keys are stored in the HSM, with public keys managed externally.

========

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.

========

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.

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.

SwiftNet Security Officers (e.g., Local Security Officer [LSO] or Remote Security Officer [RSO]) are responsible for managing security functions in the SWIFT environment, such as configuring accesscontrols and managing PKI certificates. Authentication for online access to SwiftNet services (e.g., via the Alliance Web Platform) is a critical security measure. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Via their PKI certificate

This is incorrect. While PKI certificates are used for authenticating and signing SWIFT messages or securing communications, they are not the primary method for authenticating security officers’ online access to SwiftNet management interfaces. PKI certificates are managed by the HSM and used by applications or users for message-level security, not for logging into administrative portals.

•Option B: Via their swift.com account and secure code card

This is correct. Online SwiftNet Security Officers are authenticated using a combination of their swift.com account (a username and password managed through SWIFT’s customer portal) and a secure code card (a physical or virtual token providing a one-time password or multi-factor authentication code). This two-factor authentication (2FA) method ensures robust access control, aligning with CSCF Control "6.1 Security Awareness" and SWIFT’s emphasis on multi-layered security. SWIFT documentation for the Alliance suite and SwiftNet confirms this authentication process for security officers accessing online tools.

•Option C: Via their swift.com account

This is incorrect. Relying solely on a swift.com account (username and password) is insufficient for authenticating security officers, as it lacks the additional security layer required for sensitive administrative access. SWIFT mandates multi-factor authentication, typically involving a secure code card, to comply with security standards.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Online SwiftNet Security Officers are authenticated via their swift.com account and secure code card (B), ensuring secure access to management functions.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 6.1 supports multi-factor authentication for security officers.

•SWIFT Alliance Security Documentation: Details the use of swift.com accounts and secure code cards for LSO/RSO authentication.

•SWIFT SwiftNet Guidelines: Confirms 2FA for online security officer access.

========

This question addresses the type of control effectiveness that must be validated during an independent assessment under the Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP). Let’s analyze this based on theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF)and related guidelines.

Step 1: Understand Independent Assessments in Swift CSP

The Swift CSP mandates that users undergo an independent assessment to validate their compliance with the CSCF controls. This requirement is detailed in theCSCF v2024, under theIndependent Assessment Framework. The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that controls are not only designed appropriately but also implemented and operating effectively.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Effectiveness is never validated only the control designThis statement is incorrect. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkexplicitly requiresvalidation of both the design and theoperational effectivenessof controls. Assessing only the design without confirming that the control is working as intended does not meet Swift’s compliance requirements.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

B. An independent assessment is a point in time review with possible reviews of older evidence as appropriateWhile this statement is factually true (an independent assessment is indeed a point-in-time review, as per theCSCF v2024), it does not directly answer the question about what type of control effectiveness needs to be validated. It describes the nature of the assessment, not the focus of validation.Conclusion: This does not address the question directly.

C. Operational effectiveness needs to be validatedTheIndependent Assessment Frameworkspecifies that an independent assessment must validate both the design and the operational effectiveness of CSCF controls. Operational effectiveness ensures that controls are functioning as intended over a period of time, not just designed correctly on paper. This includes testing controls (e.g., logging, access controls) to confirm they are working in practice, as required for attestation.Conclusion: This is correct.

D. None of the aboveSince option C is correct, this option is not applicable.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isC, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequire validation of the operational effectiveness of controls during an independent assessment, ensuring that controls are not only designed but also implemented and functioning effectively.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Assessment Scope and Objectives.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Independent Assessment Guidelines.

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.

Bridging servers facilitate data exchange between the back-office systems (e.g., Treasury Management Systems) and the SWIFT infrastructure (e.g., Alliance Access or Gateway). The CSCF scope includes components that handle SWIFT-related data or connectivity. Let’s evaluate:

•The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" defines the secure zone and includes internal data transmission components. Bridging servers, as part of the data flow between back-office and SWIFT infrastructure, are considered in scope, particularly under Control "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security" (mandatory) and related advisory controls (e.g., 2.3 System Hardening).

•The "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" includes such servers when they are part of the SWIFT environment, even if some controls are advisory depending on the architecture (e.g., A1 or A2).

•The "Assessment template for Advisory controls" applies to bridging servers for non-mandatory measures, while mandatory controls ensure secure data exchange.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Bridging servers are in scope of CSCF security controls, with some being advisory (TRUE).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 2.1 includes bridging servers.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Lists applicable controls.

•Assessment template for Advisory controls: Applies to bridging servers.

========

The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" and "Independent Assessment Framework" address reliance on outsourcing agents’ assessments. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, after confirmation and validation of the scope

This is correct. The SWIFT user can rely on the outsourcing agent’s independent assessment report if it covers the relevant CSP components and uses the latest CSCF version. However, the user’s assessor must confirm and validate the scope and findings to ensure alignment with the user’s attestation, as per the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option B: Yes, only if the outsourcing agent is a global trusted provider and published the report on their compliance portal

This is incorrect. The CSP does not require the outsourcing agent to be a "global trusted provider" or publish the report publicly; validation by the user’s assessor is sufficient.

•Option C: No, an audit report (and not an assessment) is required from the outsourcing agent as an external provider

This is incorrect. An independent assessment report is acceptable, not necessarily an audit report, as long as it meets CSCF standards, per the "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025."

•Option D: No, except if the cloud provider components are partially covered by the SWIFT Alliance Connect Virtual programme

This is incorrect. The Alliance Connect Virtual programme’s coverage is irrelevant; the key is the report’s validity and scope validation.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The report is sufficient after confirmation and validation of the scope (A).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Allows reliance on agent assessments.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Requires scope validation.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Supports integrated reporting.

========