Free Swift CSP-Assessor Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" and "Independent Assessment Framework" outline conditions for relying on previous assessments. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: The control compliance conclusion must have already been relied on the past two years

This does not apply. There is no requirement that reliance has been used for two prior years; reliance is assessed annually based on current conditions, per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option B: The previous assessment was performed on the CSCF version of the previous year (at least)

This does not apply. The CSCF version must match the current assessment year (e.g., v2025 for a 2025 assessment), not the previous year, to ensure alignment with updated controls, as per the "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025."

•Option C: The control definition has not changed

This applies. Reliance is permitted only if the control’s definition remains unchanged from the previous assessment, ensuring the prior conclusion remains relevant, as noted in the "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025."

•Option D: The control design and implementation are the same

This applies. The assessor must confirm that the control’s design and implementation have not changed since the last assessment, as required by the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" to validate ongoing compliance.

Summary of Correct Answers:

Reliance is allowed if the control definition has not changed (C) and the control design and implementation are the same (D).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Lists conditions for reliance.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires unchanged definitions and designs.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports reliance criteria.

========

The diagram shows a SWIFT user environment with an outsourcing agent and next service provider(s). Components are labeled as follows:

•A: Middleware connector (customer connector) - Part of the SWIFT user premises.

•B: Operator GUI - Part of the SWIFT user premises, used for operator interaction.

•C: SWIFT-related application, Admin users, client - Part of the outsourcing agent’s environment.

•D: Connectors or interfaces - Part of the outsourcing agent’s environment, connecting to SWIFT.

•E: Application PC, Admin PC - Part of the outsourcing agent’s environment.

•Next Service Provider(s), SWIFT, SWIFT network - External entities.

CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" requires that all SWIFT-related components handling sensitive data or connectivity within the user’s control be placed in a secure zone. The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" extends this to components managed by outsourcing agents. Let’s analyze:

•SWIFT User premises (A, B): The middleware connector (A) must be in a secure zone as it handles SWIFT data. The Operator GUI (B) is typically outside the secure zone unless it directly processes SWIFT data, but best practice includes securing it.

•Outsourcing Agent(s) (C, D, E): The SWIFT-related application and connectors/interfaces (C, D) must be in a secure zone, as they process SWIFT transactions. Application/Admin PCs (E) are support systems and may not require secure zone placement unless directly involved.

•External entities (Next Service Provider(s), SWIFT, SWIFT network): These are out of the user’s control and not placed in the user’s secure zone.

The question asks for components in the SWIFT user premises and outsourcing agent environment. Per CSCF, the secure zone includes:

•A (Middleware connector): Must be in the secure zone.

•C (SWIFT-related application): Must be in the secure zone (outsourcing agent’s responsibility).

•D (Connectors/interfaces): Must be in the secure zone (outsourcing agent’s responsibility).

•B (Operator GUI) and E (Application/Admin PCs): Typically outside unless integrated into the secure zone.

Option D (Components A, C, D) aligns with the mandatory secure zone components (middleware connector, SWIFT application, and connectors/interfaces), excluding non-essential support systems.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Components A, C, and D must be placed in a secure zone (D).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 1.1 defines secure zone requirements.

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Extends secure zone to outsourced components.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Specifies secure zone placement.

========

This question pertains to the default user roles available in Alliance Cloud, a SWIFT cloud-based messaging solution:

Step 1: Alliance Cloud Overview

Alliance Cloud provides a hosted messaging service (e.g., for Alliance Lite2 or RMA), with predefined roles for managing operations, security, and messages. Default roles are outlined in the product documentation.

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 and options:

•A customer connector is a component (e.g., a custom application or integration layer) that connects to SWIFT services, such as through the SWIFT API or a messaging interface. It handles data flows but is not a standard SWIFT-provided interface.

•A 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 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.

•In this case, the user owns a customer connector and a communication interface but does not mention owning a messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access). This matches the A2 architecture type, where the user manages a custom integration (connector) and the communication layer (e.g., SAG), while the messaging interface is provided by another party (e.g., a service bureau or SWIFT-hosted environment). The "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" confirms this classification, and the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls" applies A2-specific requirements.

•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 customer connector and communication interface without a messaging interface.

•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 customer connector and a communication interface 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 customer connector and communication interface ownership.

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

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 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.

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 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.

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.

========

CSCF Control "4.2 Intrusion Detection" requires SWIFT users to detect unauthorized access or activities within the SWIFT environment. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" allows flexibility in meeting this control using various technologies. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: NIDS (Network Intrusion Detection System)

This is valid. NIDS monitors network traffic to detect intrusions (e.g., on VPN boxes), aligning with Control "4.2" by identifying external threats.

•Option B: HIDS (Host Intrusion Detection System)

This is valid. HIDS monitors individual hosts (e.g., servers running Alliance Access) for suspicious activities, supporting Control "4.2" for internal threat detection.

•Option C: EDR and XDR (Endpoint Detection and Response, Extended Detection and Response)

This is valid. EDR and XDR provide advanced monitoring and response capabilities for endpoints and across environments, meeting Control "4.2" requirements for detecting and responding to intrusions.

•Option D: A combination of all of the above

This is correct. The CSCF encourages a layered security approach, and the "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" and "Assessment template for Mandatory controls" accept a combination of NIDS, HIDS, EDR, and XDR to comprehensively meet Control "4.2," depending on the architecture and risk profile.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Intrusion Detection Control can be met through a combination of NIDS, HIDS, EDR, and XDR (D).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 4.2 allows multiple detection technologies.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports combined approaches.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Includes various intrusion detection methods.

========