CSP-Assessor Customer Security Programme Assessor Certification(CSPAC) 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.

========

The Swift Alliance Gateway is a critical component in the Swift ecosystem, designed to facilitate secure messaging and connectivity. Let’s evaluate each option based on theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024and related documentation.

Step 1: Understand the Role of Swift Alliance Gateway

The Swift Alliance Gateway (SAG) is a software component that serves as a centralized entry point for SwiftNet messaging services. It handles traffic concentration, security, and connectivity management. This is detailed in theSwift Alliance Gateway User Guideand referenced in theCSCF v2024underControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. It acts as the single window to SwiftNet messaging services by concentrating your traffic flowsThe SAG is designed to consolidate and manage all SwiftNet traffic from a user’s environment,acting as a single point of access to SwiftNet services. This is a primary function, as confirmed in theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentationand aligns withControl 1.1, which emphasizes secure traffic management.Conclusion: This statement is correct.

B. It allows sharing of PKI profiles between application or individuals, through the use of virtual profilesThe SAG supports the use of virtual PKI profiles to enable secure sharing of cryptographic identities across applications or users within the Swift environment. This feature enhances flexibility while maintaining security, as noted in theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Management.Conclusion: This statement is correct.

C. It allows the creation and/or modification of some Swift messages (depending on the types &/or formats)The SAG is a gateway for message routing and security, not a tool for creating or modifying Swift messages. Message creation and modification are handled by applications like Alliance Access or Entry, not the Gateway. This is clarified in theSwift Alliance Gateway User Guide, which specifies its role as a connectivity and security layer.Conclusion: This statement is incorrect.

D. The Alliance Gateway can only be accessed by a SWIFTNet userThe SAG is accessed by authorized systems and users within the Swift user’s environment, not exclusively by SwiftNet users. It interfaces with operator systems, middleware, and other components, as perControl 1.2: Logical Access Control, which allows controlled access by authorized entities, not just SwiftNet users.Conclusion: This statement is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The verified statements areAandB, as they accurately reflect the SAG’s role in traffic concentration and PKI profile management, consistent with Swift CSP documentation.

References

Swift Alliance Gateway User Guide, Section: Functionality Overview.

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection, Control 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Management.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Alliance Gateway Configuration.

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.

This question asks whether a Swift user can implement security controls (e.g., logging and monitoring) in systems not directly in scope of the CSCF. Let’s analyze this based on Swift CSP guidelines.

Step 1: Define CSCF Scope and Security Controls

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024defines its scope as the Swift-related infrastructure, including messaging interfaces, communication interfaces, and operator systems (asdetailed in Question 4). Security controls likelogging and monitoringare mandated underControl Objective 6: Detect Anomalous Activity, specifically in controls likeControl 6.1: Security Event Logging.

Step 2: Analyze the Question

The question focuses on whether a Swift user can apply CSCF security controls (e.g., logging and monitoring) to systemsnot directly in scopeof the CSCF. Systems not in scope include back-office systems, general-purpose servers, or other infrastructure that does not directly process Swift messages or connect to the Swift network.

Step 3: Evaluate Swift CSP Guidance

The CSCF mandates that security controls must be applied to in-scope systems to ensure the security of the Swift environment. However, Swift also encourages adefense-in-depthapproach, as outlined in theSwift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices. This approach recommends extending security practices beyond the minimum scope to enhance overall security.

Control 6.1: Security Event Loggingrequires logging and monitoring for in-scope systems to detect anomalous activity. While this control is mandatory for in-scope systems, the CSCF does not prohibit applying similar controls to out-of-scope systems. In fact, theSwift CSP FAQ(available on swift.com) clarifies that users may implement additional security measures on out-of-scope systems to reduce risks to the Swift environment (e.g., monitoring back-office systems that interact with Swift middleware).

Implementing logging and monitoring on out-of-scope systems can help detect threats that might indirectly affect the Swift environment, such as lateral movement from a compromised back-office system to a Swift-related system.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

A Swift usercanchoose to implement security controls like logging and monitoring on systems not directly in scope of the CSCF. This is not mandatory but is considered a best practice under Swift’s defense-in-depth strategy. The CSCF does not restrict users from applying additional security measures beyond its defined scope, and such actions align with the broader goal of enhancing cybersecurity across the user’s environment.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 6.1: Security Event Logging.

Swift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices, Section: Defense-in-Depth.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Scope and Applicability of Security Controls.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•Option D: To be delisted from the BIC directory

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

Summary of Correct Answers:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Details non-compliance impacts.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Supports SWIFT follow-up.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Reflects KYC-SA visibility.

========

The Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF), part of the SWIFT Customer Security Programme, aims to enhance the security of the SWIFT ecosystem by defining mandatory and advisory security controls for users. The three main objectives are explicitly outlined in the CSCF documentation and reflect a holistic approach to security. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: 1. Secure your environment, 2. Know and Limit Access, 3. Detect and Respond

This is correct. These three objectives align directly with the core principles of the CSCF:

oSecure your environment: This involves implementing controls to protect the SWIFT-related infrastructure (e.g., CSCF Control 1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection, 1.2 Physical Security) against unauthorized access and threats.

oKnow and Limit Access: This focuses on managing access controls and authentication (e.g., CSCF Control 2.2 External Transmission Security, 6.1 Security Awareness) to ensure only authorized personnel can interact with the SWIFT environment.

oDetect and Respond: This emphasizes monitoring and incident response (e.g., CSCF Control 4.1 Logging and 5.1 Operational Incident Response) to identify and mitigate security incidents. These objectives are explicitly stated in the "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and reinforced across related documents like the "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025."

•Option B: 1. Restrict Internet Access and Protect Critical Systems from General IT Environment, 2. Reduce Attack Surface and Vulnerabilities, 3. Physically Secure the Environment

This is incorrect. While these are specific controls within the CSCF (e.g., Control 1.1, 2.3 System Hardening, 1.2), they are not the overarching objectives. They are implementation details rather than the high-level goals of the framework.

•Option C: 1. Secure and Protect, 2. Prevent and Detect, 3. Share and Prepare

This is incorrect. These terms are vague and do not match the official CSCF objectives. "Share and Prepare" is not a recognized objective, and the phrasing does not align with SWIFT documentation.

•Option D: 1. Raise pragmatically the security bar, 2. Maintain appropriate cyber-security hygiene, 3. React promptly

This is incorrect. While these concepts are related to security improvement, they are not the specific objectives outlined in the CSCF. The language is more general and lacks the structured focus of the official objectives.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The three main objectives of the CSCF are to Secure your environment, Know and Limit Access, and Detect and Respond (A), as defined in the framework’s core principles.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Outlines the three main objectives (Secure, Know and Limit, Detect and Respond).

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Aligns controls with these objectives.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Supports the assessment of these objectives.

========

This question involves the role of the Hardware Security Module (HSM) and cryptographic operations in the Swift environment. Let’s evaluate each option.

Step 1: Understand HSM and Cryptographic Operations in Swift

The HSM is a secure device used to manage cryptographic keys and perform encryption/decryption operations, as detailed inControl 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Managementof theCSCF v2024. Swift uses public key infrastructure (PKI) for secure messaging, with HSMs storing keys and certificates.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. The public and private keys of a Swift certificate are stored on the Hardware Security ModuleIn the Swift environment, the HSM stores both the private key (for signing/decryption) and the public key (for verification/encryption) as part of the certificate pair. This is a standard practice for secure key management, as confirmed in theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.5B, which mandates secure storage of cryptographic keys in HSMs.Conclusion: This statement is correct.

B. The certificate stored on the Swift Hardware Security Module is used during the decryption operation of a messageThe HSM uses the private key stored in the certificate to perform decryption of incoming Swift messages. This is part of the secure message handling process, as outlined inControl 2.5Band theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation.Conclusion: This statement is correct.

C. The decryption operation uses the encryption private key of the receiverDecryption uses theprivate keyof the receiver, not the “encryption private key” (a misnomer). The correct term is the receiver’s private key, which corresponds to the public key used for encryption. This error makes the statement technically incorrect, despite the intended meaning.Conclusion: This statement is incorrect.

D. To verify the signature the SwiftNetLink uses the signing private key of the receiverSignature verification requires the sender’s public key, not the receiver’s private key. The SwiftNetLink (SNL) uses the public key to verify the signature, as perControl 2.5BandSwift Security Best Practices. The private key is used for signing, not verification.Conclusion: This statement is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The verified statements areAandB, as they accurately describe the HSM’s role in key storage and decryption, consistent with Swift CSP documentation.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Management.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: HSM Usage.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Cryptographic Operations.

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 pertains to Control 7.3 – Physical Security in the CSCF:

Step 1: Control 7.3 Overview

Control 7.3 focuses on “physically securing SWIFT-related systems and components” (e.g., servers, HSMs) within the user’s premises to prevent unauthorized access, tampering, or theft.

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.

The restriction of Internet access is a key control under the CSCF, specifically tied to Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection," which mandates that SWIFT-related components in the secure zone be isolated from the general IT environment and the Internet to prevent unauthorized access and attacks. Let’s evaluate the options:

•Option A: Yes, because if there is no secure zone, then the internet connectivity does not need to be restricted

This is incorrect. The CSCF applies to all SWIFT users, regardless of whether they maintain a local secure zone. Even if SWIFT-related components (e.g., a customer connector or operator PC) are hosted externally (e.g., by a service provider), the user’s endpoints (e.g., operator PCs accessing the application) must still adhere to security controls, including restricting Internet access where applicable. The "Independent Assessment Framework" requires assessing all in-scope components, not just those in a secure zone.

•Option B: No, because there can be in-scope general operator PCs used to access a SWIFT-related application hosted at a service provider

This is correct. General operator PCs used to access SWIFT-related applications (e.g., Alliance Lite2 Business Application hosted by a service provider) are in scope of the CSCF, as they handle sensitive SWIFT data or credentials. Control "1.1" and "6.1 Security Awareness" require these PCs to have restricted Internet access to prevent malware or unauthorized access, even if the application is hosted externally. The "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" includes such endpoints in the assessment scope, making Internet access restriction relevant beyond the secure zone.

Summary of Correct Answer:

The restriction of Internet access is not only relevant when having SWIFT-related components in a secure zone; it applies to in-scope general operator PCs accessing hosted applications (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 1.1 mandates Internet access restriction for in-scope components.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Includes operator PCs in scope, even with external hosting.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Applies controls to endpoints accessing SWIFT services.

========

This question addresses the types of Hardware Security Module (HSM) devices offered by SWIFT:

Step 1: SWIFT HSM Overview

SWIFT provides HSMs to secure Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificates and cryptographic operations for its users. The CSCF and related security documentation specify two primary types:HSM tokens(portable devices) andHSM boxes(rack-mounted hardware).

Alliance Gateway (SAG) is a SWIFT product that facilitates connectivity between messaging interfaces and the SWIFT network. Let’s evaluate the statement:

•A messaging interface in SWIFT terminology refers to applications like Alliance Access (SAA) or Alliance Entry, which are responsible for creating, validating, and processing SWIFT messages (e.g., FIN MT messages). These interfaces handle the business logic of message flows, interfacing with back-office systems and preparing messages for transmission.

•Alliance Gateway, however, is classified as a communication interface. It acts as a hub to consolidate message flows from multiple messaging interfaces (e.g., Alliance Access) and connects them to the SWIFT network via SwiftNet Link (SNL). SAG does not create or process messages; it manages their transport, ensuring secure transmission over the SWIFT Secure IP Network (SIPN). This distinction is clear in SWIFT documentation, where SAG is described as a connectivity layer, not a messaging interface.

•The CSCF reinforces this separation by applying specific controls to messaging interfaces (e.g., "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security" for Alliance Access) and communication interfaces (e.g., "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" for SAG). Since SAG does not perform the functions of a messaging interface, the statement is false.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Alliance Gateway is a communication interface, not a messaging interface, making the statement false.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Differentiates messaging interfaces (Control 2.1) from communication interfaces (Control 1.1).

•SWIFT Alliance Gateway Documentation: Describes SAG as a communication interface for SWIFTNet connectivity.

•SWIFT Architecture Glossary: Clarifies the roles of messaging interfaces (e.g., Alliance Access) versus communication interfaces (e.g., Alliance Gateway).

========

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

Step 1: Understand CSP Assessment Deliverables

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

Step 2: Analyze the Requirement for a Completion Letter

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

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

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

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

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

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Deliverables and Attestation.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Assessment Submission Process.

This question requires identifying the component types of the numbered components (1, 2, 3, and 4) in the provided diagram, which illustrates a Swift infrastructure with Architecture Type A4 (user environment) and Architecture Type A1 (group hub). The classification is based on theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024and related architecture definitions.

Step 1: Understand the Diagram and Component Types

The diagram shows two environments:

Architecture Type A4: The user’s local environment with back-office systems using middleware clients and servers.

Architecture Type A1: A group hub hosting Swift components like Alliance Access, Alliance Gateway, and HSM/PKI, connecting to the Swift network.

Component Types:

Customer Connector: A system or server that facilitates connectivity between the user’s environment and the Swift infrastructure (e.g., middleware servers interfacing with the group hub).

Bridging Server (Middleware Server): A server that bridges data flows between back-office systems and the Swift messaging environment, often handling message queuing or transformation.

Step 2: Analyze Each Numbered Component

Component 1 (Middleware Server connected to Back Office 1):This server is part of the A4 architecture, interfacing the back-office middleware client with the group hub (A1). It acts as a connector, facilitating data exchange to the MQHA (Message Queue High Availability) server in the group hub. Per theCSCF v2024andSwift Architecture Types Explained, this is aCustomer Connector.

Component 2 (MQHA Middleware Server in the Group Hub):This server is within the A1 group hub, bridging the user’s data (via the customer connector) tothe Alliance Access and Gateway. It handles message queuing and acts as aBridging Server (Middleware Server), as defined in theSwift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation.

Component 3 (Middleware Server connected to Back Office 2):Similar to Component 1, this server connects the second back-office middleware client to the MQHA server in the group hub, functioning as aCustomer Connector.

Component 4 (MQ Middleware Server connected to MQHA):This server within the A1 group hub supports the MQHA, bridging data flows to the Swift messaging components (Alliance Access/Gateway). It is aBridging Server (Middleware Server), consistent with theCSCF v2024definitions.

Step 3: Match with Options

A. 1. Customer Connector, 2. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 3. Customer Connector, 4. Bridging Server (Middleware Server): Matches the analysis above.

B. 1. Customer Connector, 2. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 3. Customer Connector, 4. Customer Connector: Incorrect, as Component 4 is a bridging server, not a customer connector.

C. 1. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 2. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 3. Bridging Server (Middleware Server), 4. Bridging Server (Middleware Server): Incorrect, as Components 1 and 3 are customer connectors, not bridging servers.

D. 1. Customer Connector, 2. Customer Connector, 3. Customer Connector, 4. Customer Connector: Incorrect, as Components 2 and 4 are bridging servers.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isA, as it accurately identifies the component types based on their roles in the A4 and A1 architectures, consistent withCSCF v2024andSwift Architecture Types Explained.

References

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

Swift Architecture Types Explained, Section: Component Roles.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Middleware and Connectors.

This question determines which components in the outsourcing agent diagram are in scope and applicable for the Swift user under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand CSCF Scope and the Diagram

TheCSCF v2024defines the scope as systems directly involved in Swift messaging, connectivity, or security within the user’s control or responsibility, including those managed by outsourcing agents. The diagram includes:

A. Middleware server (customer connector): Part of the Swift user’s environment.

B. General-purpose PC Operator GUI: An operator system in the user’s environment.

C. Swift-related OAA: The messaging interface in the outsourcing agent’s environment.

D. Customer connector: A connector in the outsourcing agent’s environment interfacing with the next service provider.

E. Dedicated PC Admin users: Administrative systems in the outsourcing agent’s environment.

TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkholds the Swift user accountable for in-scope components, even when outsourced, perControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection.

Step 2: Analyze Component Applicability

A. Middleware server (customer connector): Located in the Swift user’s environment, this connects to the outsourcing agent. While it facilitates Swift traffic, it is typically considered part of the user’s local infrastructure and not directly in the outsourcing agent’s scope for user responsibility, unless explicitly outsourced. TheCSCF v2024scope focuses on Swift-related systems managed by the outsourcing agent when the user relies on them.

B. General-purpose PC Operator GUI: This is a user-side operator system, not a core Swift component. PerControl 1.2: Logical Access Control, it is out of the secure zone and not in scope for the outsourcing agent’s responsibility.

C. Swift-related OAA: This is the messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) managed by the outsourcing agent. It is in scope for the Swift user, as they are responsible for its security and compliance, perControl 1.1.

D. Customer connector: This connector, within the outsourcing agent’s environment, interfaces with the next service provider (e.g., SB, L2BA). It is in scope, as the user must ensure its security underControl 1.1.

E. Dedicated PC Admin users: These administrative systems, managed by the outsourcing agent, are in scope because they control Swift-related components, perControl 1.2.

Step 3: Match with Options

A. Components A, B, C, D and E: Includes A and B, which are not in scope for the outsourcing agent’s responsibility under the user’s purview.

B. Components A and B: Only includes user-side components, not the outsourcing agent’s in-scope systems.

C. Components C, D and E: Includes the outsourcing agent’s Swift-related OAA, customer connector, and admin PCs, which are in scope for the user’s compliance responsibility.

D. None of the above: Incorrect, as C, D, and E are applicable.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isC, as Components C, D, and E, managed by the outsourcing agent, are in scope and applicable for the Swift user’s compliance under theCSCF v2024.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection, Control 1.2: Logical Access Control.

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Outsourcing Scope.

Swift Outsourcing Guidelines, Section: User Responsibility.

This question pertains to Local Security Officer (LSO) and Remote Security Officer (RSO) accounts on SWIFT Alliance Access, a key component of the SWIFT infrastructure. Let’s evaluate each statement:

A. They are local Security Officers

LSOs and RSOs are indeed Security Officers responsible for managing security functions on Alliance Access. LSOs operate locally, while RSOs can perform tasks remotely, but both are classified as Security Officers under SWIFT’s terminology.

The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" governs the conduct of CSP assessments, including location and method. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Remote assessments are not permitted under any circumstances

This is incorrect. The CSP allows remote assessments under specific conditions, as clarified in the guidelines, not an absolute prohibition.

•Option B: This is permitted provided the same level of comfort can be guaranteed

This is incorrect. While ensuring equivalent assurance is important, the CSP requires formal validation for remote assessments, not just assessor discretion.

•Option C: It is possible to perform an assessment remotely only with valid reasons. These reasons must be formally validated by SWIFT CSP office

This is correct. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" permits remote assessments when justified (e.g., geographical distance, logistical challenges), but such arrangements must be approved by the SWIFT CSP office to ensure compliance and security. This aligns with the "Independent Assessment Framework" emphasis on maintaining assessment integrity.

•Option D: It is not allowed to conduct an assessment remotely under any circumstances. However, force majeure circumstances like the global pandemic are an exception to this

This is incorrect. The CSP does not categorically ban remote assessments; it allows them with prior validation, not just as exceptions for force majeure.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Remote assessments are permitted with valid reasons and formal validation by the SWIFT CSP office (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Allows remote assessments with approval.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Ensures assessment integrity.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports validated remote methods.

========

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 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.

========

CSCF Control 2.9 (Transaction Business Controls) requires institutions to implement measures to ensure the accuracy and integrity of SWIFT transactions (e.g., payment validation, authorization). Compliance can be achieved through various methods, as outlined in the "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and its implementation guidelines. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: More than one of the measures proposed in the implementation guidelines are implemented

This ensures compliance. The CSCF provides implementation guidelines for Control 2.9, suggesting measures like dual authorization or automated validation. Implementing multiple measures meets the control’s objective of ensuring transaction integrity.

•Option B: A customer-designed implementation that encounters the control objective and addresses the risk driver

This ensures compliance. The CSCF allows flexibility for customer-designed solutions, provided they meet the control objective (e.g., preventing fraudulent transactions) and address the identified risk drivers (e.g., human error), as validated in the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls."

•Option C: Reliance on a recent business assessment or regulator response confirming effectiveness of the existing control

This ensures compliance. If a recent assessment (e.g., by an internal audit or regulator) confirms that existing controls effectively meet the CSCF 2.9 requirements, this can be accepted as evidence of compliance, per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option D: Any implementation if approved by the CIO

This does not ensure compliance. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) approval alone does not guarantee that the implementation meets CSCF requirements. Compliance must be based on objective evidence and alignment with the control’s intent, as assessed against the "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" and validated by an independent assessor, not just internal approval.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Reliance on CIO approval alone (D) does not ensure compliance with CSCF 2.9.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 2.9 and implementation guidelines.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires objective validation, not just CIO approval.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Specifies evidence-based compliance.

========

This question assesses whether a short interview with the HR manager providing one example of security training implementation is acceptable for a small infrastructure with only two operators, under the Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Security Training Requirements

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, underControl 5.1: Security Training and Awareness, mandates that all personnel with access to Swift-related systems (including operators) receive regular, documented security training. This includes awareness of security policies, procedures, and incident response. The control applies regardless of the size of the infrastructure.

Step 2: Analyze the Scenario

The entity has a small infrastructure with two operators, and the HR manager provides a short interview with one example of security training implementation.

TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequires assessors to validate the effectiveness of controls, including evidence of training completion, content, frequency, and attendance records. A risk-based approach allows flexibility, but minimum evidence standards must still be met.

Step 3: Evaluate Against CSCF Guidelines

Control 5.1specifies that training must be documented, with evidence such as training logs, attendance records, or certification. A single interview with one example does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate:

That all operators (both in this case) have been trained.

The frequency and comprehensiveness of the training program.

The effectiveness of the training (e.g., understanding and application).

TheSwift CSP FAQandSecurity Best Practicesnote that even for small entities, assessors must see multiple pieces of evidence (e.g., training schedules, materials, test results) to confirm compliance, especially during an independent assessment.

A risk-based testing approach (mentioned in option A) allows tailoring the depth of evidence based on risk, but it does not exempt small entities from providing more than a single anecdotal example. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequires objective evidence, not just verbal assurances.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isB, as a short interview with one example is insufficient to meet the evidence requirements ofControl 5.1in theCSCF v2024. More evidence (e.g., training records, attendance logs, or test results) is required to validate compliance, even for a small infrastructure.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 5.1: Security Training and Awareness.

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Evidence Requirements.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Training Documentation.

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Small Entity Compliance.

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answer:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Tests for regular access list reviews.

This question concerns the location and management of Swift HSM boxes, which are critical for secure key management.

Step 1: Understand the Role of Swift HSM

The Hardware Security Module (HSM) in the Swift environment is used to store and manage cryptographic keys, as perControl 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Managementof theCSCF v2024. The HSM ensures the security of Swift transactions by protecting private keys.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Are located at the network partner premises and managed by SwiftNetwork partners (e.g., service providers) may host connectivity infrastructure, but HSMs are typically located at the user’s premises for direct control, as perSwift Security Best Practices. Swift does not manage user HSMs; users are responsible for their operation.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

B. Are located at the Swift user premises and managed by SwiftWhile HSMs are located at the user’s premises, Swift does not manage them. Users are responsible for HSM management, as outlined inControl 2.5B, which requires users to secure and maintain their HSMs.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

C. Are located at the Swift user premises and managed by the Swift userTheCSCF v2024andSwift HSM Deployment Guidespecify that HSMs are deployed at the Swift user’s premises to ensure local control and security. Users are responsible for managing and maintaining the HSM, including key generation and backups, as part of their compliance obligations.Conclusion: This is correct.

D. Are located at the network partner premises and managed by Swift the network partnerHSMs are not managed by network partners or Swift. Users retain control, and network partners only facilitate connectivity, not HSM management.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The verified answer isC, as it accurately reflects the standard deployment and management model for Swift HSMs, consistent with Swift CSP documentation.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.5B: Cryptographic Key Management.

Swift HSM Deployment Guide, Section: Installation and Management.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: HSM Location and Control.

The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" distinguish between audits and assessments within the SWIFT CSP context. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: An audit is a comprehensive review of a customer’s controls to ensure they meet regulatory requirements, while an assessment is a very high-level review of controls to identify potential weaknesses

This is incorrect. The CSP assessment is a detailed, independent evaluation of CSCF compliance, not a high-level review. Audits may focus on broader regulatory compliance, but the CSP assessment is specific to CSCF controls.

•Option B: An audit looks at the defined controls design and implementation compliance and follows recognized international audit standards, whereas an assessment is less strict but aims the same common objectives

This is correct. The CSP defines an assessment as a structured, independent process to verify CSCF control compliance, guided by SWIFT-specific guidelines rather than international audit standards (e.g., ISAE 3000). Audits, while thorough, follow broader standards and may not align with CSP’s tailored objectives. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" supports this distinction, noting assessments are CSP-specific with a focus on effectiveness.

•Option C: An audit is a one-time event, while an assessment is an ongoing process of monitoring and improving security controls

This is incorrect. Both audits and assessments can be one-time or periodic. The CSP assessment is an annual requirement, not an ongoing process, per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option D: An audit and an assessment can be used interchangeably

This is incorrect. The CSP clearly differentiates between the two, with assessments being the mandated method for CSCF compliance.

Summary of Correct Answer:

An audit follows international standards for control compliance, while an assessment is CSP-specific with similar objectives but less strict standards (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Defines assessment scope.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Distinguishes assessment from audit.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Outlines assessment process.

========

The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" mandate that CSP assessments and attestations be conducted by an independent, certified assessor, not the user’s internal audit department. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, providing this is agreed by the head of IT operations and the CISO

This is incorrect. Internal agreement does not override the CSP’s requirement for independence.

•Option B: No, this is never an option

This is correct. The CSP prohibits internal audit departments from submitting or approving attestations on the KYC-SA portal, as they lack the independence required by the "Independent Assessment Framework." Only an external, certified assessor can perform and approve the assessment, with the CISO or designated user submitting the attestation based on the assessor’s report.

•Option 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 attestation

This is incorrect. Internal auditors cannot submit or approve attestations, even with credentials, due to the independence requirement.

•Option D: Yes, with approval from the Chief Auditor

This is incorrect. Chief Auditor approval does not satisfy the CSP’s independence mandate.

Summary of Correct Answer:

An internal audit department cannot submit or approve the attestation (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires independent assessors.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Prohibits internal assessments for attestation.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Specifies external assessor input.

========

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 provided represents a Swift user environment with an outsourcing agent, showing various components involved in the Swift workflow. The Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP) mandates specific security controls to protect critical components, particularly those handling Swift-related data or connectivity. Let’s analyze the diagram and determine which components must be placed in asecure zoneas per theCSCF v2024.

Step 1: Understand the Secure Zone Requirement

Asecure zonein the Swift CSP context refers to a segregated, protected environment where critical Swift-related components are isolated from general-purpose systems to minimize risks. This is outlined inControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protectionof theCSCF v2024, which mandates that Swift infrastructure (e.g., messaging interfaces, connectors, and related systems) must be logically and physically separated from non-Swift systems. The secure zone ensures that only authorized systems and users can interact with Swift components.

Step 2: Analyze the Diagram and Identify Components

The diagram includes the following components:

A. Middleware server (customer connector): Labeled as Component A, this server facilitates connectivity between the Swift user’s systems and the outsourcing agent’s infrastructure.

B. General-purpose PC Operator GUI: This is a general-purpose system used by an operator to interact with the Swift environment.

C. Swift-related OAA (Operational Application Architecture): Labeled as Component C, this represents the Swift messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access/Entry) managed by the outsourcing agent.

D. Customer connector: This component, within the outsourcing agent’s environment, interfaces directly with the Swift connector or interface.

E. Dedicated PC Admin users: This represents administrative systems used to manage the Swift environment.Additionally, there’s aConnector or Interface(SB, L2BA, or Enabler) connecting to the Swift network.

Step 3: Determine Which Components Belong in a Secure Zone

A. Middleware server (customer connector):This component facilitates connectivity between the Swift user and the outsourcing agent’s Swift-related systems. According toControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection, any system that directly interacts with the Swift messaging infrastructure (e.g., as a connector) must reside in a secure zone to prevent unauthorized access or tampering. Since this middleware server is part of the Swift data flow, it must be in a secure zone.Conclusion: Component A must be in a secure zone.

B. General-purpose PC Operator GUI:This is a general-purpose system used by operators, not a core Swift component. TheCSCF v2024underControl 1.2: Logical Access Controlrecommends that operator systems (e.g., GUIclients) should not reside in the same secure zone as critical Swift infrastructure to avoid introducing vulnerabilities from general-purpose systems. These systems typically connect to the secure zone via controlled interfaces (e.g., VPN or jump servers) but are not part of it.Conclusion: Component B does not need to be in a secure zone.

C. Swift-related OAA:This represents the Swift messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access/Entry), which is a core component of the Swift environment.Control 1.1explicitly requires that messaging interfaces be placed in a secure zone to protect them from external threats and ensure segregation from non-Swift systems. Since this component is directly involved in Swift message processing, it must be in a secure zone.Conclusion: Component C must be in a secure zone.

D. Customer connector:This connector interfaces directly with the Swift connector or interface (SB, L2BA, or Enabler) to facilitate communication with the Swift network. As perControl 1.1, any component that directly connects to the Swift network or handles Swift traffic must be in a secure zone to ensure end-to-end security of the communication chain. This applies to the customer connector within the outsourcing agent’s environment.Conclusion: Component D must be in a secure zone.

E. Dedicated PC Admin users:Administrative systems used to manage the Swift environment are typically not placed in the same secure zone as the operational Swift components. According toControl 1.2: Logical Access Control, administrative access should be tightly controlled and segregated, often using jump servers or bastion hosts to access the secure zone. While these systems need secure access, they are not part of the secure zone itself.Conclusion: Component E does not need to be in a secure zone.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

Based on theCSCF v2024requirements, the components that must be placed in a secure zone are those directly involved in Swift message processing or connectivity to the Swift network. These are:

A. Middleware server (customer connector)

C. Swift-related OAA

D. Customer connectorComponent B (general-purpose PC) and Component E (admin PC) are not required to be in the secure zone, as they are operator or administrative systems that should be segregated from the Swift operational environment.

References

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

Swift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices, Section: Secure Zone Configuration.

CSCF v2024, Control 1.2: Logical Access Control.

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.

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.

========