CSP-Assessor Sample Questions Answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answers:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

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

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Tests database integrity measures.

========

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 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 SWIFT CSP Assessor certification program, governed by the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" and related documents, requires assessors to maintain relevant professional qualifications. Let’s evaluate:

•Option A: No, a valid external cybersecurity certification is mandatory to keep the CSP Certified Assessor certification

This is correct. The SWIFT CSP Assessor certification requires assessors to hold a valid external cybersecurity certification (e.g., CISA, CISSP) as a prerequisite for initial certification and ongoing eligibility. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" specifies that expiration of this certification invalidates the CSP Assessor status until renewed, ensuring assessors maintain current expertise.

•Option B: Yes, if the SWIFT CSP Assessor certification is still valid

This is incorrect. The validity of the CSP Assessor certification is contingent on maintaining an active external cybersecurity certification. The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Assessment template for Mandatory controls" emphasize this dual requirement to uphold assessment quality.

Summary of Correct Answer:

A valid external cybersecurity certification is mandatory; an expired certification disqualifies the assessor (A).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Requires active external certification.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Links assessor eligibility to professional credentials.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Validates assessor qualifications.

========

This question identifies the authentication methods supported by Alliance Interfaces (e.g., Alliance Access, Alliance Gateway) under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand Authentication on Alliance Interfaces

TheCSCF v2024, underControl 2.3: System Access Control, mandates strong authentication for access to Swift-related components, including Alliance Interfaces. TheSwift Alliance Gateway Technical DocumentationandAlliance Access User Guidedetail supported methods.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. PasswordAlliance Interfaces support basic password authentication as a standard method, as noted in theAlliance Access User Guide. While not the strongest alone, it is permitted with additional controls.Conclusion: Correct.

B. LDAP AuthenticationLDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) is supported for centralized authentication, integrating with enterprise directory services, per theSwift Security Best PracticesandControl 2.3.Conclusion: Correct.

C. Radius One-time passwordRADIUS with one-time passwords (OTP) is not a standard authentication method for Alliance Interfaces. TheAlliance Gateway Technical Documentationdoes not list RADIUS OTP as supported, focusing instead on password, LDAP, and TOTP.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. Password and TOTPTime-based One-Time Password (TOTP) combined with password (multi-factor authentication) is supported for enhanced security, as required byControl 2.3and detailed in theSwift Security Best Practicesfor privileged access.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answers areA, B, and D, as these methods are supported by Alliance Interfaces, aligning withCSCF v2024and related documentation.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.3: System Access Control.

Swift Alliance Gateway Technical Documentation, Section: Authentication Methods.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Multi-Factor Authentication.

This question compares the SWIFT footprint (components within the CSP scope) across different infrastructures:

Step 1: Define SWIFT Footprint

The SWIFT footprint includes all systems and components handling SWIFT messaging or connectivity, as defined in CSCF Control 1.1 – SWIFT Environment Protection.

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.

========

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.

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.

========

This question examines the messaging capabilities of Alliance Lite2 under the Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Alliance Lite2

Alliance Lite2 is a lightweight Swift solution designed for smaller financial institutions, providing access to Swift messaging services. Its capabilities are detailed in theSwift Alliance Lite2 User Guideand referenced in theCSCF v2024context.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The statement claims that Alliance Lite2 "only supports the sending and receiving of FIN messages." FIN messages are part of the FIN service for payment transactions, but Alliance Lite2’s scope extends beyond this.

Step 3: Evaluate Against Swift Guidelines

TheSwift Alliance Lite2 User Guidespecifies that Alliance Lite2 supports multiple message types, including:

FIN messages(e.g., MT103 for payments).

FileAct(for file transfers).

InterAct(for real-time messaging).

TheCSCF v2024does not restrict Alliance Lite2 to FIN messages; it applies security controls to all supported services. TheSwift CSP FAQconfirms that Alliance Lite2 users must comply with controls for all active services, not just FIN.

Thus, the statement that it "only supports" FIN messages is false, as it also supports FileAct and InterAct.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isB, as Alliance Lite2 supports more than just FIN messages, including FileAct and InterAct, per theSwift Alliance Lite2 User GuideandCSCF v2024.

References

Swift Alliance Lite2 User Guide, Section: Supported Services.

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

Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Alliance Lite2 Scope.

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

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

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

•Option B: For documentation purpose

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Correct Answers:

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

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

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

•Independent Assessment Framework: Supports documentation and review.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Relies on documented records.

========

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.

========

This question concerns the assessor’s obligations during the CSP assessment kick-off:

Step 1: CSP Assessment Process

The IAF recommends a kick-off meeting to align expectations between the assessor and SWIFT user, including explaining the testing methodology (e.g., HLTP, sampling, evidence collection).

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.

The "SWIFT footprint" refers to the extent of SWIFT-related infrastructure (hardware, software, and connectivity components) that a user must manage within their environment. A smaller footprint means less local infrastructure to maintain, typically achieved through cloud-based or managed services. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Full stack of products up to the Messaging Interface

This refers to an on-premises deployment where the user manages a complete set of SWIFT components, including the messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access), communication interface (e.g., Alliance Gateway), SwiftNet Link (SNL), HSM, and VPN boxes for connectivity to the SWIFT network. This setup requires significant local infrastructure, including servers, security devices, and network components, resulting in a large SWIFT footprint.

•Option B: Alliance Remote Gateway

Alliance Remote Gateway (ARG) is a service where the Alliance Gateway is hosted remotely by SWIFT or a third party, but the user still maintains a messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) locally. While this reduces the footprint slightly by outsourcing the communication interface, the user still manages the messaging interface, HSM, and local connectivity components, resulting in a moderate footprint.

•Option C: Lite 2 or Alliance Cloud

This is the correct answer. Alliance Lite2 and Alliance Cloud are cloud-based solutions designed for smaller institutions or those seeking a minimal local footprint. In Alliance Lite2, the user connects to SWIFT via a lightweight client (Alliance Lite2 AutoClient) or a browser-based interface, with most infrastructure (e.g., messaging interface, communication interface, HSM) hosted by SWIFT in the cloud. Alliance Cloud similarly hosts the full SWIFT stack (including Alliance Access and Alliance Gateway) in a SWIFT-managed cloud environment, requiring only minimal local infrastructure (e.g., a secure connection to the cloud). This results in the smallest SWIFT footprint, as the user manages very little on-premises infrastructure. The CSCF still applies, but many controls are managed by SWIFT (e.g., "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection").

•Option D: A user with a Messaging Interface behind a Service Bureau

A Service Bureau is a third-party provider that hosts SWIFT infrastructure (e.g., Alliance Gateway, SNL) for multiple users, but the user still maintains a local messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) to connect to the Service Bureau. This setup reduces the footprint compared to a full on-premises deployment, as the user does not manage the communication interface or network connectivity components. However, the local messaging interface and associated security components (e.g., HSM) still constitute a larger footprint than a fully cloud-based solution like Alliance Lite2 or Alliance Cloud.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Alliance Lite2 or Alliance Cloud (C) has the smallest SWIFT footprint, as most infrastructure is hosted in the cloud by SWIFT, minimizing the user’s local management responsibilities.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.1 applies to cloud deployments like Alliance Cloud, reducing the user’s local footprint.

•SWIFT Alliance Lite2 Documentation: Describes the minimal infrastructure required for Lite2 users.

•SWIFT Alliance Cloud Documentation: Highlights the fully hosted nature of the solution, minimizing the SWIFT footprint.

========

SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is a global cooperative that provides a secure messaging network primarily for financial transactions. Its services are designed for entities involved in the financial ecosystem, and access is restricted to members or participants who meet SWIFT’s membership criteria. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Financial institutions, such as banks and securities broker-dealers

This is correct. SWIFT’s core users are financial institutions, including banks, broker-dealers, and other entities regulated under financial authorities. These institutions are direct members of SWIFT or connect through correspondent banking relationships. The SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP) and CSCF are tailored to secure the messaging environment for these entities, with controls like "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" designed to safeguard their operations. Membership requires adherence to SWIFT’s security standards, and these institutions use SWIFTNet for payments, securities, trade, and treasury services.

•Option B: Individuals who use online banking for international transfers

This is incorrect. Individuals, including those using online banking for international transfers, do not connect directly to SWIFT. Instead, they rely on their banks or financial service providers, which act as intermediaries using SWIFT’s network. SWIFT is a business-to-business (B2B) network, not a consumer-facing platform. The CSCF does not address individual users; its focus is on institutional security controls, such as those protecting the SWIFT secure zone.

•Option C: Market infrastructures that provide financial institutions with centralized transaction processing

This is correct. Market infrastructures, such as clearinghouses, central securities depositories (CSDs), and payment systems (e.g., TARGET2 or CHAPS), are eligible to connect to SWIFT. These entities facilitate centralized transaction processing for financial institutions and are part of the broader financial ecosystem. SWIFT documentation recognizes their role, and they are subject to the same security requirements under the CSP. For example, CSCF Control "1.2 Physical Security" applies to these infrastructures when they host SWIFT-related components.

•Option D: Corporates that work with multiple banking partners

This is correct. Corporates, especially large multinational corporations with complex financial operations, can connect to SWIFT through SWIFT’s corporate connectivity options, such as Alliance Lite2 or SWIFT for Corporates. These services allow corporates to send and receive payment instructions directly via SWIFTNet, bypassing some intermediary steps with banks. This capability is outlined in SWIFT’s corporate access documentation, and such entities must comply with CSP security controls when integrating with the SWIFT network. The CSCF extends to these participants, ensuring their environments are secure (e.g., Control "6.1 Security Awareness").

Summary of Correct Answers:

Financial institutions (A), market infrastructures (C), and corporates with multiple banking partners (D) can connect to SWIFT, either as direct members or through specific connectivity options. Individuals (B) do not have direct access.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Applies to all SWIFT users, including financial institutions, market infrastructures, and corporates, with security controls tailored to their environments (Controls 1.1, 6.1).

•SWIFT Membership Guidelines: Outlines eligibility for financial institutions, market infrastructures, and corporates, excluding individuals.

•SWIFT for Corporates Documentation: Details corporate connectivity options like Alliance Lite2.

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.

Verifying the applicability of a CSCF control to a specific component involves consulting relevant SWIFT documentation and processes. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and associated guidelines provide the framework for this determination. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Check in the CSP Policy document

This does not apply. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Policy" is a high-level document outlining the CSP’s objectives and requirements but does not provide detailed guidance on control applicability to specific components. Control applicability is determined by the CSCF itself (e.g., through appendices or the control matrix), not the policy document, which is more strategic than operational.

•Option B: Check appendix F of the CSCF

This applies. Appendix F of the CSCF (or a similar appendix in the v2025 version) typically includes guidance on control applicability, mapping controls to different architecture types and components. This is a standard action for assessors, as noted in the "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines."

•Option C: Check carefully the Introduction section of the CSCF

This applies. The Introduction section of the CSCF provides an overview of the framework’s scope, objectives, and how controls apply to various components, making it a relevant resource for verification.

•Option D: Open a case with SWIFT support via the case manager on swift.com if further information or solution cannot be found in the documentation

This applies. If documentation does not resolve the applicability question, SWIFT support via the case manager on swift.com is a recognized escalation path, as outlined in the "Independent Assessment Framework" and SWIFT operational guidelines.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Checking the CSP Policy document (A) does not apply, as it is not the appropriate resource for verifying control applicability to specific components.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Provides applicability guidance in appendices (e.g., Appendix F) and the Introduction.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Recommends using CSCF appendices and support channels.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Supports control applicability analysis.

========

SWIFT Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificates are cryptographic credentials used to secure communications over the SWIFT network. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Asymmetric signing and encryption end to end

This is correct. SWIFT PKI certificates utilize asymmetric cryptography (public and private key pairs) for both signing and encryption. Signing ensures the authenticity and integrity of messages (e.g., verifying the sender), while encryption provides confidentiality end to end—from the sender’s environment to the receiver’s environment across the SWIFT network. This end-to-end security is achieved using PKI certificates managed by Hardware Security Modules (HSMs), as mandated by CSCF Control "1.3 Cryptographic Failover." SWIFT documentation confirms that PKI supports full message security throughout the transmission process.

•Option B: Asymmetric signing and encryption end to SWIFT only

This is incorrect. The security provided by PKI certificates extends beyond just the connection to SWIFT (e.g., to the SWIFT Secure IP Network). It covers the entire message journey, including the recipient’s environment, ensuring end-to-end protection rather than stopping at SWIFT’s boundary.

•Option C: Symmetric encryption only

This is incorrect. SWIFT PKI relies on asymmetric cryptography for key exchange and signing, not symmetric encryption alone. While symmetric encryption may be used internally (e.g., for session keys derived from asymmetric key exchange), the PKI certificates themselves are based on asymmetric algorithms (e.g., RSA), as outlined in SWIFT’s security guidelines.

•Option D: Asymmetric signing only

This is incorrect. PKI certificates are used for both asymmetric signing (for authenticity and integrity) and encryption (for confidentiality), not just signing. The dual purpose is essential for the secure transmission of SWIFT messages.

Summary of Correct Answer:

SWIFT PKI certificates are used for asymmetric signing and encryption end to end (A), ensuring comprehensive security.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 1.3 specifies the use of PKI for end-to-end security.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: Details PKI usage for asymmetric signing and encryption.

•SWIFT PKI Documentation: Confirms end-to-end cryptographic protection using PKI certificates.

========

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 eligibility of a SWIFT CSP Certified Assessor who leaves a listed provider to continue performing assessments independently:

Step 1: SWIFT CSP Assessor Certification Rules

The SWIFT CSP Independent Assessment Framework (IAF) specifies that assessors must be certified and affiliated with a SWIFT-approved provider listed in the Directory of CSP Assessment Providers. Certification is tied to the individual but exercised through the provider’s accreditation.

Step 2: Impact of Leaving a Provider

When an assessor leaves a listed provider, they lose the organizational backing required to conduct official CSP assessments. The IAF states that "assessments must be performed by approved providers," and independent operation without SWIFT’s formal re-approval or affiliation with another provider is not permitted, even during the certification validity period.

In an Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) cloud model, such as SWIFT’s Alliance Cloud, the cloud provider is responsible for the underlying infrastructure (e.g., hardware, virtualization layer, network) while the customer manages the applications and data. The SWIFT CSP, particularly the "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" and "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025," outlines the responsibilities of cloud providers. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: The cloud provider must cover all CSCF controls applicable to the related in-scope components for which the cloud provider is responsible (such as the underlying infrastructure in line with appendix G)

This is correct. In an IaaS model, the cloud provider is responsible for securing the underlying infrastructure (e.g., physical servers, network, virtualization layer) that hosts the SWIFT components. Appendix G of the CSCF (or related outsourcing guidelines) specifies the controls the provider must implement, such as those under CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" and "2.3 System Hardening." The provider must ensure these controls are met for the infrastructure it manages.

•Option B: The cloud provider must give comfort of control implementation effectiveness on the virtualization layer hosting the SWIFT users' components

This is correct. The virtualization layer (e.g., hypervisors) is part of the IaaS provider’s responsibility, and the provider must provide assurance (e.g., through audits or reports) that security controls are effectively implemented. This aligns with CSCF requirements for outsourcing agents, ensuring the virtualization layer supports the SWIFT secure zone, as noted in the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option C: The cloud provider must give full assurance on the change management process of the SWIFT-users' components/applications deployed by the user

This is incorrect. Change management for the SWIFT-users' components (e.g., Alliance Access configurations) is the customer’s responsibility in an IaaS model. The cloud provider is not accountable for the applications deployed by the user, only for the underlying infrastructure. The "Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025" clarifies this boundary.

•Option D: The cloud provider must give comfort regarding the resiliency put in place to ensure continuity of SWIFT connectivity service

This is incorrect as a primary key element. While resiliency is important (e.g., CSCF Control 1.1), it is a broader operational concern rather than a specific IaaS responsibility. The provider ensures infrastructure availability, but continuity of SWIFT connectivity is a shared responsibility, with the customer managing the communication interface (e.g., Alliance Gateway).

Summary of Correct Answers:

The key elements for a cloud provider in an IaaS model are covering applicable CSCF controls for the infrastructure (A) and providing comfort on the effectiveness of controls on the virtualization layer (B).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Defines responsibilities in cloud models (Control 1.1, Appendix G).

•Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025: Outlines provider responsibilities in IaaS.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires assurance on virtualization layer security.

========

The CSCF defines the scope of environments for a SWIFT user CSP assessment, focusing on environments that handle live SWIFT transactions or are critical to operational continuity. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and "Independent Assessment Framework" provide guidance on scope. Let’s evaluate each option, assuming the environments are separated:

•Option A: SWIFT infrastructure (sometimes known as Live)

This is in scope. The live environment, where actual SWIFT transactions are processed (e.g., Alliance Access sending MT103 messages), is the primary focus of the CSCF. Controls like "1.1 SWIFTEnvironment Protection" and "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security" apply directly to this environment.

•Option B: Development

This is not in scope. Development environments, used for building or testing applications before deployment, are typically out of scope if they are fully separated from live systems and do not process real SWIFT data. The "Independent Assessment Framework" excludes development environments unless they are integrated with live systems, which the question assumes is not the case.

•Option C: Disaster Recovery

This is in scope. Disaster Recovery (DR) environments are designed to take over in case of a failure in the live environment. Since they can process live SWIFT transactions during a failover, they must comply with CSCF controls (e.g., Control "1.1") to ensure continuity and security.

•Option D: Cold backup systems

This is in scope. Cold backup systems, while not actively processing transactions, are part of the SWIFT infrastructure’s resilience strategy. They must be secured to prevent compromise (e.g., CSCF Control "1.2 Physical Security") and are included in the assessment scope per the "Assessment template for Mandatory controls."

Summary of Correct Answer:

The Development environment (B) is not in scope for a SWIFT user CSP assessment if separated from live systems.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Excludes development environments from scope if separated.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Focuses on live, DR, and backup environments.

•Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Includes DR and backup systems in scope.

========

The SWIFT CSP requires an independent assessment to ensure compliance with the CSCF, as outlined in the "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines." Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes

This is incorrect. The CSP mandates that an independent assessor, not the user’s first line of defence, conducts the assessment to provide an unbiased evaluation. Relying solely on a self-assessment, even if detailed, does not meet the requirement for independence, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option B: Yes, but only if the CISO signs the completion letter at the end of the assessment

This is incorrect. While the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) may sign the "CSCF Assessment Completion Letter" to acknowledge the assessment, this does not replace the need for independent testing. The signature is a formal step, but the assessor must still perform their own validation.

•Option C: No, even if it could support the compliance level, additional testing will always be required by the independent assessor to confirm a controls compliance level

This is correct. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" requires assessors to conduct their own testing, even if the user provides a valid self-assessment. This ensures objectivity and verifies the effectiveness of controls (e.g., Control 1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection). The self-assessment can serve as supporting evidence, but additional testing is mandatory, as detailed in the "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025."

•Option D: No, except if the SWIFT user’s chief auditor approves this approach

This is incorrect. Chief auditor approval does not override the CSP’s requirement for independent assessor testing. The assessment process is governed by SWIFT standards, not internal approvals.

Summary of Correct Answer:

An assessor cannot fully rely on the user’s self-assessment; additional testing is always required (C).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Mandates independent assessor testing.

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

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Outlines assessor testing requirements.

========

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.

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.

========

This question relates to the objective of Control 1.1 – SWIFT Environment Protection in the CSCF:

Step 1: Control 1.1 Overview

Control 1.1 aims to “restrict access to the SWIFT infrastructure by segregating it from the general IT environment and external threats,” protecting against unauthorized access and malware.

This question addresses the obligations of a Swift CSP Certified Assessor regarding the provision of evidence to Swift for quality assurance purposes.

Step 1: Understand the Role of a Swift CSP Certified Assessor

A Swift CSP Certified Assessor is an independent professional or entity authorized to conduct CSP assessments under theIndependent Assessment Framework. The certification program, managed by Swift, includes specific obligations to ensure the integrity and quality of assessments.

Step 2: Analyze the Request for Evidence

Swift has contacted the assessor to provide evidence from an assessment to support their quality assurance validation process. This request implies a review of the assessor’s work to ensure compliance with CSP standards.

TheSwift CSP Assessor Certification Program Guidelinesstate that certified assessors are obligated to cooperate with Swift’s quality assurance processes. This includes providingevidence (e.g., assessment reports, workpapers) upon request to verify the accuracy and adherence to methodology, as part of Swift’s oversight.

Confidentiality is a concern, but theCSCF v2024andAssessor Certification Programclarify that assessors must share evidence with Swift under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or similar confidentiality framework, ensuring data protection while allowing validation.

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option

A. Yes, one of the obligations of the certification programme is that quality assessment can be performed by SwiftTheSwift CSP Assessor Certification Program Guidelinesexplicitly outline that Swift may conduct quality assessments, and assessors must provide evidence to support this process. This is a contractual obligation of certification, aligning with Swift’s responsibility to maintain CSP integrity.Conclusion: This is correct.

B. No, it's confidentialWhile confidentiality is critical (protected underControl 2.3: System Access Controland Swift’s privacy policies), the certification program requires assessors to share evidence with Swift for quality assurance, subject to confidentiality agreements. Refusing to provide evidence would breach the assessor’s obligations.Conclusion: This is incorrect.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isA, as theSwift CSP Assessor Certification Programmandates that certified assessors must support Swift’s quality assurance validation by providing evidence, balancing confidentiality with compliance oversight.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.3: System Access Control.

Swift CSP Assessor Certification Program Guidelines, Section: Obligations and Quality Assurance.

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Assessor Responsibilities.

Alliance Access (SAA) is a SWIFT messaging interface that allows financial institutions to create, process, and send SWIFT financial messages (e.g., MT messages like MT103 for payments). The "Alliance Access OS administrator" likely refers to an administrator managing the operating system (OS) on which Alliance Access runs, such as a system administrator responsible for server maintenance, patches, and infrastructure. Let’s evaluate the statement:

•The OS administrator’s role is to ensure the underlying hardware and software environment (e.g., Windows or Linux servers) is secure and operational, aligning with CSCF Control "2.3 System Hardening." However, this role does not include creating or sending financial messages, which are business functions performed by authorized users or automated workflows within Alliance Access.

•Creating and sending financial messages requires access to the Alliance Access application, which involves logging into the system with a business user profile and using PKI certificates managed by the HSM for authentication and signing. The OS administrator does not have this authority unless explicitly granted a separate business role, which is not implied by the term "OS administrator."

•SWIFT’s role-based access control separates administrative and operational duties. For example, the Local Security Officer (LSO) or business operators handle message creation, while the OS administrator ensures the platform’s integrity. The CSCF and Alliance Access documentation emphasize that only authorized business users can perform transactional activities.

There is no evidence in SWIFT documentation that an OS administrator has the capability or authorization to create and send financial messages by default. Thus, the statement is false.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 2.3 focuses on system hardening by OS administrators, not message creation.

•SWIFT Alliance Access Documentation: Details that message creation and sending are business user functions, not OS administrator tasks.

•SWIFT Security Guidelines: Emphasizes role separation for security and operational duties.

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.