Swift Customer Security Programme Assessor Certification(CSPAC) CSP-Assessor Exam Dumps: Updated Questions & Answers (November 2025)

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 determines the minimum number of Swift Security Officers (SOs) required by an organization under theSwift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Security Officer Requirements

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, underControl 2.3: System Access Control, and theSwift User Handbookoutline the roles and minimum requirements for Security Officers, who manage security settings and keys.

Step 2: Analyze the Requirement

TheSwift User HandbookandSwift Security Best Practicesspecify that at least two Security Officers are required to ensure segregation of duties and continuity (e.g., in case one is unavailable).

This minimum is enforced to prevent single points of failure and align withControl 2.3, which mandates multi-factor authentication and role separation for privileged access.

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option

A. 1: Insufficient, as a single SO risks unavailability or lack of segregation, perSwift Security Best Practices.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. 2: Meets the minimum requirement for redundancy and segregation, as stated in theSwift User Handbook.Conclusion: Correct.

C. 3: Exceeds the minimum but is not required unless the organization’s risk assessment demands it, per theCSCF v2024.Conclusion: Incorrect (not minimum).

D. 4: Also exceeds the minimum, not mandated as a baseline.Conclusion: Incorrect (not minimum).

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as theCSCF v2024andSwift User Handbookmandate a minimum of two Swift Security Officers.

References

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

Swift User Handbook, Section: Security Officer Roles.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Segregation of Duties.

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.

========

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 addresses the scope of penetration testing for Swift-related components under theSwift Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand Penetration Testing Requirements

TheCSCF v2024, underControl 4.1: Penetration Testing, mandates penetration testing to identify vulnerabilities in Swift-related systems. The scope is defined by theSwift Testing Policy, not arbitrarily applied to all components.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The statement suggests that penetration testing "must be performed at application level against the Swift-related components, such as the interfaces, Swift and customer connectors." We need to verify if this is a mandatory scope.

Step 3: Evaluate Against Swift Guidelines

Control 4.1: Penetration Testingrequires testing of in-scope components, but theSwift Testing Policy(referenced in theCSCF v2024andSecurity Best Practices) specifies which components (e.g., messaging interfaces, connectors) must be tested based on risk and architecture.

The policy does not mandate testing all listed components (e.g., interfaces, connectors) at the application level unless they are identified as high-risk or in-scope per the user’s assessment. For example, customer connectors might be excluded if managed by a Service Bureau, per theSwift Outsourcing Guidelines.

The statement’s assertion of a broad mandate is incorrect; the scope is limited to components defined in theSwift Testing Policy, which provides a tailored approach.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The answer isB, as penetration testing must follow theSwift Testing Policy, which defines the specific components to test, rather than mandating all Swift-related components like interfaces and connectors.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 4.1: Penetration Testing.

Swift Testing Policy, Section: Scope Definition.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Penetration Testing.

This question addresses the obligations of Swift users regarding the submission of assessment-related documents to Swift under the Customer Security Programme (CSP).

Step 1: Understand CSP Assessment Submission Requirements

TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024and theIndependent Assessment Frameworkoutline the process for CSP assessments, including what must be submitted to Swift. The focus is on ensuring compliance through attestation, with specific deliverables defined.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. Yes, all documents produced from the assessment must be provided proactively to SwiftThis is incorrect. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkdoes not require proactive submission of all assessment documents (e.g., detailed reports, working papers). Only the completion letter and attestation are typically submitted unless otherwise requested by Swift.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. No, it is not required to provide Swift with any documents by default. However, Swift can request a copy of the Assessment completion letterTheCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkstate that users are not required to proactively submit the full assessment report or other documents. However, Swift retains the right to request the completion letter (certifying assessment completion) or additional evidence during quality assurance reviews. This aligns with theSwift CSP Compliance Guidelines.Conclusion: Correct.

C. Yes, a copy of (only) the assessment report must be provided to Swift, no other documentsThis is incorrect. The full assessment report is not mandated for proactive submission; only the completion letter is typically required unless requested. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkemphasizes the completion letter as the key deliverable.Conclusion: Incorrect.

D. Yes, in cases where a customer performs an Independent assessment rather than an audit then a copy of the assessment report must be provided. However, it is not required for the Swift user to provide any forms when an Internal/External Audit is performedThis is partially misleading. TheIndependent Assessment Frameworkdoes not distinguish between independent assessments and audits in terms of mandatory report submission. For both, the completion letter is the default submission, with reports requested only if needed. The differentiation based on assessment type is not supported byCSCF v2024guidelines.Conclusion: Incorrect.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkdo not require proactive submission of the full assessment report, but Swift can request the completion letter as part of its oversight process.

References

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

Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Deliverables and Submission.

Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Document Submission Rules.

=========================

This question identifies which operator session flows must be protected for confidentiality and integrity under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand Session Protection Requirements

TheCSCF v2024, underControl 2.4: Secure Session Management, mandates that all sessions involving access to Swift-related components or secure zones must be protected using strong encryption (e.g., TLS) and integrity controls to prevent unauthorized access or data tampering. This applies to operator and administrator sessions interacting with the Swift environment.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option

A. System administrator sessions towards a host running a Swift related componentAdministrator sessions to hosts running Swift components (e.g., Alliance Access, Gateway) are in scope, as they require protection perControl 2.4to ensure confidentiality and integrity of administrative actions.Conclusion: Correct.

B. All sessions to and from a jump server used to access a component in a secure zoneJump servers are used to access secure zones (perControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protection), and all sessions to and from them must be encrypted and integrity-protected, as specified inControl 2.4.Conclusion: Correct.

C. All sessions towards a secure zone (on-premises or hosted by a third-party or a Cloud Provider)Secure zones, whether on-premises or hosted (e.g., by outsourcing agents or cloud providers), contain Swift components and must have all incoming sessions protected perControl 2.4andControl 1.1.Conclusion: Correct.

D. All sessions towards a Swift related application run by an Outsourcing Agent, a Service Bureau or an L2BA ProviderSessions to Swift-related applications managed by outsourcing agents or service bureaus (e.g., Components C, D, E in the diagram) are in scope, as they handle Swift traffic and must be secured perControl 2.4and theSwift Outsourcing Guidelines.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

All options (A, B, C, D) are correct, asControl 2.4of theCSCF v2024requires protection of all listed session types to ensure confidentiality and integrity across the Swift ecosystem, including secure zones, hosted environments, and outsourced applications.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.4: Secure Session Management, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Session Security.

Swift Outsourcing Guidelines, Section: Session Protection.

SwiftNet Link (SNL) is a critical component of the SWIFT infrastructure, serving as the mandatory network interface for accessing SWIFTNet services. The Swift Alliance Gateway (SAG) is a communication interface that consolidates message flows from various applications and connects them to the SWIFT network. According to SWIFT documentation, SAG is a modular software package installed on top of SNL, meaning SNL is a foundational requirement for SAG to operate.

SNL provides essential functionalities such as transport, formatting, security, and service management, enabling secure and interoperable communication over the SWIFT Secure IP Network (SIPN). SAG uses SNL to establish this connectivity, as it does not have direct network access capabilities on its own. For example, SAG relies on SNL to handle SWIFT message types like FIN, InterAct, and FileAct, ensuring secure communication with the SWIFT network. This dependency is evident in architectures where SAG is deployed, such as in the Alliance Connect Virtual solutions, where SNL is always included alongside SAG to facilitate connectivity.

The mention of "SIL Connectivity" in the question refers to the SWIFT Integration Layer (SIL), which is often part of cloud-based deployments like Alliance Cloud. However, even in such setups, SNL remains a requirement for SAG to function, as SIL itself interacts with SAG/SNL to manage message flows. The categories "Generic," "Products Cloud," "Products OnPrem," and "Security" likely refer to the context of SWIFT services, but they do not alter the fundamental requirement of SNL for SAG operation.

There are no exceptions in SWIFT’s official documentation where SAG can operate without SNL. Even in cloud-based solutions like Alliance Cloud or Alliance Lite2, SNL is either embedded or provided as part of the connectivity stack. For instance, in Alliance Connect Virtual deployments, SAG and SNL are deployed together to ensure connectivity to SWIFTNet. Therefore, the statement is unequivocally true.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: The CSCF mandates secure connectivity components like SNL within the SWIFT secure zone (Control 1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection).

•SWIFT Alliance Gateway Documentation: SAG is described as requiring SNL for connectivity to SWIFTNet, as it acts as an interface on top of SNL.

•SWIFTNet Link Documentation: SNL is the mandatory network interface for all external SWIFTNet communications, including those facilitated by SAG.

This question examines the applicability of internet access restrictions under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.

Step 1: Understand Internet Access Restrictions

Control 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restrictionof theCSCF v2024requires restricting internet access for Swift-related components to minimize exposure, applicable to both secure zones and other in-scope systems.

Step 2: Analyze the Statement

The question asks if the restriction is only relevant when Swift-related components are in a secure zone, implying a scope limitation.

Step 3: Evaluate Each Option

A. Yes, because if there is no secure zone then the internet connectivity does not need to be restrictedIncorrect.Control 2.6applies to all in-scope components, not just those in secure zones. For example, operator PCs accessing hosted applications (e.g., via A3 architecture) must have restricted internet access, per theSwift Security Best Practices.Conclusion: Incorrect.

B. No, because there can be in-scope general operator PCs used to access a Swift-related application hosted at a service providerCorrect. General operator PCs (e.g., Component B in the diagram) are in scope when accessing Swift applications (e.g., hosted by a service provider in A3 architecture).Control 2.6requires internet restriction for these systems, even outside a secure zone, as confirmed in theCSCF v2024andSwift Outsourcing Guidelines.Conclusion: Correct.

Step 4: Conclusion and Verification

The correct answer isB, asControl 2.6mandates internet access restrictions for all in-scope components, including operator PCs accessing hosted Swift applications, not just those in secure zones.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.6: Internet Accessibility Restriction.

Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Internet Access Controls.

Swift Outsourcing Guidelines, Section: Operator PC Security.

Application Hardening is a key concept within theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF), specifically addressed under security controls related to protecting systems and reducing vulnerabilities. The CSCF outlines principles to secure applications by minimizing risks, particularly in the context of Swift-related systems. Let’s break down the options and verify them against Swift CSP guidelines.

Step 1: Understand Application Hardening in the Context of Swift CSP

Application Hardening refers to the process of securing an application by reducing its attack surface, limiting access, and mitigating potential vulnerabilities. This aligns with Swift CSP’s overarching goal of enhancing the security of the Swift user community, as outlined in theCSCF v2024(and prior versions like CSCF v2023). Relevant controls fall under domains likeControl Objective 2: Protect Critical SystemsandControl Objective 6: Detect Anomalous Activity.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Option Against Swift CSP Principles

A. Least PrivilegesThe principle of least privilege is a core tenet of application hardening. It ensures that applications (and users) only have the minimum permissions necessary to perform their functions, reducing the risk of misuse or exploitation. This is explicitly referenced in theCSCF v2024, underControl 2.1: Operating System Privileged Account Control, which emphasizes restricting privileges to the minimum required. Application Hardening extends this to software processes, ensuring they run with minimal rights.Conclusion: This applies.

B. Access on a need to haveThis principle, often phrased as “need-to-know” or “need-to-have” in security contexts, ensures that access to applications or their components is granted only to entities that require it for their role. In the Swift CSP, this aligns withControl 2.3: System Access Control, which mandates that access to Swift-related systems (including applications) is restricted to authorized users or processes. Application Hardening incorporates this by ensuring that applications only expose interfaces or resources to authorized entities.Conclusion: This applies.

C. Reduced footprint for less potential vulnerabilitiesReducing the attack surface (or “footprint”) of an application is a fundamental hardening technique. This involves disabling unnecessary features, services, or modules that could be exploited. TheCSCF v2024addresses this underControl 2.5A: Application Hardening, which explicitly requires users to minimize the attack surface of Swift-related applications by removing unused components and limiting exposed services. This directly correlates with reducing potential vulnerabilities.Conclusion: This applies.

D. Enhanced Straight Through Processing (STP)Straight Through Processing refers to the automated, end-to-end processing of transactions without manual intervention, a concept often associated with operational efficiency in financial systems. While STP is relevant to Swift’s messaging and transaction workflows, it is not a principle of Application Hardening. The CSCF does not link STP to security hardening practices, which focus on reducing vulnerabilities rather than optimizing transaction flows.Conclusion: This does not apply.

Step 3: Conclusion and Verification

Application Hardening, as per theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF), focuses on security principles that minimize risks to applications. The verified principles areLeast Privileges (A),Access on a need to have (B), andReduced footprint for less potential vulnerabilities (C). These align with Swift CSP’s emphasis on securing critical systems and reducing attack surfaces.

References

Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.5A: Application Hardening.

Swift Customer Security Programme – Security Best Practices, Section: Application Security.

CSCF v2024, Control 2.1: Operating System Privileged Account Control, and Control 2.3: System Access Control.

This question explores the process for updating an attestation after remediating an exception identified by an assessor:

Step 1: CSP Attestation and Remediation Process

The SWIFT CSP requires users to submit an annual attestation via the KYC Security Attestation (KYC-SA) application, reflecting compliance with CSCF controls. If anexception (non-compliance) is reported, remediation must occur, followed by validation before updating the attestation.