Swift CSP-Assessor Dumps Questions Answers

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.

The SWIFT CSP requires a consistent and independent assessment process, as specified in the "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines." Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Yes, a SWIFT user can combine multiple assessment types (internal and external assessment) as long as all controls are covered

This is incorrect. The CSP mandates that the assessment be conducted by a single, independent assessor or firm to ensure uniformity and objectivity. Mixing internal audits (which lack independence) with external assessments does not meet the requirement, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."

•Option B: No, because the SWIFT user cannot be sure the same approach and quality will be delivered

This is incorrect as the primary reason. While consistency is a concern, the main issue is the lack of independence, not just quality variation.

•Option C: Yes, but only if there is a signed agreement between all involved assessors

This is incorrect. A signed agreement does not resolve the CSP’s requirement for a single independent assessment. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" does not allow hybrid assessments.

•Option D: No, SWIFT can reject the attestation in such situations

This is correct. SWIFT reserves the right to reject attestations if the assessment process does not comply with the requirement for a fully independent assessment by a certified assessor. The "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" and "CSCF Assessment Completion Letter" must reflect a single, consistent evaluation, and the "Independent Assessment Framework" explicitly prohibits reliance on internal audits for compliance attestation.

Summary of Correct Answer:

This approach is not acceptable, and SWIFT can reject the attestation (D).

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Independent Assessment Framework: Requires a single independent assessor.

•Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Prohibits mixed assessment types.

•Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Reflects a unified assessment process.

========

CSCF Control "1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection" aims to secure the SWIFT infrastructure by isolating it from external threats and internal risks. The "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" details its objectives. Let’s evaluate each option:

•Option A: Restrict malicious access from external sources

This applies. Control 1.1 requires isolating the SWIFT secure zone from external sources (e.g., the Internet) to prevent malicious access, such as malware or unauthorized intrusions.

•Option B: Forbids any interactive sessions towards the SWIFT infrastructure

This does not apply. Control 1.1 does not forbid all interactive sessions. It allows controlled interactive access (e.g., via jump servers) for administrative purposes, provided sessions are secured (e.g., encrypted per Control "2.1 Internal Data Transmission Security"). The "CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025" permits interactive sessions with proper controls.

•Option C: Limit risks of privileged accounts compromise

This applies. Control 1.1 includes measures to secure privileged accounts (e.g., by enforcing strong authentication and role-based access control) to prevent compromise, aligning with CSCF principles.

•Option D: Limit risks of lateral movement

This applies. Control 1.1 aims to segment the SWIFT environment from the general IT environment, reducing the risk of lateral movement by attackers within the network.

Summary of Correct Answer:

Forbidding any interactive sessions (B) does not apply, as Control 1.1 allows controlled interactive access.

References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:

•Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Control 1.1 objectives include restricting access and limiting risks, but not banning interactive sessions.

•CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Confirms controlled interactive sessions are permitted.

•Independent Assessment Framework: Assesses secure access controls under 1.1.

========