CSP-Assessor日本語版と英語版 & CSP-Assessor全真模擬試験

高質のSwift試験資料を持って、短い時間で気軽に試験に合格したいですか？そうしたら、我が社CertJukenのCSP-Assessor問題集をご覧にください。我々CSP-Assessor資料はIT認定試験の改革に準じて更新していますから、お客様は改革での問題変更に心配するは全然ありません。お客様か購入する前、我が社CertJukenのCSP-Assessor問題集の見本を無料にダウンロードできます。

他の人はあちこちでSwift CSP-Assessor試験資料を探しているとき、あなたはすでに勉強中で、準備階段でライバルに先立ちます。また、我々CertJukenは量豊かのSwift CSP-Assessor試験資料を提供しますし、ソフト版であなたにSwift CSP-Assessor試験の最も現実的な環境をシミュレートさせます。勉強中で、何の質問があると、メールで我々はあなたのためにすぐ解決します。心配はありませんし、一心不乱に試験復習に取り組んでいます。

>> CSP-Assessor日本語版と英語版 <<

認定するCSP-Assessor日本語版と英語版試験-試験の準備方法-最高のCSP-Assessor全真模擬試験

市場では、顧客の観点から判断するための未定の品質を備えたいくつかの実習用教材が市場に登場しています。間違ったCSP-Assessor練習教材を選択した場合、重大な間違いになります。彼らの行動は厳密に倫理的ではなく、あなたにとって無責任ではありません。進歩を遂げ、CSP-Assessorトレーニング資料の証明書を取得することは、当然のことながら、最新の最も正確な知識を指揮する最も専門的な専門家によるものです。それが、Swift Customer Security Programme Assessor Certification試験準備が市場の大部分を占める理由です。

Swift Customer Security Programme Assessor Certification 認定 CSP-Assessor 試験問題 (Q12-Q17):

質問 # 12
The Physical Security protection control is also aimed at protecting the "on call" and "working from home" employees' equipment used to access the Swift-related components.

A. FALSE
B. TRUE

正解：B

質問 # 13
An application only uses (i) the SWIFT API for reporting and gpi basic tracker calls through (ii) a tailored account not allowing business transactions management. Is this application in scope of the CSCF? (Select the correct answer)
*Swift Customer Security Controls Policy
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025
*Independent Assessment Framework
*Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines
*Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines
*Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025
*CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree
*CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025
*Assessment template for Mandatory controls
*Assessment template for Advisory controls
*CSCF Assessment Completion Letter
*Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template

A. Yes, it is in scope and considered a customer connector because it reads business transaction data
B. No, it is not in scope because the API connection method is not in scope of the CSP
C. Yes, it is in scope because the API connection method is less secure than SWIFT interfaces
D. No, it can be descoped because there is no business transaction management being performed

正解：D

解説：
The CSCF applies to all SWIFT users and components that handle SWIFT-related data or connectivity, including customer connectors and interfaces. The scope is defined by the "Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025" and the "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree." Let's evaluate the scenario and options:
*The application uses the SWIFT API for reporting and gpi basic tracker calls (e.g., tracking payment statuses via the SWIFT gpi Tracker) through a tailored account that does not allow business transaction management (e.g., creating or sending MT messages like MT103). This limits its functionality to read-only or monitoring activities.
*CSCF Scope: The CSCF applies to components that process or manage SWIFT business transactions (e.g., payment messages) or provide connectivity to the SWIFT network. The "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree" classifies components into architecture types (A1-A4), with customer connectors and interfaces in scope if they handle transactional data or enable SWIFT connectivity. Reporting and tracking via APIs, without transaction management, do not constitute business transaction processing.
*Option A: Yes, it is in scope and considered a customer connector because it reads business transaction data This is incorrect. While the application reads transaction data (e.g., via gpi Tracker), the CSCF scope is primarily focused on components that manage or transmit business transactions (e.g., creating or sending messages). Reading data for reporting purposes does not classify it as a customer connector requiring full CSCF compliance unless it also handles transactional flows. The "Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template" focuses on transactional interfaces.
*Option B: No, it can be descoped because there is no business transaction management being performed This is correct. Since the application does not manage business transactions (e.g., it cannot initiate or modify payments), it falls outside the primary scope of the CSCF. The "Independent Assessment Framework" allows for descoping of components that do not process transactional data, provided they are isolated from the SWIFT secure zone. This aligns with the "CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree," which excludes non- transactional reporting tools from mandatory assessment.
*Option C: No, it is not in scope because the API connection method is not in scope of the CSP This is incorrect. The SWIFT API connection method is within the CSP scope if it interacts with SWIFT services (e.g., gpi Tracker), but the key factor is the lack of transaction management, not the API itself.
*Option D: Yes, it is in scope because the API connection method is less secure than SWIFT interfaces This is incorrect. Security of the connection method (e.g., API vs. traditional interfaces) does not determine CSCF scope. The scope is based on functionality (transaction management), and the statement's premise about security is not a valid criterion per CSCF guidelines.
Summary of Correct answer:
The application is not in scope of the CSCF and can be descoped because it does not perform business transaction management (B).
References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Defines scope based on transaction management.
*CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree: Guides descoping of non-transactional components.
*Independent Assessment Framework: Allows descoping of reporting-only applications.
========

質問 # 14
What does the CSCF expect in terms of Database Integrity? (Choose all that apply.)

A. Alerts generated from performed integrity checks are captured and analysed for appropriate treatment
B. When a database is used by a messaging interface or connector, the related hosted database and its supporting system must be protected as a Swift-related component and exceptions alerted
C. Nothing is needed when the messaging or connector integrates/embeds an integrity check functionality at each Swift transaction record level.

正解：A、B

解説：
This question addresses database integrity expectations under theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024.
Step 1: Understand Database Integrity Requirements
TheCSCF v2024, underControl 2.7: Database Integrity, mandates protection and monitoring of databases supporting Swift-related components to ensure data integrity and detect anomalies.
Step 2: Evaluate Each Option
* A. Nothing is needed when the messaging or connector integrates/embeds an integrity check functionality at each Swift transaction record levelIncorrect. Even with embedded checks,Control
2.7requires additional protection and monitoring of the database and supporting systems, not just reliance on transaction-level checks.Conclusion: Incorrect.
* B. When a database is used by a messaging interface or connector, the related hosted database and its supporting system must be protected as a Swift-related component and exceptions alerted Correct.Control 2.7requires that databases supporting messaging interfaces or connectors be secured (e.
g., in a secure zone) and that exceptions (e.g., integrity breaches) be alerted, per theCSCF v2024.
Conclusion: Correct.
* C. Alerts generated from performed integrity checks are captured and analysed for appropriate treatmentCorrect.Control 2.7andControl 6.1: Security Event Loggingmandate capturing and analyzing integrity check alerts to address potential issues, as detailed in theSwift Security Best Practices
.Conclusion: Correct.
Step 3: Conclusion and Verification
The correct answers areB and C, as these align withControl 2.7andControl 6.1requirements for database integrity and monitoring in theCSCF v2024.
References
* Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.7: Database Integrity, Control
6.1: Security Event Logging.
* Swift Security Best Practices, Section: Database Security.

質問 # 15
The Internal Audit and an external assessment company are both involved in a SWIFT user's assessment.
Both have shared control assessments to cover the full scope (meaning two separate assessment teams). Who needs to provide a completion letter? (Select the correct answer)
*Swift Customer Security Controls Policy
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025
*Independent Assessment Framework
*Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines
*Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines
*Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025
*CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree
*CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025
*Assessment template for Mandatory controls
*Assessment template for Advisory controls
*CSCF Assessment Completion Letter
*Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template

A. None of them, it is not required when an internal department was involved in the assessment
B. The Internal audit lead assessor only
C. The Internal audit lead assessor and the external company lead assessor
D. The External company lead assessor only

正解：D

解説：
The "Independent Assessment Framework" and "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" require that the CSP assessment be conducted by an independent, certified assessor, with the resulting "CSCF Assessment Completion Letter" being a key deliverable. Let's evaluate each option:
*Option A: The Internal audit lead assessor and the external company lead assessor This is incorrect. The CSP prohibits reliance on internal audits for the completion letter due to the independence requirement. Only the external assessor's letter is valid, as per the "Independent Assessment Framework."
*Option B: The Internal audit lead assessor only
This is incorrect. Internal audits lack the independence needed to issue the completion letter, which must come from an external assessor.
*Option C: The External company lead assessor only
This is correct. The "Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines" mandates that the completion letter be provided by the lead assessor from the external assessment company, as they are the independent entity conducting the assessment. The internal audit's involvement is supplementary and cannot replace the external assessor's responsibility.
*Option D: None of them, it is not required when an internal department was involved in the assessment This is incorrect. A completion letter is always required, and internal involvement does not waive this requirement; it must be issued by the external assessor.
Summary of Correct answer:
Only the external company lead assessor needs to provide the completion letter (C).
References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:
*Independent Assessment Framework: Requires an independent assessor's completion letter.
*Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Specifies external assessor responsibility.
*CSCF Assessment Completion Letter: Issued by the external assessor.
========

質問 # 16
Select the environment that is not in scope in a SWIFT user CSP assessment (assuming the environments are separated).
*Swift Customer Security Controls Policy
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025
*Independent Assessment Framework
*Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines
*Independent Assessment Framework - High-Level Test Plan Guidelines
*Outsourcing Agents - Security Requirements Baseline v2025
*CSP Architecture Type - Decision tree
*CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025
*Assessment template for Mandatory controls
*Assessment template for Advisory controls
*CSCF Assessment Completion Letter
*Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template

A. Development
B. Disaster Recovery
C. SWIFT infrastructure (sometimes known as Live)
D. Cold backup systems

正解：A

解説：
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.
========

質問 # 17
......

CertJukenの商品は100%の合格率を保証いたします。CertJukenはCSP-Assessorに対応性研究続けて、高品質で低価格な問題集が開発いたしました。CertJukenの商品の最大の特徴は20時間だけ育成課程を通して楽々に合格できます。

CSP-Assessor全真模擬試験: https://www.certjuken.com/CSP-Assessor-exam.html

我々社の練習問題は長年でCSP-Assessor全真模擬試験トレーニング資料に研究している専業化チームによって編集されます、Swift CSP-Assessor日本語版と英語版その上、レートはまだ増加しています、Swift CSP-Assessor日本語版と英語版経済の急速な発展に伴い、私たちに対する社会の要求はますます高くなっています、このCSP-Assessor問題集では、あなたが試験の出題範囲をより正確に理解することができ、よりよく試験に関連する知識を習得することができます、Swift CSP-Assessor日本語版と英語版教材の合格率は最大99％です、Swift CSP-Assessor日本語版と英語版資料の整理に悩んでいますか。

櫻井は廃墟となった実家を出て、近所の旧家を聞き込みしながら回った、これからどうする、我々社の練習問題は長年でCSP-Assessor全真模擬試験トレーニング資料に研究している専業化チームによって編集されます、その上、レートはまだ増加しています。

一発合格問題 CSP-Assessor 厳選問題集

経済の急速な発展に伴い、私たちに対する社会の要求はますます高くなっています、このCSP-Assessor問題集では、あなたが試験の出題範囲をより正確に理解することができ、よりよく試験に関連する知識を習得することができます。

教材の合格率は最大99％です。

Jim Walker Jim Walker

Biography

CSP-Assessor日本語版と英語版 & CSP-Assessor全真模擬試験

認定するCSP-Assessor日本語版と英語版試験-試験の準備方法-最高のCSP-Assessor全真模擬試験

Swift Customer Security Programme Assessor Certification 認定 CSP-Assessor 試験問題 (Q12-Q17):

一発合格問題 CSP-Assessor 厳選問題集

প্রয়োজনীয় লিংক

যোগাযোগ

নিউজ লেটার