Mobile application penetration testing for iOS and Android, aligned with OWASP MASVS.

// 01 What is mobile application penetration testing?

Unlike a web application penetration test - where the attacker lives on the network and the client is a transient browser tab - a mobile penetration tester begins with the binary in their hand, on a device they fully control. Modern mobile apps are no longer thin clients. They carry significant business logic, embed cryptographic material, cache sensitive personal data on disk, integrate with platform features (biometrics, secure enclaves, push tokens, location services) and communicate with backend APIs that often expect a level of client-side trust the platform cannot guarantee.

CyberFortify's mobile application penetration testing services assess every one of those layers on a fleet of current and previous-generation iOS and Android test devices, including jailbroken and rooted units for runtime instrumentation with Frida, Objection and Burp Suite. The OWASP Mobile Security Testing Guide (MSTG) provides the test-case ledger we work through - per-control, per-platform, with reproducible evidence captured for every finding.

// 02 iOS vs Android - what changes between platforms

The MASVS controls apply to both platforms, but the implementation surface differs substantially. The same defect - "secrets retrievable from device storage" - manifests through Keychain access groups on iOS and through Keystore + SharedPreferences on Android, and the bypass techniques are entirely different. CyberFortify scopes by platform, not by abstraction.

// 03 OWASP Mobile Top 10 - risk classes covered

The OWASP Mobile Top 10 is the canonical list of mobile-specific risk classes. CyberFortify covers every class on every engagement, with depth tuned to the agreed MASVS verification level. The Mobile Top 10 is complementary to - not replaced by - the OWASP Top 10 for web, which covers the backend APIs that mobile apps consume.

// 04 MASVS verification levels - choose your depth

The OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard (MASVS) defines three verification levels. The level is selected during scoping based on data sensitivity, threat model and regulatory pressure. MASVS replaces the older "Top 10 only" approach with a structured control set you can verify against and report on.

// 05 Static + dynamic analysis - both, always

Static analysis without dynamic analysis misses runtime trust assumptions and bypassable controls. Dynamic analysis without static analysis misses hardcoded secrets, dead-code endpoints and supply-chain risk. A complete mobile security assessment requires both, performed in alternation rather than in sequence - static findings drive runtime hypotheses, runtime observations drive deeper static review.

// 06 Mobile attack surface - what's in scope

A complete iOS and Android pen test covers six concrete scope categories. The depth applied to each is tuned to the agreed MASVS verification level - an L1 engagement may sample IPC abuse, where an L2+R engagement enumerates every exported component and tests anti-tamper logic adversarially.

// 07 CyberFortify's mobile pen testing methodology

Mobile engagements follow the same seven-phase methodology used across all CyberFortify offensive security services, grounded in PTES and aligned with OWASP MASVS verification levels. Verification level (L1 = baseline, L2 = defence-in-depth, L2+R = resilience against reverse engineering) is agreed during scoping based on the threat profile of your application.

// 08 Common mobile pen testing findings

The following findings appear repeatedly in real CyberFortify mobile engagements. Listed with severity and the MASVS / MSTG controls they map to. Use this as a self-audit checklist before scoping - if any of these are unverified in your current build, you have a candidate finding before testing begins.

// 09 When to commission a mobile pen test

Mobile pen testing is not an annual ritual - it is keyed to product change, threat exposure and regulatory deadline. The following triggers should each initiate a scoping conversation. Multiple triggers in a single quarter usually warrant a continuous testing arrangement rather than a discrete engagement.

// 10 Mobile pen test vs MAST tools and app-store reviews

"Why do we need a mobile pen test if we already run MobSF / a MAST tool / submit to the app store?" The most common scoping question. The honest answer: automated MAST tools and app-store reviews each verify different and narrower properties, and both are necessary but neither is sufficient.

The right operating model is: MAST in CI on every build, app-store review for distribution gating, mobile pen test annually and on major change. Each catches a different class of defect.

// 11 Engagement timeline - what to expect

A typical CyberFortify mobile engagement covers seven to fourteen business days of active testing. Total elapsed time from scoping call to clean attestation usually runs four to six weeks. Single-platform engagements compress to roughly two-thirds of dual-platform timing.

// 12 Mobile testing toolchain

Tools instrument the work; judgement does the work. The CyberFortify mobile toolchain is open about what it uses so customers can verify methodology grounding and reproduce findings in-house.

// 13 Standards & compliance mapping

Findings are scored, written and cross-referenced against the standards your auditors and engineering teams already work with. Use this table when scoping with a compliance or audit lead - it is the same table that ships in the deliverable.

// 14 Why teams choose CyberFortify for mobile pen testing

// 15 Frequently asked questions about mobile pen testing