Application
Prove what your shipped mobile app actually does
NowSecure tests the compiled mobile app your customers, employees, and partners actually run. Binary, dynamic, and behavioral analysis on real devices reveals third-party software development kit (SDK) behavior, post-login data flows, artificial intelligence (AI) call-sites, and runtime risks inside the binary that source-code scanning cannot prove.
TL;DR: Source-code scanning reviews what developers wrote. Mobile App Security Testing (MAST) verifies what shipped. NowSecure tests compiled binaries on real devices, including authenticated workflows, SDK behavior, AI call-sites, and runtime data flows, so teams can act on evidence instead of inference
The Dangers of Insecure Mobile Apps
1/5
1 in 5 apps hardcode encryption keys
Attackers don’t need to break your crypto when secrets are baked into the code. Hardcoded keys turn every compromise into full data exposure.
1/6
Nearly 1 in 6 apps ship with known-vulnerable components
Third-party SDKs and libraries quietly pull CVEs into production, expanding your attack surface with every new release.
2/3
Almost two-thirds use weak or broken encryption
Outdated algorithms and misconfigured crypto leave “protected” data effectively exposed.
525k+
Assessments show these flaws are the norm
When foundational issues appear at this scale, point-in-time testing is not enough.
95%
of apps fail the industry standard for mobile security
As defined in the OWASP MASVS Standard. NowSecure benchmarking found a clear gap between expected controls and real-world mobile security testing.
Enterprises are accountable for the mobile application binary that ships
Your organization is responsible for how its production mobile apps behave, whether the risk came from first-party code, third-party SDKs, embedded AI, or runtime data flows. The artifact that matters is the compiled binary customers actually run.
That binary can contain:
Third-party SDKs your team did not write
AI services your governance team did not inventory
Data flows that never appear in source review
Behaviors that only surface after login on a real device
When a regulator, customer security team or board asks whether a shipped app protects the data it handles, source-scan output cannot answer the question. The scan never inspected the released artifact.
Authenticated testing on real devices surfaces materially more sensitive-data exposure than unauthenticated review reaches. Mobile App Security Testing measures that exposure and records the evidence your security program needs.
Source-code scanning is useful, but it tests the wrong artifact for production risk
Static application security testing (SAST) helps developers find code-level issues early. It does not prove what the compiled mobile app does after build, packaging, SDK updates, authentication, and runtime execution.
App store approval is not a security audit
Apple and Google reviews help enforce platform, policy, compatibility, and basic malware controls. They do not replace enterprise-grade testing for data leakage, insecure storage, weak authentication, cryptography misuse, excessive permissions, or third-party SDK behavior.
The shipped app differs from its source. Source-only tools cannot inspect every component inside a compiled binary, observe how a bundled SDK behaves or trace data across the post-login session customers experience.
AI and modern mobile standards raised the testing bar
Mobile apps now include AI SDKs, model call-sites, inference endpoints, and AI-connected dependencies that may never appear in governance inventories. At the same time, the Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) MASVS v2 reflects a modern reality: mobile security has to verify compiled app behavior, not just source code intent
NowSecure correlates binary and authenticated dynamic analysis
NowSecure inspects the compiled app and exercises eligible apps in authenticated sessions on real physical devices. This combination shows what is present in the binary, what runs after login, where data travels, and which findings are supported by observed behavior.
Binary analysis reveals what made it into the app
NowSecure decompiles and inspects Android and iOS binaries to identify compiled dependencies, third-party SDKs, embedded AI call-sites, endpoint registrations, code-level weaknesses, and resilience controls. Analysts work with mobile reverse-engineering tools such as jadx, Ghidra and radare2.
Authenticated dynamic analysis shows what happens at runtime
NowSecure runs eligible apps on real physical devices through authenticated workflows to observe network behavior, storage practices, authentication flows, privacy risks, and post-login data movement. Analysts instrument the running application with Frida and Objection.
Testing depth should match application risk
Every app does not need the same level of scrutiny. Lower-risk apps can receive automated baseline testing, while apps handling sensitive data, critical workflows, or high business impact receive authenticated, expert-guided, or adversarial testing.
Create a Dynamic Mobile AI Bill of Materials
NowSecure identifies AI models, AI-connected SDKs, AI-related dependencies, endpoint registrations, metadata, and observable data destinations inside the compiled mobile app. This gives AI governance teams an inventory based on what shipped, not what teams intended to ship.
The inventory is delivered as a CycloneDX software bill of materials (SBOM) extended with an AI-specific layer.
For AI and agentic risk, NowSecure observes the client-side evidence. NowSecure can identify AI SDKs, model call-sites, endpoint registrations, and observable data flows inside the mobile app. It does not claim to audit server-side model behavior unless that behavior is visible through the client interaction. The assessment is not represented as a backend or API audit.
Different stakeholders need different evidence
Mobile security engineers need reproducible findings tied to binary and runtime behavior. AppSec leaders need a funding recommendation grounded in testing depth and risk reduction. CISOs need defensible evidence for boards, regulators, customer auditors, and executive risk decisions.Senior Mobile Security Engineer | AppSec Leader | CISO
Senior Mobile Security Engineers validate finding quality and testing methodology
The Senior Mobile Security Engineer runs the proof of concept, tests the methodology and determines whether findings reflect real binary and runtime behavior.
Binary and dynamic evidence ties findings to specific SDKs, endpoints and data flows. Correlation helps the evaluator distinguish reproducible risks from static flags that lack runtime support. The engineer can then arm the CISO recommendation with technical evidence from the shipped artifact.
For DevSecOps execution, testing depth follows application risk. Routine automated coverage can run in the delivery pipeline, while authenticated and manual assessments focus on higher-risk applications and major releases.
AppSec leaders turn validated testing depth into a funding recommendation
The AppSec leader owns the handoff from proof of concept to the CISO and controls the decision gate.
The recommendation rests on findings the engineering evaluator has validated. It can show which technique produced each finding, how the result maps to OWASP MASVS and what remediation priority follows. This gives the AppSec leader evidence for a program decision rather than a feature-count comparison.
CISOs defend program rigor through methodology and auditable evidence
The CISO reviews the proof-of-concept outcome and explains the program’s rigor to the board, regulators and customer auditors.
The defensible question concerns methodology. The evidence should identify the artifact tested, the device conditions, the authenticated coverage, the applicable OWASP controls and the scope of any accredited assessment. Test-case totals alone do not establish that the shipped binary received meaningful runtime testing.
Use a proof-of-concept to test the evidence quality
A NowSecure proof-of-concept shows what binary and runtime testing reveal in apps your organization ships or depends on. The output connects findings to evidence, exploitability, remediation priority, and business risk so the team can make a program decision with confidence.
Binary plus authenticated dynamic analysis answers the production question
Source-only tools answer: “What does the code say?” NowSecure answers: “What does the shipped app actually do?” That includes compiled SDK behavior, post-login data flows, AI call-sites, real-device execution, standards mapping, and correlated evidence to reduce unsupported findings.
| What it evaluates | Source-only or SAST | NowSecure binary plus authenticated dynamic analysis |
|---|---|---|
| What it inspects | Developer-written source code | Compiled binary your customers run |
| SDK behavior | Limited to source available at build | Compiled-in SDK behavior, including dependencies absent from source |
| AI endpoints | Endpoints coded explicitly in available source | AI endpoint registrations and model call-sites present in the binary |
| Post-login data flow | Unreachable without an authenticated session | Post-login session traced on a real device for eligible apps, roughly 91%. Test-account provisioning is a defined human step |
| False-positive handling | Results lack dynamic corroboration | Dynamic execution corroborates binary flags. Uncorroborated results are down-ranked |
| Real-device testing | None | Testing requires a real physical device rather than an emulator |
| Standards coverage | Partial MASVS-CODE coverage at source level | Five of eight MASVS domains exercised with dynamic evidence: NETWORK, STORAGE, AUTH, PRIVACY and RESILIENCE |
| Best suited for | Teams seeking rapid code-level feedback during development | AppSec teams proving shipped-binary and runtime risk for production apps, regulatory audits or CISO-level program decisions |
Source-stage scanning still supports rapid developer feedback.
Binary and authenticated dynamic analysis answer a separate question: what does the artifact released to customers actually do?
Correlated testing produces
stronger evidence
When binary analysis and dynamic execution support the same finding, teams can trust the result. When runtime behavior does not support a static flag, the finding can be down-ranked. That helps teams focus on risks with evidence behind them.
NowSecure platform analysis found 7.23 sensitive-data findings per authenticated scan, compared with 4.07 without authentication. That represents a 78% increase in sensitive-data risk discovered.
The increase reflects behavior visible after login on a real device under live conditions.
The comparison baseline is static-only analysis rather than SAST. NowSecure static analysis operates on the binary. Source-based SAST operates on developer-written source. Treating those techniques as equivalent would erase the artifact distinction central to the methodology.
Enterprise proof at scale
NowSecure has completed more than 5 million automated mobile app assessments and supports security teams across regulated, high-scale, and mobile-first enterprises.
5M+
automated mobile app
assessments
Mapped to the standards mobile teams already use
NowSecure maps findings to OWASP MASVS and uses OWASP MASTG-aligned techniques to give developers, assessors, auditors, and security leaders a shared language for mobile app risk.
These standards are community-owned. NowSecure co-leads and contributes to the OWASP Mobile Application Security project.
NowSecure operates an A2LA-accredited laboratory under ISO/IEC 17025:2017, Certificate No. 7003.01, valid through 2027-08-31. The accredited scope covers mobile application security assessment within the MASA and OWASP MASVS Level 1 framework and is narrower than the full binary, dynamic and MASVS-RESILIENCE testing described on this page.
Two widely used open-source mobile reverse-engineering tools share that research lineage. Engineers who are now NowSecure researchers created Frida. Sergi “Pancake” Alvarez, now a NowSecure researcher, created radare2. NowSecure sponsors and contributes to both communities.
NowSecure holds a 4.8 out of 5 rating on Gartner Peer Insights in the Mobile Application Security Testing category as of July 2026.
MAST is the evidence engine for Mobile Application Risk Management
MAST supplies evidence. MARM governs decisions.
Mobile App Security Testing verifies what shipped apps do. Mobile Application Risk Management uses that evidence to prioritize remediation, assign ownership, track risk across the portfolio, and report defensible decisions to leadership.
Related MAST resources and testing paths extend the evidence into a program
Use the following resources and related testing paths to move from individual findings to portfolio governance.
Route from testing into mobile application risk management
See Mobile Application Risk Management (MARM) when you need to prioritize, remediate and track mobile application risk across a portfolio.
Route across the mobile testing cluster
Mobile app penetration testing, for adversarial depth on specific attack surfaces
App vetting and third-party app assessment, for workforce and enterprise application portfolio risk
ADA MASA standards and certification, for certification-backed assurance within the OWASP MASVS Level 1 scope
Standards and certifications, for the NowSecure standards and compliance posture
Related resources
- Ungoverned: How AI Widens the Mobile App Gap (ebook, May 2026)
- An Essential Guide to the OWASP Mobile App Security (MAS) Project
Prove what your shipped app actually does
Run a proof-of-concept assessment on an app your business depends on and see what binary, dynamic, and authenticated real-device testing reveals.
Frequently asked questions about
mobile application security testing
Have more questions? Get in touch with our team.