Mobile App Penetration Testing iOS, Android Guide (2026)
Hisham Mir
February 28, 2026
Most security teams assume their mobile app was covered in the web app pentest. It wasn't.
The API calls, yes. The backend logic, partially. But the binary sitting on your users' devices the local storage, the hardcoded secrets, the certificate pinning that a tester bypasses in 60 seconds, the exported Android components, the iOS keychain misuse none of that is in a web app pentest scope. It's a different platform, a different attack surface, and a completely different testing methodology.
This guide covers what mobile app penetration testing actually involves, what it costs in 2026, and the three questions that tell you immediately whether a provider is doing real work or running a free scanner against your APK.
- What Mobile App Penetration Testing Is
- iOS vs Android: Different Platforms, Different Attack Surfaces
- Static vs Dynamic Analysis: What Each Covers
- What the Methodology Should Cover (OWASP MASVS)
- Answering the Questions Everyone Actually Asks
- What a Real Mobile Pentest Report Contains
- Mobile App Penetration Testing Cost in 2026
- Get a Mobile App Pentest Quote
What Mobile App Penetration Testing Is
Mobile app penetration testing is a manual security assessment of your iOS or Android application conducted by a human tester who analyses how the app stores data, communicates with your backend, handles authentication, and responds to adversarial manipulation.
The tester approaches your app the way a malicious user, a curious competitor, or an attacker with physical device access would. They reverse-engineer the binary, intercept network traffic, probe backend API calls, examine local data storage, test authentication flows, and look for vulnerabilities in both the app itself and how it connects to your infrastructure.
The two components that matter: Mobile app pentesting has a client-side layer (what happens on the device) and a server-side layer (the API calls the app makes). A genuine mobile pentest covers both. An assessment that only covers client-side analysis without testing the backend API is half a test and usually the less important half.
What it is not: Running MobSF or ApkTool against your APK and generating an automated report. These tools have value in a testing workflow but they miss the vulnerabilities that matter most — authentication bypass, insecure API calls, business logic flaws, and runtime manipulation. An automated scan tells you about known patterns. A manual tester finds what's specific to your application.
iOS vs Android: Different Platforms, Different Attack Surfaces
iOS and Android have different security architectures, different vulnerability patterns, and require different testing approaches. A tester who only tests one platform is not qualified to claim coverage on the other.
| Area | iOS | Android |
|---|---|---|
| Binary analysis | IPA analysis, Objective-C/Swift reversing, class-dump — harder to extract but possible | APK decompilation, Smali/Java analysis — more exposed by default |
| Data storage | Keychain misuse, plist files, NSUserDefaults, CoreData exposure | SharedPreferences, SQLite databases, external storage, logcat leakage |
| Certificate pinning | Bypassed via Frida, SSL Kill Switch — pinning is a speed bump, not a security control | Bypassed via Frida, Magisk, network security config patching — same story |
| Runtime manipulation | Jailbreak required for deep runtime access — Frida, Objection toolset | Root or emulator — more accessible, more frequently exploited in the wild |
| IPC / component exposure | URL scheme abuse, deep link hijacking, universal link security | Exported Activities/Services/Receivers, Intent injection, Content Provider leakage |
| Backup / device theft | iTunes/iCloud backup data extraction | ADB backup, Android Debug Bridge extraction |
Both platforms require platform-specific tooling and expertise. When scoping a mobile app pentest, confirm whether the engagement covers iOS, Android, or both and whether the tester has active experience on both platforms rather than specialising in one.
Static vs Dynamic Analysis: What Each Covers
This is the question that comes up most often from developers and engineering leads evaluating mobile security providers. The distinction matters practically for understanding what's being tested and what isn't.
Static analysis examines the application binary without executing it. The tester decompiles or disassembles the app and reviews the code, configuration, and embedded resources for vulnerabilities. This covers: hardcoded credentials and API keys, insecure cryptographic implementations, sensitive data in the binary, debug flags left enabled in production builds, and third-party library vulnerabilities.
Static analysis is thorough and repeatable, but it has limits. It tells you what's in the code it doesn't tell you how the application behaves at runtime, what the backend API allows, or what vulnerabilities only appear when the app is running and interacting with a real server.
Dynamic analysis tests the running application. The tester intercepts network traffic, manipulates API calls, hooks into runtime processes, and observes how the app behaves under conditions it wasn't designed to encounter. This covers: authentication bypass, insecure API calls and broken access control, runtime data exposure, certificate pinning bypass and what that reveals, session management weaknesses, and business logic flaws that only appear in the running application.
Dynamic analysis is where the most commercially significant findings come from in most mobile app assessments because that's where the business logic lives, and business logic is what attackers actually exploit.
A complete mobile pentest requires both. Providers who offer only static analysis are providing automated tooling with a report wrapper. The findings that matter auth bypass, BOLA in your mobile API, runtime data exposure require dynamic testing on a real or emulated device with a tester who understands your application's intended behaviour.
What the Methodology Should Cover (OWASP MASVS)
The industry-standard framework for mobile application security testing is OWASP MASVS — the Mobile Application Security Verification Standard. When providers say their testing is "MASVS-aligned," here's what that means in scope terms for a buyer:
Storage Security
Sensitive data stored insecurely on device — credentials in SharedPreferences, PII in unencrypted SQLite, tokens in plaintext files, session data exposed in backups. Physical device access or malware on the device can extract it. This category produces findings in the majority of mobile app assessments.
Cryptography
Weak encryption algorithms, hardcoded keys, insecure random number generation, improper use of platform cryptography APIs. An app that encrypts data locally using a hardcoded key or a key derived from a predictable value is not meaningfully encrypting anything.
Authentication & Session Management
How the app authenticates users and maintains sessions — token storage, biometric authentication implementation, logout behaviour, session timeout. Tokens stored insecurely, sessions that persist after logout, and biometric bypass vulnerabilities all fall here.
Network Communication
TLS configuration, certificate validation, certificate pinning implementation and bypass resistance. This is where testing what the API actually allows becomes critical — intercepted traffic reveals the real security posture of backend calls regardless of what client-side code appears to enforce.
Platform Interaction
How the app interacts with the OS — exported components, deep links, URL scheme handling, IPC mechanisms, clipboard exposure, screenshot prevention, keyboard caching. Android exported components and iOS URL scheme hijacking are consistently among the highest-impact findings in platform interaction testing.
Code Quality
Debugging enabled in production builds, stack traces exposed to users, third-party library vulnerabilities, hardcoded credentials and API keys in the binary. Primarily a static analysis category — reviewable without running the app.
Anti-Tampering & Reverse Engineering Resistance
Root/jailbreak detection, debugger detection, code integrity checks, obfuscation effectiveness. Most relevant for fintech, banking, and DRM-sensitive apps where tampering has direct financial consequences. Absence of these controls doesn't automatically mean a finding — depends on the threat model.
Privacy Controls
Added in MASVS v2 — data minimisation, permission requests, privacy manifest compliance (iOS 17+), and how PII is handled in analytics and crash reporting. Increasingly relevant for GDPR, HIPAA, and App Store compliance requirements.
Answering the Questions Everyone Actually Asks
These are the questions that appear constantly. Direct answers:
"Does my mobile app need a pentest before App Store / Play Store submission?"
Apple and Google don't require a third-party security assessment for app submission. What they require: compliance with their security guidelines App Transport Security on iOS, network security config on Android. Failing those gets your app rejected, but passing them doesn't mean the app is secure.
The business reasons to pentest before launch are more compelling than platform requirements: customer data exposure from day one, compliance requirements (SOC 2, HIPAA, PCI DSS), enterprise procurement security questionnaires, and the cost differential between fixing vulnerabilities pre-launch versus post-breach. A fintech app that launches with a broken authentication flow and suffers a breach within three months costs significantly more than a pre-launch pentest.
"Is mobile pentesting different from web app pentesting?"
Yes — substantially. A web app pentest doesn't test client-side binary analysis, local data storage security, platform-specific IPC mechanisms, certificate pinning bypass, or the mobile-specific API attack surface. The methodologies overlap in the network and API testing layer, but the client-side component is entirely different and requires device-based testing with platform-specific tooling.
"Our mobile app uses certificate pinning does that mean we're secure?"
Certificate pinning makes traffic interception harder it doesn't make it impossible. Skilled testers bypass certificate pinning routinely using Frida hooks, Objection, SSL Kill Switch on iOS, and Magisk modules on Android. Pinning is a useful control that raises the cost of attack, but it is not a substitute for secure API design and proper backend authorisation. The question to ask is: if pinning is bypassed (and in a pentest, it will be), what does the API allow?
"OWASP MASVS vs OWASP Mobile Top 10 which should our pentest follow?"
MASVS is the right framework for a pentest. The Mobile Top 10 is a list of common vulnerability categories useful for awareness but not structured as a testing methodology. MASVS defines specific, testable requirements across eight control categories with explicit pass/fail criteria. Ask providers whether they test against MASVS and at which level: L1 (standard security, suitable for most apps) or L2 (defence-in-depth, appropriate for fintech, healthcare, and high-value data apps).
"We're building a fintech app what security testing do we need before launch?"
For a regulated fintech application, the minimum pre-launch security testing is: MASVS L2 mobile app pentest covering both iOS and Android if you ship both, API pentest covering all backend endpoints the mobile app calls, and a compliance-scoped assessment against your specific regulatory requirements (PCI DSS, SAMA, FCA, etc.). Post-launch: annual retesting plus testing after significant feature changes or architecture updates.
What a Real Mobile Pentest Report Contains
Before selecting a provider, ask for a redacted sample report. Here's what distinguishes a genuine mobile pentest report from an automated scan output:
Executive summary. Overall risk rating, key findings in non-technical language, and the most critical actions required. If this section requires a security background to understand, it's not written for its intended audience.
MASVS coverage matrix. A table mapping each tested MASVS category to the findings produced and overall status. This tells you at a glance what was tested and what wasn't. A provider who can't produce this hasn't tested against MASVS they've run a tool.
Platform-specific findings. iOS and Android findings should look visibly different. If both platform sections contain identical findings with the same descriptions, the same automated tool was run on both and the tester hasn't done manual testing on either.
Client-side findings with device evidence. Screenshots from the test device showing data exposure, runtime manipulation output, or extracted content. A finding that says "sensitive data in local storage" without showing what data, from where, and how it was extracted is an assertion, not a finding.
API findings with request/response evidence. Authentication bypass findings should include the exact request sent, the server response proving the bypass succeeded, and the data accessible as a result. Your backend engineers need this to reproduce and fix the issue.
Remediation guidance at implementation level. Not "store data securely" specifically: use iOS Keychain with kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, not NSUserDefaults. Your development team acts directly on this guidance; vague recommendations generate back-and-forth that delays fixes.
Retest evidence. After remediation, critical and high findings should be retested and the report updated with evidence of resolution. For App Store resubmission, compliance audits, or enterprise security questionnaires, retest evidence is what gets reviewed.
Mobile App Penetration Testing Cost in 2026
Mobile app pentest pricing is driven by: platforms in scope, MASVS level, whether the API backend is included, and application complexity.
| Scope | ⚡ Cost/Rate | What's Included |
|---|---|---|
| Single platform iOS or Android, MASVS L1 | $5,000 – $10,000 Market avg. $8,000–$15,000 | Static + dynamic analysis, MASVS L1 coverage, API testing, retest included |
| Both platforms iOS + Android, MASVS L1 | $9,000 – $18,000 Market avg. $14,000–$28,000 | Full platform coverage, platform-specific findings, shared API test, retest included |
| Both platforms + MASVS L2 Fintech, healthcare, high-value data | $15,000 – $30,000 Market avg. $25,000–$50,000 | Full MASVS L2 including resilience testing, anti-tampering assessment, deep API, compliance docs |
Every engagement is scoped to your actual app after a technical pre-call — no inflated hours, no checklist padding. Retest and compliance documentation are included as standard.
Mobile app security has a different attack surface, different testing methodology, and different tooling from web application testing. An organisation that has pentested its web application but not its mobile app has tested the front door and left the back window open.
Three things determine whether you're getting a real mobile pentest: static and dynamic analysis both present, the API backend explicitly in scope, and platform-specific findings for each platform you ship. If any of those are missing, the engagement is incomplete.
Get a Mobile App Pentest Quote
Related reading:
- Mobile App Pentesting Service
- Web Application Penetration Testing Guide
- API Penetration Testing Guide
- SOC 2 Penetration Testing Requirements
- Penetration Testing Services
Mobile App Penetration Testing, iOS Penetration Testing, Android Penetration Testing, OWASP MASVS, Mobile Security Testing, Certificate Pinning Bypass, Static Analysis Mobile, Dynamic Analysis Mobile, MASVS L2, Fintech App Security, Mobile App Security Testing
Tags
About Hisham Mir
Hisham Mir is a cybersecurity professional with 10+ years of hands-on experience and Co-Founder & CTO of SecurityWall. He leads real-world penetration testing and vulnerability research, and is an experienced bug bounty hunter.