Security testing for mobile apps and the APIs behind them
Static analysis of Android and iOS builds, plus the authenticated API testing that finds where a mobile app's real risk usually lives.
RedStrike tests mobile applications and the backend APIs they depend on. Upload an Android APK or iOS IPA and it is analysed against OWASP MASVS and the OWASP Mobile Top 10 (2024) — manifest and entitlements, code signing, transport policy, binary protections, embedded credentials, and bundled third-party SDKs — and the app's backend is tested with the same authenticated API and authorization checks used across the platform. Binary analysis is static: the app is not installed or executed, and every report states that limit explicitly. Backend findings map to the OWASP Top 10 (2025), the OWASP API Security Top 10 (2023), SOC 2, and ISO/IEC 27001:2022.
The problem
Why mobile risk is mostly server-side
The client is inspectable by anyone who downloads it, so the control that matters is the one on the other end of the connection.
The app ships to the attacker
A published binary can be decompiled, instrumented, and replayed. Hardcoded secrets, embedded endpoints, and debug interfaces stop being hidden the moment the build is public.
Client-side checks are advisory only
Validation, entitlement checks, and rate limits enforced in the app are trivially bypassed by a modified client or a direct API call. Only the server-side equivalent counts.
Mobile backends expose broad APIs
Mobile clients need coarse endpoints returning a lot at once, which makes over-exposed object properties and missing ownership checks more likely than in a web-only product.
You cannot patch a shipped binary quickly
Store review adds days between finding a client-side issue and having a fix in users' hands, and older versions stay in use long after that.
How RedStrike helps
Binary analysis plus the backend, in one programme
Binary analysis runs on an uploaded build; the API coverage is the platform's standard engine.
Android and iOS static analysis
APK and IPA builds are checked for debuggable and backup-enabled manifests, exported components, cleartext and ATS transport policy, weak cryptography, embedded credentials, signing weaknesses, and binary hardening — scored and mapped to OWASP MASVS.
Release-over-release comparison
Each build is compared with the previous analysis of the same package, so a release is measured against the one before it rather than assessed in isolation.
Backend authorization testing
The APIs behind the app are tested for broken object-level authorization, broken function-level authorization, mass assignment, and workflow bypass with real authenticated sessions.
API discovery from the client
Endpoints are enumerated from specifications and observed traffic, so the backend surface a mobile client actually calls is what gets tested.
Third-party code and supply chain
Bundled analytics and advertising SDKs are inventoried from the build itself, so you can reconcile them against your privacy notice. Full dependency scanning and a CycloneDX or SPDX bill of materials run from the app's connected source repository, not from the uploaded binary.
Transport security
TLS configuration on the backend is tested directly, covering the protocol, cipher, and certificate issues a mobile client will silently accept if misconfigured.
Compliance coverage
Which frameworks this maps to — and exactly how far the mapping goes
Binary findings carry OWASP MASVS controls and OWASP Mobile Top 10 (2024) categories on every check; the OWASP Mobile Top 10 is not part of the compliance-framework registry that drives SOC 2 and ISO evidence, so it is reported on findings rather than scored as a framework. Backend findings map to the OWASP Top 10 and OWASP API Security Top 10 and carry SOC 2 and ISO 27001 control references. Where a mobile backend runs in the cloud, note that framework-labelled cloud rulesets — SOC 2, GDPR, PCI DSS — run on AWS only; Azure and GCP are graded against CIS Foundations benchmarks.
| Framework | Edition mapped | Cloud coverage |
|---|---|---|
| OWASP Top 10OWASP Foundation | 2025 | Mapped on findings from application, API, and network testing. No native cloud-resource checks — pair with CIS benchmark grading for cloud evidence. |
| OWASP API Security Top 10OWASP Foundation | 2023 | Mapped on findings from application, API, and network testing. No native cloud-resource checks — pair with CIS benchmark grading for cloud evidence. |
| SOC 2AICPA | 2017 | Native cloud-resource checks on AWS. Azure and GCP are graded against CIS benchmarks instead. |
| ISO/IEC 27001ISO/IEC | 2022 | Native cloud-resource checks on AWS. Azure and GCP are graded against CIS benchmarks instead. |
| GDPREuropean Union | 2016/679 | Native cloud-resource checks on AWS. Azure and GCP are graded against CIS benchmarks instead. |
| PCI DSSPCI Security Standards Council | 4.0.1 | Native cloud-resource checks on AWS. Azure and GCP are graded against CIS benchmarks instead. |
Every cloud account is graded against CIS Foundations benchmarks on AWS, Azure, GCP, and Kubernetes clusters against the CIS Kubernetes benchmark, regardless of which frameworks above apply to you. Evidence can be exported as a report or pushed into Vanta or Drata.
How it works
From connected to evidence in four steps
Define scope
Add the domains, APIs, and cloud accounts in scope, with rules of engagement recorded before any test runs.
Test continuously
Application, API, network, container, and cloud checks run on a schedule instead of once a year, so drift is caught within a scan cycle.
Verify & de-duplicate
Findings from multiple tools are correlated into one issue, evidence is collected, and severity is scored so the list you read is the list that matters.
Export evidence
Results are mapped to framework controls and exported as a report, or pushed into Vanta or Drata.
Outcomes
What changes once this is running
- Catch hardcoded secrets and insecure storage in a build before it reaches a store.
- Test the backend as an attacker would — with a modified client and direct API calls.
- Cover the client binary and the API it depends on in one programme instead of two vendors.
- Know which third-party SDKs ship inside the build, and reconcile them against your privacy notice.
- Map mobile findings to the same SOC 2 and ISO 27001 evidence as the rest of your stack.
Related
Go deeper on the parts that matter to you
Continuous Pentesting
Always-on, verified offensive testing across apps, APIs, and network — not a once-a-year snapshot.
Learn more →Cloud Security (CSPM)
CIS-benchmarked posture across AWS, Azure, and GCP, with drift caught inside a scan cycle.
Learn more →Compliance
How findings become control-mapped audit evidence, and which editions are pinned to your engagement.
Learn more →FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about RedStrike for Mobile Apps.
What does RedStrike need to test a mobile app?
An uploaded Android APK or iOS IPA build for the client-side analysis. Backend API testing needs the API's targets and credentials for authenticated testing, defined as scope with rules of engagement recorded before the scan runs.
Which tools perform the mobile analysis?
RedStrike's own analyser unpacks the build and decodes it directly — the Android manifest and signing block, the iOS Info.plist, provisioning profile and Mach-O binary — so no third-party service is required. Where a deployment also runs MobSF, its findings are merged in and labelled as coming from MobSF. The analysis is static: the app is not installed or executed, and every report says so.
Does RedStrike map to the OWASP Mobile Top 10?
Yes for mobile builds: every binary finding carries OWASP MASVS controls and OWASP Mobile Top 10 (2024) categories, and each report shows coverage across all ten — including which categories cannot be decided from a build alone and therefore are not claimed as passed. It is not part of the compliance-framework registry that drives SOC 2 and ISO evidence packs; that registry maps the OWASP Top 10 (2025), the OWASP API Security Top 10 (2023), PCI DSS, ISO/IEC 27001, SOC 2, NIS2, the EU Cyber Resilience Act, NIST SP 800-53, HIPAA, and GDPR.
Can it test apps published to the stores, or only pre-release builds?
Either — the analysis works on the build you upload. Most teams test pre-release builds in CI so a finding is caught before store review, and re-test published builds when a dependency is disclosed.
Is the backend tested separately or together with the app?
They are two runs — a binary analysis of the uploaded build and a scan of the backend target — in one workspace, one report library and one set of framework mappings. Keeping them together matters because most mobile risk is server-side: the client-side finding tells you a secret is embedded, and the backend test tells you what that secret actually reaches.
Does this replace a manual mobile penetration test?
No, and it does not claim to. It covers the automatable majority — static binary analysis, dependency and supply-chain issues, transport security, and backend authorization — continuously rather than annually. Runtime behaviour on a device, deep reverse engineering and business-logic abuse specific to your app still need a human; continuous coverage makes that engagement start from a much shorter list.
Test the app and the API behind it, continuously
OWASP MASVS analysis for the binary; authenticated authorization testing for the backend.