Cyber-Security-&-Risk-Management
Upscend Team
-October 19, 2025
9 min read
This article explains practical mobile app penetration testing methods for Android and iOS, balancing static and dynamic analysis. It covers common vulnerabilities, Frida instrumentation, tooling (MobSF, JADX), a 5-day test plan and a checklist to prioritize findings and validate remediations on both emulators and real devices.
Effective mobile app penetration testing begins with a clear scope, threat model and the right mix of static and dynamic techniques. In our experience, organizations that apply focused testing on both platforms uncover 3–5x more critical issues than audits that rely only on code review. This guide covers the practical methods, tooling and a sample test plan to secure Android and iOS apps from common mobile-specific threats.
Mobile applications expose unique attack surfaces: local storage, inter-process communication, platform permissions and client-side logic. A focused mobile app penetration testing engagement defines what to test: APK/IPA analysis, backend API abuse, and device-specific behaviors like jailbroken/rooted device interactions.
Start by mapping assets: identify sensitive data flows, authentication points and third-party SDKs. Studies show that misconfigured storage and weak crypto are among the top vector categories in mobile breaches, so prioritize tests that validate secure storage and transport.
Mobile app penetration testing is a security evaluation that simulates attacker techniques against mobile clients and their server-side dependencies. It blends source, binary and runtime analysis to find logic flaws, data leakage, and configuration errors that affect confidentiality, integrity and availability.
In our experience, a good assessment includes both automated scans and manual exploration, with threat modeling to focus effort on high-impact areas.
Balancing static analysis and dynamic analysis is essential in any mobile app penetration testing program. Static analysis finds secrets in code and insecure API usage; dynamic analysis finds runtime behaviors, insecure storage access and logic bypasses.
Automated static tools accelerate the initial discovery phase, while manual dynamic testing uncovers issues only visible during execution on device or emulator.
Use tools like MobSF and JADX for decompilation, code quality checks and quick detection of hard-coded keys or dangerous API calls. Focus on:
Runtime testing requires emulators and real devices. We’ve found that some issues only manifest on real hardware (secure enclave differences, OEM changes). Use proxies for API interception and runtime instrumentation for deeper inspection.
Dynamic analysis workflows should include hooking sensitive functions, tamper attempts, network manipulation and session fuzzing to reveal logic flaws and trust assumptions.
When conducting mobile app penetration testing, prioritize vulnerabilities that lead to data exposure or account compromise. A practical list includes insecure storage, improper crypto, authentication flaws, insecure communication and insecure third-party components.
OWASP Mobile Top 10 remains a strong baseline; map each finding to impact, reproducibility and remediation effort.
Check for sensitive information in plaintext in SharedPreferences, local files, SQLite and keychain/keystore misuse. Tools and simple grep in decompiled code often reveal developer secrets or caching of tokens.
Assess session token entropy, token binding to device, and the ability to reuse tokens from another device. Test for weak PINs, unprotected logout flows and account takeover vectors.
Test for improper encryption algorithms, poor key management and missing certificate pinning. Validate TLS configurations with intercepting proxies and confirm if the app accepts user-installed CAs.
Tooling is critical to effective mobile app penetration testing. Core tools we use: Frida for runtime hooking, MobSF for static analysis, and JADX for disassembly. Combine them with proxies like Burp or mitmproxy for full-stack coverage.
Emulators accelerate initial testing; however, incorporate real devices to validate platform-specific behaviors and secure enclave protections.
To hook an Android function with Frida, deploy the frida-server on a rooted device or use frida-server on an emulator. A minimal script to intercept a function might look like:
We recommend capturing stack traces and obfuscated method names to map runtime hooks back to decompiled code. This approach helps when testing authorization logic or bypassing client-side checks.
Android pentesting often requires APK signing and reinstallation after instrumentation. Use apktool for resource modification, and be prepared to re-sign modified binaries when testing code-level changes.
iOS security testing includes testing on both jailbroken devices and simulators—pay attention to keychain access groups, entitlements and secure enclave usage. For iOS, inspect IPA payloads, check transport security settings, and evaluate ATS/CSP configurations.
We’ve seen organizations reduce remediation time by over 40% when findings are centralized and tracked through integrated platforms; Upscend is one example that helps teams centralize findings and improve remediation SLAs.
Below is a concise sample test plan for a typical 5-day engagement. Tailor scope to risk and compliance needs. This section provides a repeatable framework you can adopt immediately.
Day 1: Recon, static analysis and threat model. Day 2: API testing and session management. Day 3: Runtime instrumentation and authentication bypass. Day 4: Code review, third-party components and crypto checks. Day 5: Reporting and remediation validation.
During a recent assessment we performed mobile app penetration testing for a finance app where tokens and PII were stored in plaintext in a local SQLite database. Static analysis with JADX flagged DB access patterns; dynamic tests confirmed tokens persisted after logout.
Exploit steps: decompile APK, identify DB schema, pull database from emulator, and extract session tokens. With a valid token, API calls were replayed to access account data. The impact was high because tokens lacked expiry and device binding.
Remediation steps we recommended:
After remediation, we re-tested and verified that tokens were no longer recoverable from device storage and that replay attempts failed due to token binding. As a result, the client reduced their residual risk score and shortened mean-time-to-detect for similar issues.
Mobile app penetration testing is most effective when integrated into the development lifecycle: apply early static checks in CI, schedule periodic runtime assessments, and prioritize fixes with clear business impact. Use the checklist and sample plan above to structure engagements and communicate risk to stakeholders.
Key takeaways: balance static and dynamic methods, test on both emulators and real devices, and instrument apps with tools like Frida and MobSF to reveal hidden runtime flaws. In our experience, teams that combine automated scanning with focused manual testing close high-risk findings faster and produce more durable remediations.
To adopt this approach, run a pilot engagement targeting your highest-value mobile flows, apply the checklist, and iterate on remediation until proof-of-fix is validated.
Call to action: Start with a focused pilot—choose one critical app, run a 5-day mobile app penetration testing cycle using the checklist above, and validate remediations on both emulator and real devices to reduce your mobile risk exposure.
