Mobile penetration testing is a specialized type of security assessment that aims to identify vulnerabilities in mobile applications, their backend systems, and the devices they operate on. Mobile applications surround us in nearly all essential aspects of modern life, and the majority of them handle sensitive user data. Because of this, businesses must ensure their apps are secure from cyber threats.
There are well-known methodologies for penetration testing, and the list of standard checks for mobile applications has also been established. However, there remain a lot of potential issues and obstacles faced by mobile app pentesters. A knowledgeable customer should have a notion about such potential pitfalls to maintain a productive discussion with the service provider. So, let’s talk about them and see how they can be worked around.
Static and Dynamic Analysis Pitfalls
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) provides for analyzing the source code of the application, binaries, and configuration files for security flaws. Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST), as the name suggests, provides for assessing the application while it is running to identify runtime vulnerabilities.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) involves analyzing an application’s source code, binaries, or decompiled files without executing it. However, many mobile applications obfuscate their code to prevent reverse engineering. This can make it difficult to analyze and extract meaningful security insights. Also, the sensitive strings (e.g., API keys) may be encrypted, preventing detection through simple string analysis.
Automated SAST tools often produce false positives, flagging non-exploitable issues that require manual review. So, some flagged vulnerabilities may not be security risks in real-world execution but appear concerning in static code analysis.
The intrinsic limitation of SAST is that it does not analyze runtime behavior, meaning that hardcoded credentials might be encrypted at runtime, rendering findings irrelevant. Because of that, some vulnerabilities only appear when data is dynamically generated during execution.
A pentester should keep in mind that third-party SDKs and libraries (e.g., Firebase, analytics tools) are often included in mobile apps but may not be fully analyzed in static assessments; also, interactions with backend APIs and dynamic content generation cannot be assessed properly.
An experienced mobile penetration testing service provider will know how to mitigate these issues. For instance, it is a must to combine SAST and DAST, as each method has strengths and weaknesses; using both ensures better vulnerability coverage. Manual code review helps reduce false positives and negatives. Anti-analysis mechanisms like Frida hooks, SSL unpinning, and dynamic instrumentation help bypass security restrictions for deeper testing and setting up a proper testbed (emulators, rooted/jailbroken devices, network proxies) improves the effectiveness of dynamic analysis.
We mentioned the combination of the DAST and SAST, however, DAST has several limitations of its own when used for mobile app penetration testing. This is primarily because DAST tools are designed for web applications and struggle with mobile-specific security aspects.
For instance, DAST focuses on runtime vulnerabilities but cannot detect many mobile-specific issues, such as: insecure local data storage (e.g., unprotected SQLite databases, insecure keychains, exposed logs); poor API security (e.g., improper authentication mechanisms, hardcoded API keys); weak cryptographic implementations (e.g., outdated encryption, improper key storage).
DAST tools can be ineffective against client-side vulnerabilities, as they interact with the application as a black-box tester, meaning they struggle with detecting issues like: code obfuscation weaknesses (e.g., poorly implemented ProGuard rules); hardcoded credentials or sensitive data within the app binary; insecure inter-process communication (IPC) risks such as exposed Android Intents or iOS URL schemes.
Many modern mobile apps use SSL/TLS certificate pinning, preventing DAST from intercepting traffic via proxies like Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP. Also, some apps encrypt API requests at the application level, making automated analysis difficult.
Mobile application pentesting specifics also might complicate the assessment, as DAST tools are optimized for web interactions and may fail to analyze: biometric authentication (e.g., Face ID, Touch ID), device permissions abuse (e.g., excessive access to location, camera, microphone), background processes or push notifications, which are crucial in mobile security. Here come potential complications with hybrid apps (e.g., React Native, Flutter, Cordova), which mix web and native elements, making it harder for DAST tools to fully analyze them. Native apps (Swift/Kotlin) often use compiled code, which DAST tools can’t easily inspect.
It’s a well-known fact that DAST often fails to fully authenticate and navigate API workflows, especially in mobile apps that use OAuth 2.0 / JWT authentication mechanisms or require multi-factor authentication (MFA) or have complex session management mechanisms.
While DAST is useful for basic runtime security testing, it should be complemented with SAST, API testing, and manual penetration testing for a thorough security assessment of mobile applications. To combine DAST with mobile SAST & manual testing, you can use MobSF, Frida, and Objection; among API security testing tools, there can be recommended Postman, Burp Suite, or MITM Proxy. The assessment of local storage security can be carried out using tools like MobSF and manual testing on rooted/jailbroken devices.
The pitfalls of mobile application penetration testing service is a sophisticated subject, so we decided to split it into three parts.