Offensive Security · Mobile AppSec
Assume the device is hostile.
OWASP MASVS / MASTG aligned iOS and Android penetration testing — static, dynamic and runtime analysis.
The mobile client runs on a device you don't control. Solvin's mobile pentests follow OWASP MASVS and the MASTG — combining static analysis of the binary, dynamic testing on rooted / jailbroken devices, network inspection and runtime instrumentation — to find the real-world exposure of your app.
/ Capabilities
What's in scope.
Static analysis
Binary review for hardcoded secrets, insecure APIs, weak cryptography and MASVS control gaps.
Dynamic testing
Runtime analysis on rooted / jailbroken devices with Frida / Objection instrumentation.
Network & backend
Cert-pinning bypass testing, MITM analysis and backend API testing (OWASP API Top 10).
MASVS L1 / L2 verification
Explicit verification against OWASP MASVS controls with pass / fail evidence per control.
The threat model is the device.
We test as an attacker with full device access — rooted OS, hooked runtime, intercepted traffic — because that's what real adversaries have.
MASVS-mapped findings.
Every finding is mapped to the OWASP MASVS control it violates, giving your engineering team a clear, standards-based remediation checklist.
/ Standards & Tooling
/ References & standards
Every claim on this page is sourced.
These are the public, authoritative sources this page draws from. If a statement isn't backed by one of the standards, tools or policies below, it isn't on the page.
- [1]OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard (MASVS)— OWASP Foundation
- [2]OWASP Mobile Application Security Testing Guide (MASTG)— OWASP Foundation
- [3]OWASP Mobile Top 10 (2024)— OWASP Foundation
/ Editorial accuracy checklist
What we confirmed before publishing.
A short list of internal checks every offensive-security page must pass before it goes live. If you spot a gap, email info@solvin.co.in and we'll correct it.
- Every standard, framework and tool named on this page has a citation in the References section below.
- No customer names, logos, case studies or metrics are used unless explicitly authorised in writing.
- No vendor product claims are made beyond what the vendor publishes in official documentation.
- Statistics and percentages are attributed to their source or omitted; illustrative figures are labelled as such.
- Cloud-provider testing policy statements reflect the provider's published rules of engagement at time of writing.
- Content is reviewed annually and after any material change to a referenced standard.
Common questions.
Do you need source code?
Not required. Grey-box (source + binary) gives the most efficient results; we can also test purely from published binaries when required by scope.
iOS and Android in one engagement?
Yes, and it's more efficient — the backend API and shared business logic are tested once, with platform-specific coverage layered on top.
Ready to scope a mobile application penetration testing engagement?
A senior practitioner — not a sales rep — will respond within one business day.
Contact Us