Mobile application security testing sits in an awkward gap. Web AppSec programs are mature; mobile programs frequently consist of a store-submission checklist and hope. Meanwhile the OWASP Mobile Top 10 was refreshed in 2024, mobile apps increasingly embed AI features with their own credentials, and mobile-threat research consistently finds hardcoded secrets among the most common flaws in published apps.
This guide compares four tools teams most often shortlist for MAST — Offensive360, MobSF, NowSecure, and Corellium — against the OWASP Mobile Top 10 (2024), and is honest about the fact that these four are not interchangeable: they occupy genuinely different points on the cost, depth, and automation spectrum.
The OWASP Mobile Top 10 (2024), briefly
The 2024 list reordered mobile risk around what attackers actually exploit:
- M1: Improper Credential Usage — hardcoded API keys, tokens, and passwords shipped inside the binary.
- M2: Inadequate Supply Chain Security — compromised SDKs, libraries, and build pipelines.
- M3: Insecure Authentication/Authorization — weak session handling, client-side authorization decisions.
- M4: Insufficient Input/Output Validation — injection and parsing flaws in app inputs.
- M5: Insecure Communication — cleartext traffic, broken TLS validation, missing pinning where warranted.
- M6: Inadequate Privacy Controls — over-collection and leakage of personal data.
- M7: Insufficient Binary Protections — trivially reversible binaries exposing logic and secrets.
- M8: Security Misconfiguration — exported components, debug flags, permissive manifests and entitlements.
- M9: Insecure Data Storage — sensitive data in plaintext on the device.
- M10: Insufficient Cryptography — weak algorithms, hardcoded keys, homemade crypto.
Two structural points follow. First, most of these risks are visible in the compiled binary — which is why binary-level static analysis (no source code required) is the workhorse of mobile testing. Second, some risks (M3, M5 in practice, parts of M6) only fully manifest at runtime, which is why credible MAST combines static and dynamic analysis rather than choosing one.
The four tools, honestly characterized
Offensive360 MAST
Offensive360 MAST performs static and dynamic analysis of Android (APK/AAB) and iOS (IPA) applications directly from the binary — no source code required — and classifies every finding against the OWASP Mobile Top 10 (2024), which keeps audit mapping mechanical rather than manual. Detection focus aligns with where the 2024 list puts weight: hardcoded secrets and credentials (M1), insecure communication (M5), security misconfiguration (M8), insecure data storage (M9), and weak cryptography (M10).
Two things distinguish it in this comparison. First, deployment: MAST is part of the same platform as Offensive360’s SAST and DAST, on-premises and air-gapped capable via the OVA appliance — relevant for banking, government, and defense apps whose binaries cannot be uploaded to a third-party cloud, and it means the mobile app, its backend APIs, and its server-side source code can be tested inside one platform rather than three. Second, an AI-era detection focus: hardcoded LLM API keys, exposed on-device model files, and insecure AI endpoint configuration in mobile binaries — a category that is growing quickly and that older checklists do not cover.
Pricing follows the platform model: flat per-project or per-instance, with MAST included rather than sold as an add-on.
MobSF (Mobile Security Framework)
MobSF is the open-source default, and deservedly so: free, self-hostable, with static analysis of APK/IPA and dynamic analysis of Android apps via instrumented emulators. For a security engineer who wants to inspect a binary today at zero cost, MobSF is the answer, and many commercial pipelines quietly include it.
Its limits are the standard open-source ones, stated without disrespect: results need expert triage (rule precision varies), iOS dynamic analysis is limited compared with Android, OWASP mapping and reporting require manual work to be audit-ready, and there is no vendor support or SLA — the project is community-maintained. As a program scales past a handful of apps and needs repeatable, defensible reporting, teams typically either build process around MobSF or move to a commercial platform.
NowSecure
NowSecure is a specialist commercial mobile AST vendor with automated static and dynamic testing on real devices and deep investment in the OWASP mobile ecosystem — the company is closely associated with the OWASP MASVS/MASTG standards work. For organizations that want mobile-only depth, standards-aligned assessments, and vendor support, it is a strong and credible option.
Considerations for this comparison: NowSecure is primarily delivered as a cloud platform (buyers with strict data-residency or offline requirements should verify current deployment options directly), it covers mobile only — backend APIs and server code need separate tooling — and pricing is quote-based, generally positioned for enterprise budgets. None of these are criticisms of the product; they are fit parameters.
Corellium
Corellium is a different kind of instrument: virtualized Arm devices — including iOS — that give researchers jailbroken-equivalent access without physical hardware. For dynamic research depth, exploit development, and inspecting what an app really does at runtime, it is in a category of its own, and its MATRIX capability adds automated MAST-style assessment on top. Deployment options have included both cloud and on-site appliances; verify current options with the vendor.
The fit consideration is that Corellium’s center of gravity is the researcher, not the pipeline: it is at its best in expert hands doing deep dynamic work, rather than as a turnkey scanner producing OWASP-mapped reports for every release. Many mature teams use something like it alongside an automated MAST platform, not instead of one. Pricing is quote-based/usage-based; expect research-tool economics.
Comparison table
| Criterion | Offensive360 MAST | MobSF | NowSecure | Corellium |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source code required | No — APK/AAB/IPA binaries | No — binaries | No — binaries | No — binaries/devices |
| Static analysis | Yes | Yes | Yes | Via MATRIX; verify scope |
| Dynamic analysis | Yes | Android strong; iOS limited | Yes, on real devices | Yes — deepest runtime access (virtual devices) |
| OWASP Mobile Top 10 (2024) mapping | Every finding classified against it | Partial; manual mapping for audit use | Strong OWASP MASVS/MASTG alignment | Research-oriented; mapping via MATRIX reports |
| AI-in-mobile checks (LLM keys, model files) | Yes | Limited/manual | Verify current coverage | Manual/researcher-driven |
| Deployment | Cloud, on-prem OVA, air-gapped | Self-hosted anywhere | Primarily cloud; verify options | Cloud and on-site appliance options; verify |
| Backend/API coverage in same platform | Yes (SAST + DAST included) | No | No (mobile-focused) | No (device/runtime-focused) |
| Support model | Vendor support | Community | Vendor support | Vendor support |
| Pricing | Flat per-project/per-instance, included in platform | Free, open source | Quote-based enterprise | Quote-based; research-tool economics |
Competitor characterizations reflect public documentation and general market positioning as of early 2026; capabilities evolve, so verify specifics during evaluation.
When Offensive360 is not the right choice
- You need zero-budget tooling now. MobSF self-hosted costs nothing and finds real issues. If the alternative is not testing mobile apps at all, deploy MobSF today; graduate to a commercial platform when triage cost and reporting requirements justify it.
- Your program is mobile-only and wants a mobile-specialist vendor relationship. If you have no need for SAST/DAST consolidation and want a vendor whose entire roadmap is mobile — including standards work like MASVS/MASTG — NowSecure is the specialist choice and a reasonable one.
- You need deep runtime research on iOS. For jailbreak-level dynamic instrumentation, kernel-adjacent research, or exploit development, Corellium-class device virtualization is the right instrument. An automated MAST scanner — ours included — is not a research bench.
- Your risk is overwhelmingly in the backend, not the app. If your mobile clients are thin and all logic is server-side, invest first in SAST/DAST of the backend. (We would note, with obvious interest, that a platform covering both sides makes that a re-prioritization rather than a second procurement.)
Frequently asked questions
Do we need the app’s source code for mobile security testing? No. Binary-level analysis of the APK/AAB or IPA covers most of the OWASP Mobile Top 10, including hardcoded credentials, insecure communication configuration, misconfiguration, and weak cryptography. This also means you can test apps built by third-party agencies or vendors where source access is contractually painful — often the riskiest apps in the portfolio.
Static or dynamic analysis — which matters more for mobile? Start static: it is fast, covers the majority of the 2024 Top 10, and catches the highest-frequency killers like hardcoded secrets (M1) and insecure storage patterns (M9). Add dynamic analysis for what only manifests at runtime — real TLS behavior, session handling, authorization enforcement. Treat vendors claiming either alone is sufficient with skepticism.
How do hardcoded AI/LLM API keys end up in mobile binaries, and why does it matter? Developers wire a model API into an app feature and ship the key in the binary — the same anti-pattern as any hardcoded credential, but with a twist: model API keys are directly monetizable through usage, so extraction leads to immediate billing abuse alongside data exposure. Anyone can unzip and string-search a published APK; assume every key you ship is public.
Can mobile testing run fully on-premises or air-gapped? With Offensive360, yes — MAST runs within the same OVA appliance as the rest of the platform, so binaries for sensitive apps never leave your network. Among the other tools compared here, MobSF is self-hostable; for NowSecure and Corellium, verify current on-prem options against your requirements.
How often should mobile apps be tested? Every release, for static analysis — it is cheap enough that there is no reason to sample. Dynamic testing per significant release or quarterly is a common cadence. The store review process is not a security review; treat it as zero coverage in your threat model.
Next steps
- Book a demo — bring a build of your own app (APK/AAB/IPA) and see findings mapped to the OWASP Mobile Top 10 (2024) live.
- Run a free scan — start with your app’s backend today and add the mobile binary when you are ready.