How we make this list: we compare pricing pages, product documentation and public user reviews. Ratings come from G2, Capterra or Trustpilot, with the date we checked them.
Key takeaways
- OWASP MASVS is the baseline: L1 verification for any app handling user data, L2 for regulated data, with the MASTG as the testing companion.
- Credentials belong in the platform stores, iOS Keychain and Android Keystore, never hardcoded, logged or sitting in plain storage.
- TLS 1.2 or better everywhere, certificate pinning where the threat model warrants, and server side attestation through Play Integrity and App Attest for sensitive actions.
- Supply chain discipline, an SBOM and dependency scanning, joined the core list in the 2024 OWASP Mobile Top 10 refresh.
Quick comparison
Is your product missing or out of date?
We review this list regularly. Vendors can request a listing, send updated pricing or ask about featured placement.
The best mobile app security practices in 2026
Starting priceFree
Free planYes
Start here because arguments about individual controls end here. MASVS turns "is the app secure" into a checklist of verifiable requirements, and gives product, engineering and compliance one vocabulary. Most serious mobile security conversations in 2026, procurement reviews included, are conducted in its categories.
Adopt it proportionately. A consumer app with accounts should target L1 completely before launch; health, finance and identity apps should plan for L2 from the architecture stage, because retrofitting authentication and cryptography controls costs multiples of designing them in. Record the target level in writing; an unwritten target drifts to whatever shipped.
What we like- The industry's shared definition of a secure mobile app, covering storage, cryptography, authentication, network, platform interaction, code quality and resilience, two assurance levels that scale with risk: L1 as the minimum bar for apps handling user data, L2 for regulated or high trust contexts, plus resilience requirements for apps whose compromise carries real cost, maintained openly by OWASP with the testing guide mapped control by control
Watch out for- A standard, not a tool: reaching L1 takes engineering time across every category, self assessment against MASVS is only as honest as the team doing it, the standard defines what to verify, not the budget to verify it
Starting priceFree
Free planYes
Insecure local storage is the vulnerability testers find first because developers keep writing it: tokens in SQLite, credentials in preferences, keys hardcoded in the binary where any unzip exposes them. The platforms solved the storage half of this years ago. Keychain and Keystore, with hardware backing where available, are the only acceptable homes for secrets on device.
The rules around them matter as much: never hardcode API keys or encryption keys in the app, never log sensitive values, keep secrets out of backups and the clipboard, and treat anything the client holds as eventually public. Server side secrets belong on the server; the app should hold only per user, revocable tokens.
What we like- IOS Keychain and Android Keystore exist precisely for this: hardware backed protection for tokens, keys and credentials, the single most common mobile finding, sensitive data in plain local storage, disappears when storage defaults to these APIs, platform stores integrate with biometrics, so strong storage and good user experience align, no third party dependency and no cost
Watch out for- Requires discipline in code review, because one shared preferences file or log line undoes it, keys generated or imported badly are still keys managed badly, migration from legacy plain storage needs a deliberate upgrade path for existing installs
#3
Encrypt traffic and pin certificates
Best for: Data in transit
Visit owasp.org
Starting priceFree
Free planYes
Every byte between the app and your API crosses networks you do not own. Strict transport security is table stakes in 2026: no cleartext traffic, modern TLS only, and platform enforcement switched on rather than assumed. The 2024 OWASP Mobile Top 10 keeps insecure communication among the core risks because apps still ship exceptions.
Pinning deserves its reputation for danger in both directions. For banking, health and enterprise apps, pinning with a backup pin and a tested rotation plan meaningfully raises the bar against interception. For a content app, the same machinery mostly adds outage risk. MASVS frames it exactly that way: pin where the threat model warrants, and document why, either way.
What we like- TLS 1.2 or better, enforced strictly through iOS App Transport Security and Android's Network Security Config, closes the cleartext and downgrade findings, certificate pinning adds protection against compromised or coerced certificate authorities for high value apps, the OWASP cheat sheets provide the configuration detail for both platforms, free and entirely within the developer's control
Watch out for- Pinning is an operational commitment: rotate certificates carelessly and you brick your own app's networking, misconfigured strict modes break integrations late in release cycles, encryption in transit does nothing for a compromised endpoint, which is why it pairs with attestation below
#4
Authenticate to NIST SP 800-63
Best for: Login and session design
Visit nist.gov
Starting priceFree
Free planYes
Login is where mobile apps meet their attackers most often, and improvisation is the enemy. NIST's digital identity guidelines settle the recurring debates, password composition fads versus length and screening, factor choices, token lifetimes, with researched answers a team can cite instead of relitigating.
Apply it with mobile specifics in mind: short lived access tokens with refresh rotation, step up checks for sensitive actions, biometrics as a local gate for stored credentials rather than a homegrown identity system, and account recovery designed as carefully as login, because support desk resets are the soft underbelly of many otherwise strong apps.
What we like- The reference for digital identity: password rules that match evidence, real multi factor options and session handling that survives scrutiny, designing authentication to 800-63B pre answers most enterprise and regulator questions, biometric sign in layered on platform storage gives users strength without password fatigue, free, public and written to be implemented
Watch out for- A federal publication's density: teams need to translate it into product decisions, consumer apps must adapt its assurance levels proportionately rather than copy them wholesale, authentication strength cannot rescue weak recovery flows, which attackers target instead
Starting priceFree
Free planYes
Client side root detection alone is a lock on a door the attacker owns. Attestation moves the decision to your server: the platform signs a verdict about the app and device, your API weighs it before honouring the request. For payment, content and anti fraud sensitive operations, that architecture is the current standard of care.
Deploy it in stages. Log verdicts before you enforce them, measure how many real users fail, and phase enforcement by operation sensitivity. Teams that switch attestation straight to hard fail learn about their user base's device diversity from their support queue, which is the expensive classroom.
What we like- Server side verdicts on whether requests come from your genuine app on a real, untampered device: Play Integrity on Android, App Attest on iOS, gates the sensitive API operations that client side checks alone cannot protect, raises the cost of bots, clones, emulator farms and repackaged apps, free platform APIs, designed to be combined with your own risk signals
Watch out for- Attestation is a signal, not a wall: verdicts need server side policy decisions about what to allow, strict enforcement can lock out legitimate users on unusual devices, which needs a support path, determined attackers treat attestation as an obstacle course, so it buys cost and time, not certainty
Starting priceFree
Free planYes
Permissions are attack surface with a consent screen. Location, contacts, photos and microphone access each widen what a vulnerability, a bad SDK or a future policy change can reach, and each now appears on your store listing's privacy label where competitors' restraint shames your excess.
Design for the minimum and ask at the moment of need, in context, with a sentence explaining why. Users grant contextual requests at far higher rates than install time bundles, so the privacy practice and the growth practice are, unusually, the same practice.
What we like- Every permission you do not request is a risk you do not carry and a review question you never answer, both stores now surface permission and data practices publicly, so restraint is visible to users before install, graceful degradation when users decline keeps the app useful and the relationship intact, privacy controls became a first class OWASP category in the 2024 refresh for a reason
Watch out for- Product teams must give up data they wanted, which makes this a governance fight, not a coding task, legacy features built on broad access need redesign, not just new prompts, permission prompts written lazily still train users to tap allow
#7
Maintain an SBOM and scan dependencies
Best for: Supply chain security
Visit cisa.gov
Starting priceFree
Free planYes
Your app's code is the minority of your app. Analytics, payments, crash reporting and advertising SDKs ship inside your binary under your name and your liability, and the 2024 OWASP refresh raised supply chain risk precisely because attackers learned to enter through vendors. If you cannot list what is inside your app, you cannot know what you shipped.
Make the SBOM a build artefact, scan it on every release, and vet SDKs before adoption for data practices as well as vulnerabilities: what the SDK collects leaves under your privacy label. The practice costs pipeline minutes and saves the worst week of an engineering manager's career.
What we like- A software bill of materials, in formats like OWASP's own CycloneDX, names every library and SDK inside your app, so the next disclosed vulnerability becomes a search, not an archaeology project, inadequate supply chain security ranks at the top of the 2024 OWASP Mobile Top 10, dependency scanning in the build pipeline catches known bad versions before release, CISA's guidance gives the practice regulatory weight in the US
Watch out for- An SBOM is inventory, not remediation: someone must own acting on what it reveals, mobile SDKs, analytics and advertising especially, resist transparency about their own internals, the discipline must survive release pressure, when scanning gates are most often waived
Starting priceFree
Free planYes
Verification is the practice that audits all the others. The MASTG's value is its mapping: every MASVS requirement has tests, so "we follow MASVS" becomes falsifiable before a release rather than arguable after an incident. Common findings stay drearily consistent, plaintext storage, pinning gaps, debuggable release builds, which is good news: the checklist catches the classics.
Run it on a cadence, not an occasion: automated checks per build, a MASTG based review per release, an external penetration test on a regular cycle and after major features. Findings feed the threat model, the threat model reprioritises the backlog, and the programme compounds. Security as a loop, not a launch gate, is the actual best practice underneath all eight entries here.
What we like- The testing companion to MASVS: concrete test cases mapped control by control, covering static and dynamic analysis, storage inspection and network interception, free and maintained by the same OWASP project, so the standard and the tests never drift apart, structures internal testing and scopes external penetration tests in a language both sides share
Watch out for- Thorough testing slows releases unless it is built into the pipeline from the start, dynamic testing skills, instrumentation and runtime analysis, are specialist skills small teams must hire or contract, a passed test round ages immediately: the next release reopens the question
How we chose
The brief for this article names practices, so we selected the practices the current standards converge on: the OWASP Mobile Application Security project (MASVS and MASTG), the 2024 OWASP Mobile Top 10, NIST's digital identity guidelines and the platform vendors' own security documentation, corroborated by 2026 practitioner guides. Website fields point to those canonical references by design, and every one is free. Cadences and levels quoted (L1 minimum, L2 for regulated data) reflect the standards' own framing.
Putting the programme together on a real release calendar
Sequence matters more than enthusiasm. In month one, adopt MASVS at a written level, move secrets into the platform stores, and switch transport enforcement to strict: three moves that close the most common findings. In the first quarter, add the SBOM and dependency gates, attestation in log only mode, and a permissions audit against the store privacy labels.
Institutionalise from there: MASTG checks in the pipeline, attestation enforcement phased by sensitivity, external testing on a cycle, and a standing rule that new SDKs arrive with vetting or not at all. None of this needs a security department. It needs ownership, a named person whose job includes saying the release waits a day, and a backlog where security work competes visibly instead of losing silently.
Measure honestly. Track findings per release, time to remediate by severity, and attestation failure rates among real users. A programme that cannot show its numbers will lose its budget to one that can, and in mobile, where the binary lives on hostile ground forever, the programme is the product's promise kept.
Frequently asked questions
What is the single most important mobile app security practice?
Adopting a standard, OWASP MASVS, and verifying against it. Individual controls matter, but the standard is what stops the controls you forgot: storage, network, authentication and resilience get checked because the list says so, not because someone remembered.
What is the difference between MASVS and the OWASP Mobile Top 10?
The Mobile Top 10 is an awareness list of the ten most consequential risk categories, refreshed in 2024. MASVS is the verification standard: detailed, testable requirements in levels. The MASTG then supplies the tests for each requirement. Use all three together.
Should every app use certificate pinning?
No. Pinning suits high value apps, finance, health, enterprise, with a tested rotation and backup pin plan. For lower risk apps, strict TLS configuration delivers most of the protection without the self inflicted outage risk pinning carries when certificates rotate badly.
How often should a mobile app be penetration tested?
Per release for automated and checklist based checks, and with an external tester on a regular cycle, commonly annually and after major feature or architecture changes. The OWASP MASTG gives the test scope, so engagements stay comparable year to year.
What does an SBOM do for a mobile app?
It lists every component and SDK inside the build, in a standard format such as CycloneDX, so when a library vulnerability is disclosed you can answer "are we affected" in minutes. CISA promotes SBOMs as baseline supply chain practice, and OWASP's 2024 mobile risks put supply chain near the top.
Sources we checked (0)
Is your product missing or out of date?
We review this list regularly. Vendors can request a listing, send updated pricing or ask about featured placement.
Shihab Mia · Founder, Rankite
Shihab has 5+ years in B2B and SaaS SEO. He writes Rankite's software buying guides from pricing pages, documentation and public user reviews. More about Shihab.
Verify against OWASP MASVS
Store secrets in the platform keystore
Attest devices with Play Integrity and App Attest
Request minimum permissions
Test with the OWASP MASTG