We know that mobile development in 2025 was different. It shifted from a “front-end” concern to a massive, distributed headache in which the most vulnerable component could be any unmanaged, hostile endpoint. In fact, 43% of organizational breaches originate at the mobile edge.
The problem lies with the outdated web-centric security models that app developers rely on. With mobile platforms operating under fundamentally different trust assumptions, their DevSecOps pipelines need to account for these explicitly.
Here are three technical blind spots that current pipelines often fail to address, and that modern DevSecOps engineers should watch out for.
Blind spot #1: Vulnerability to man-at-the-end attacks
In web-first development, the server is the ultimate “fortress.” Because we control the hardware and software environment, security is focused on sanitizing inputs and hardening the perimeter. Traditional web-centric SAST (static application security testing) tools are designed for this model. They scan for logical flaws in the server binary, assuming the binary itself remains protected within the fortress. On the web, the “don’t trust your client” strategy is easily maintained because the client-side code typically has limited features and can be ephemeral.
In comparison, a mobile app is a “messenger in enemy territory.” The device and the end-user cannot be trusted, as the app binary is physically in the attacker’s hands. Unlike web servers, mobile clients are often responsible for more complex local functions, creating a much larger surface. An attacker can tamper with the binary through repackaging or use tools like Frida to perform dynamic instrumentation to bypass security controls in real time. Because web-centric SAST tools assume the binary is safe in a fortress, they often overlook these critical mobile-specific vulnerabilities and tampering scenarios.
Frida injects a JavaScript engine into the target process’s memory space, allowing an attacker to intercept function calls in real time. Specifically, it leverages inline hooking and PLT/GOT (procedure linkage table/global offset table) interception. It allows the user to redirect the execution of the application code to attacker-controlled code.
While static measures like control flow flattening (modifying the graph of a function to hide its logic) and symbol stripping (removing function names) increase the cost of initial analysis, they cannot stop a dynamic tool like Frida once the attacker identifies the correct memory offsets.
To counter these threats, developers need to do more than obfuscation. They need to add RASP (runtime application self-protection), which monitors the application’s state while it is running. RASP includes:
- Hooking framework detection: Most hooking framework leaves “artifacts” behind. So, a classical technique to detect them consists of looking for them. For example, Frida often communicates via specific default ports (e.g., 27042) or named pipes. Check /proc/self/maps to see if unauthorized .so or .dylib files (like frida-agent.so) have been injected into the process space. However, such detections are useful only as a first layer of defense. Attackers can bypass them quite easily by, for instance replacing “frida” strings by “grida” or changing the port used.
- Anti-tamper and hook detection: In addition to the framework detection, the app should actively scan its own memory. For example, it should periodically check the first few bytes of critical functions for “jump” or “breakpoint” instructions (
0xE9or0xCCon x86) that indicate a trampoline has been inserted. Perform integrity checks on the.textsection of the binary in memory to ensure it matches the signed disk version. - Hardware-backed attestation: This provides a zero-trust verification of the client environment using the OS as a source of truth. Services such as the Android Play Integrity API generate a signed cryptographic token from the OS manufacturer. This token verifies that the binary is unmodified, the device isn’t rooted, and a debugger hasn’t compromised the environment before the back end grants access to sensitive resources.
Blind spot #2: Misunderstanding hardware-backed cryptography
Misuse of local device storage creates a common architectural blind spot. Standard encryption libraries often store the master key in the app’s private directory. It may be technically encrypted, but it also creates a blind spot, making the approach equivalent to leaving your house key under the doormat.
EncryptedSharedPreferences and the iOS Keychain are not magic bullets. If these are not explicitly configured to be hardware-backed, the keys remain in the software layer. On a rooted device, an attacker could perform a memory dump or use an Android device backup exploit to extract the keys and decrypt the entire local database. The OS’s “private” sandbox is only as secure as the kernel, and on many user devices, the kernel is an open book.
To address this blind spot, developers must enforce cryptographic binding to the hardware:
- TEE (trusted execution environment) and secure enclave integration: Force keys to be generated and stored within the TEE or secure enclave. This ensures that the private key never enters the application’s memory space. The app sends data to the hardware, the hardware signs or decrypts it and returns the result.
- User-presence requirements: For high-security apps (such as those developed for fintech or health care), the cryptographic key is to be unlocked only by a successful biometric prompt. So even if a device is stolen while “unlocked,” the app’s sensitive data remains cryptographically inaccessible without a secondary “proof of presence.”
Blind spot #3: Managing the logic entropy of AI assistants
The rise of AI-assisted vibe coding is introducing a new class of logic entropy. Gartner’s projection that 90% of engineers will use AI assistants by 2028 creates a systemic risk: the proliferation of “insecure by default” boilerplate.
AI models are trained on vast amounts of legacy code. When you ask an AI to implement a network call, it often ignores certificate pinning. Sometimes, it uses deprecated TLS (Transport Layer Security) versions because those patterns are statistically more common in its training set. For example, Stanford researchers found that AI-assisted developers are 80% more likely to produce code with vulnerabilities like plaintext credentials or insecure random number generators.
Furthermore, AI can “hallucinate” security configurations. This suggests that nonexistent parameters that appear valid can cause the OS to default to a “fail-open” state. A penetration test of AI-generated mobile code often reveals “shadow logic” that implements complex encryption. Still, the IV (initialization vector) is hardcoded, making the cryptography vulnerable to modern GPU-based brute-force attacks.
DevOps teams need to treat AI as an untrusted contributor:
- Custom linting or analysis for crypto-primitives: Implement custom rules (e.g., using mast tools or custom linting) that specifically target the usage of
AllowAllHostnameVerifierorInsecureTrustManager, which are common AI “shortcuts” to make code work. - SBOM (software bill of materials) enforcement: Developers must run an SBOM check to validate every dependency against a vulnerability database before entering the build stage.
Soon-to-be blind spot: An iOS sideloading surge
In 2026, the abuse of Enterprise Provisioning Profiles will become an additional blind spot. To comply with regulations such as the Digital Markets Act, platforms opened “sideloading” channels. This is not new for Android, but it is also becoming relevant for iOS platforms as they now have to support alternative app stores. So, while this helped with internal distribution, it has become a primary vector for repackaging attacks.
Sideloading itself is not the problem. The risk emerges when applications cannot verify their own integrity at runtime. Attackers can take a legitimate app, inject a malicious library (using the memory hooking techniques mentioned above), and re-sign it with a leaked or stolen enterprise certificate. Since the app is signed with a valid Apple or Google-issued developer certificate, it can bypass many OS-level warnings, leading users to install “cracked” versions that are actually surveillanceware.
App developers must monitor for certificate mismatch. Your app should self-verify the fingerprint of its signing certificate at runtime by comparing the active signing key against an embedded hash of your official production key. If the fingerprint doesn’t match, the app should assume it has been repackaged and immediately invalidate all local user sessions and clear the hardware-backed keystore.
Building for a hostile runtime
It’s common for developers to complain about security taxing performance. RASP checks increase the main thread’s load and can cause frame drops during UI transitions. Hardware-backed encryption adds latency to disk I/O as data must move across the bus to the processor.
Despite these hurdles, with 75% of organizations increasing mobile security spend, the industry is acknowledging that this “performance tax” is significantly cheaper than the average cost of a breach.
In 2026, a robust mobile pipeline doesn’t just “check for bugs” but assumes the app is being run in a laboratory by a malicious actor. Our job is to make the cost of data extraction higher than the value of the data itself.
—
New Tech Forum provides a venue for technology leaders—including vendors and other outside contributors—to explore and discuss emerging enterprise technology in unprecedented depth and breadth. The selection is subjective, based on our pick of the technologies we believe to be important and of greatest interest to InfoWorld readers. InfoWorld does not accept marketing collateral for publication and reserves the right to edit all contributed content. Send all inquiries to doug_dineley@foundryco.com.
Go to Source
Author:
