For mobile security
consultancies

A platform built for the firms that test iOS and Android apps

Security consultancies that focus on mobile applications carry a different operating burden than firms that test general SaaS or enterprise web. Every engagement crosses the compiled binary, the running client on a real or virtualised device, the SDK and third-party libraries the app depends on, and the backend API that supports it. The deliverables sit alongside app store submissions, build pipeline gates, and the security verification record the mobile product team already runs. The report has to map findings back to OWASP MASVS, the matching MASTG test case, and (for the backend that supports the client) OWASP ASVS. The evidence chain has to survive a new app build the client ships without a missing link. Most mobile testing shops still run this delivery on a notes app, a screenshot folder, a chat transcript, and a spreadsheet that loses context the moment the engagement closes and the next build version increments.

SecPortal gives mobile security consultancies one workspace for engagements, findings, evidence, retests, branded delivery, and invoicing. Findings carry CVSS scores from the moment they are opened, OWASP MASVS and MASTG tagging is part of the workflow, the client portal scopes decompiled binary excerpts and exploit evidence behind authenticated access, and the AI-assisted reporting drafts the framework-aligned writeup the buyer is expecting. Whether the firm services a consumer app studio, a fintech with a mobile-first distribution, a regulated app vendor under HIPAA or PCI DSS, or an enterprise that ships an internal mobile workforce app, the platform scales without adding administrative overhead.

Capabilities mobile security consultancies actually use

How a mobile security practice runs inside SecPortal

Mobile security delivery is most defensible when one operating picture covers scope, evidence, finding-to-framework mapping, retest verification across app builds, and the report. SecPortal supports the full delivery rather than a single phase of it.

From engagement kickoff to verified close, on one record

The leverage in mobile security delivery is the durability of the audit chain across app build version changes. SecPortal runs a single delivery flow that the next release, the next retest, and the next verification review can build against without reconstructing context from a screenshot folder.

1. 1Open the mobile pentest engagement with assessed entity, in-scope apps, bundle identifier and package name, build variants under test, OS version and device matrix, backend endpoints in scope, scope statement, rules of engagement for jailbroken or rooted device work, testers, and dates stamped against the record. The rules-of-engagement template populates the standard sections; the engagement record holds the bespoke mobile context.
2. 2Run the mobile testing programme inside the engagement record. Static analysis on the decompiled binary, dynamic analysis with Frida or Objection on a real or virtualised device, manual testing of the running app against insecure storage, broken cryptography, weak authentication, transport security gaps, exported components, and backend authorisation flaws all consolidate to the same findings database, with raw outputs attached to the finding they support.
3. 3Tag each finding against the OWASP MASVS control category and the MASTG test case it impacts as it is logged. Add OWASP ASVS tagging where the engagement covers the backend application code that supports the mobile client. The tagging is part of the testing workflow, not a post-engagement reconciliation step.
4. 4Generate the technical report, executive summary, and remediation roadmap with AI assistance from the live record. The deliverable lands in the client portal alongside the underlying finding-level evidence (decompiled snippet, Frida hook output, request and response, screenshot or short clip), so the report and the source-of-truth point at the same data.
5. 5Run retests after the client ships the next build, lifts the SDK version, or tightens the anti-tampering controls. Attach verification evidence to the same finding, record the build identifier and version code that cleared the issue, and either close the issue with a status change actor recorded automatically or revert to open with regression notes captured in place. The audit chain stays intact for app store review activities and for the next external assessment.

Mobile-specific finding classes the platform is built to handle

Mobile engagements surface a class of findings that frequently cross the binary, the runtime, and the backend at the same time. The encyclopedia entries below cover the most common adversarial cases, with reproducibility evidence and remediation guidance the client team can act on. Each one can be tagged into a SecPortal engagement and tracked through the same workflow as a traditional web pentest finding.

• Insecure local storage and key material exposure on the device fall under the sensitive data exposure encyclopedia entry when the data is logged or cached, and under the hardcoded secrets entry when API keys, signing material, or tokens land inside the bundled binary.
• Weak cipher suites and broken certificate validation on the mobile transport layer fall under the TLS and SSL misconfiguration entry, while client-side custom cryptographic flaws are tracked under the weak cryptography entry.
• Mobile sessions and bearer tokens that survive too long, do not bind to the device, or travel between platforms inappropriately are tracked under the JWT vulnerabilities entry and the broken authentication entry.
• Backend authorisation gaps that the mobile client exposes (per-user record access, tenant scoping, vertical privilege escalation) sit under the broken access control entry and the broken object level authorization entry, because a mobile client that calls a backend endpoint with insufficient authorisation is the same authorisation failure with a different front door.
• Server-side request forgery against backend services accessed through the mobile API surface is tracked under the server-side request forgery entry, and missing rate limiting on login or registration endpoints on the backend is captured by the missing rate limiting entry.

Where mobile security consultancies typically start

Most mobile-focused firms adopt the platform in three phases: bring the active client list and engagement records under one workspace, layer in finding-to-framework tagging and branded portal delivery, then consolidate retests, AI-assisted reporting, and invoicing onto the same record. The relevant capability and workflow pages explain each phase in detail.

• The core engagement and findings workflow lives in the penetration testing use case, and the API surface that surrounds every mobile app leans on the API security testing use case for the authenticated DAST coverage of backend endpoints. Web companion surfaces and embedded WebViews lean on the web application testing use case.
• The finding-tagging model that produces framework-aligned reports sits in the findings management feature, with multi-framework mapping covered by the compliance tracking feature. Branded delivery scoped per app-owner client lives in the client portal feature, and the AI-drafted writeup produced from the live record sits in the AI reports feature.
• Coverage of the backend that supports the mobile client relies on the authenticated scanning feature for the API endpoints behind login, and on the code scanning feature for the application repository (server side and supporting libraries) that ships with the app release.
• The retest workflow that pairs verification to the original finding across app builds is covered in the retesting use case, the report-delivery pattern that fits a mobile-product buyer is documented in the pentest report delivery use case, and remediation cadence between formal assessments lives in the remediation tracking use case.
• Methodology references the report can build on sit in the OWASP MASVS framework page for the mobile verification standard most engagements use as the spine of the deliverable, the OWASP ASVS framework page for the application-layer verification standard the backend depends on, and the NIST SP 800-115 framework page for the testing methodology base layer most mobile engagements still build on. The companion mobile application penetration testing checklist covers the practical scoping, static, dynamic, and reporting steps the firm walks through on each engagement.

SecPortal is built for mobile security consultancies that want one platform for the whole delivery: live engagements, framework-tagged findings, evidence, retests, branded portals, AI-assisted reporting, and invoicing. App-owner clients get a deliverable that ties to the OWASP MASVS controls their verification programme already tracks and to the build version their release engineering team is shipping, and the firm gets back the hours that used to disappear into post-engagement document production and screenshot-by-screenshot reconciliation across chat transcripts.

If your firm is structured as a smaller partner-led practice between two and ten testers, the SecPortal for boutique security firms page covers the operating model that fits a specialist consultancy. If your firm runs a broader multi-vertical book of business, the SecPortal for cybersecurity firms page covers the multi-client delivery model. AppSec teams that run mobile security review in-house can read the SecPortal for AppSec teams page for the integrated programme model, and firms that pair mobile work with AI and ML adversarial review can read the SecPortal for AI and ML security consultancies page for the technology specialism that overlaps when the mobile client embeds an on-device model or calls a hosted assistant.

For broader context on how mobile findings hold up after the engagement closes, the aging pentest findings research and the severity calibration research cover what happens after the report ships and the client starts shipping new builds, new SDK versions, and new platform OS releases the original findings need to be re-evaluated against.