Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. What is a mobile DAST?
   • Mobile DAST in simple words
   • How mobile DAST differs from traditional web DAST
   • Why DAST matters for mobile apps
3. DAST vs SAST: what’s the difference?
   • Why mobile app security teams need both
4. Why DAST is taking over pen testing for mobile app security
5. How Oversecured DAST works in mobile app security
   • Step 1: Launching the app in a controlled environment
   • Step 2: Generating and executing runtime tests
   • Step 3: Validating vulnerabilities
   • Step 4: Capturing evidence
   • Step 5: Reporting and prioritization
6. What Oversecured DAST can detect in mobile apps
   • Logic flaws
   • Authentication and authorization bypass
   • Insecure session handling
   • Network and communication issues
   • Insecure data handling
   • Vulnerabilities hidden from static analysis
   • Insufficient input validation
7. Why Oversecured DAST is different from other tools
8. Benefits of using DAST for mobile apps
9. Conclusion

Introduction

Mobile app security has become significantly harder over the past few years. Modern mobile applications rely on dozens of third-party SDKs, complex authentication flows, background services, deeplinks, and constant interaction with device-level APIs. At the same time, mobile apps process highly sensitive data credentials, financial information, location, biometrics making them a prime target for attackers.

Traditional application security testing approaches, especially static analysis, are still important, but they don’t provide a complete picture of mobile security. Many vulnerabilities can be detected only when the app is running, interacting with the operating system, backend APIs, or external components. This gap is exactly where DAST, or Dynamic Application Security Testing, becomes critical.

In this article, we’ll explain what DAST is, how it works in mobile app security, how it differs from SAST and pen testing, and why dynamic testing is essential for building secure mobile applications today.

What is a mobile DAST?

Mobile DAST in simple words

DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) is a form of security testing performed on a running application. Instead of analyzing source code, DAST tools interact with the app from the outside, just like a real attacker would. They send inputs, trigger behaviors, and observe how the application responds in real time.

Because DAST treats the app as a black box, it focuses on actual behavior, not theoretical risks. If a vulnerability is reported, it means the issue was reproduced during execution, not just inferred from code patterns.

How mobile DAST differs from traditional web DAST

While the core idea of dynamic application security testing is the same, mobile DAST is fundamentally different from web DAST. Mobile apps run in constrained environments, interact deeply with the operating system, and rely heavily on device features such as intents, permissions, storage, and background services.

Mobile DAST must account for:

• Android and iOS runtime behavior
• Inter-process communication
• Deep links and implicit intents
• Secure storage and memory handling
• SDK-driven logic that doesn’t exist in web applications

At the same time, mobile DAST can be more efficient than web DAST. Web applications can be built using countless frameworks, custom architectures, and backend technologies, which makes dynamic testing broad but less predictable. Mobile applications, by contrast, are required to follow strict Android and iOS design principles and platform conventions.

This gives mobile DAST clear and well-defined focus points, allowing dynamic testing to be more targeted and reliable. It also enables a strong combination of SAST and DAST results as static findings can be validated dynamically at runtime.

Why DAST matters for mobile apps

​​DAST matters because each finding is backed by a real exploit, giving developers a clear, reproducible path to understanding and fixing the vulnerability. Runtime testing reveals real exploit scenarios: how data flows, how APIs are called, and how the app behaves under unexpected conditions. It removes guesswork and replaces assumptions with proof.

DAST vs SAST: what’s the difference?

SAST (Static Application Security Testing) analyzes source code without running the application. It’s excellent for early detection of insecure patterns, misconfigurations, and coding mistakes.

DAST, on the other hand, analyzes the application while it’s running. It validates whether vulnerabilities are actually exploitable in a real environment.

In simple terms:

• SAST = code-level, early-stage detection
• DAST = runtime, proof-based detection

Why mobile app security teams need both

Mobile app security testing is most effective when SAST and DAST are used together. SAST provides broad coverage and helps developers catch issues early. DAST confirms which of those issues represent real risk.

Combining both approaches gives:

• Full security coverage
• Fewer false positives
• Better understanding of real-world attack paths

This is especially important for teams that want to reduce noise and focus on issues that truly matter.

Why DAST is taking over pen testing for mobile app security

For years, pen testing has been the default approach to mobile app security. But as mobile apps became more complex and release cycles faster, many security teams started running into the same hard limitation: pen testing doesn’t scale.

Traditional mobile pen testing is manual, time-bound, and snapshot-based. You test an app at a specific moment, get a report weeks later, and then the code changes again. For security managers responsible for continuous risk reduction (not one-off audits) this creates blind spots. New SDKs, feature flags, backend changes, and OS updates can introduce vulnerabilities long after a pen test is completed.

This is where DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) changes the model.

DAST continuously tests the application while it’s running, validating vulnerabilities under real runtime conditions. Instead of relying on human-driven exploration alone, DAST automates exploit generation, executes real attack scenarios, and proves whether an issue is actually exploitable. The result is not just a list of potential risks, but actionable, verified findings.

Another key driver behind the shift is efficiency. Manual pen testing requires significant coordination, budget, and follow-up work to validate findings. DAST replaces much of this effort with repeatable, automated testing that can run before every release and after every major change. Security teams gain visibility without slowing development.

Most importantly, modern DAST eliminates one of the biggest operational pain points for security managers: false positives. Proof-based dynamic testing means issues are reported only when they can be reproduced in a real environment. This allows teams to focus on fixing real risk instead of spending cycles debating theoretical issues.

How Oversecured DAST works in mobile app security

Step 1: Launching the app in a controlled environment

Oversecured DAST scan starts by running the mobile application in a controlled environment, such as an emulator. This allows the system to observe real runtime behavior, including user interactions, API calls, network traffic, and data flows.

At this stage, the app is treated exactly like it would be in production, just under close observation.

Step 2: Generating and executing runtime tests

Once the app is running, Oversecured performs a dynamic scan by triggering user flows and app logic automatically. This includes searching for common configuration issues such as implicit intents, insecure logging of sensitive data, or unsafe component exposure.

Exposed/exported components inputs, such as Android Intent extras are injected, and different execution paths are explored to surface vulnerabilities that only appear during real usage.

Step 3: Validating vulnerabilities

One of the most important steps is validation. Oversecured DAST scan checks whether a potential issue, including findings from SAST, is actually exploitable at runtime. In this case, the vulnerability is reported with all the details from both static and dynamic scans.

Step 4: Capturing evidence

For every confirmed issue, Oversecured captures clear evidence:

• Stack traces
• Proof-of-concept (exploits)
• Screencasts showing real exploitation

This makes findings easy to understand and act on, even for developers without deep security expertise.

Step 5: Reporting and prioritization

All results are delivered in a unified report, where vulnerabilities are prioritized based on real impact from high to low severity risk. Proof-based reporting enables faster triage, clearer communication between security and development teams, and quicker remediation.

What Oversecured DAST can detect in mobile apps

Logic flaws

Business logic issues that only appear during specific runtime conditions. Such a vulnerability gives a hacker an opportunity to perform actions on behalf of a user .

Authentication and authorization bypass

• Flaws in session handling, token usage, or access control enforcement
• An attacker being able to perform actions in the application on behalf of the user remotely

Insecure session handling

Issues related to token storage, expiration, or reuse.

Network and communication issues

• Man-in-the-middle (MITM) susceptibility
• Weak TLS validation
• API misuse

Insecure data handling

• Sensitive data leaks during execution
• Credentials or personal data written to logs or memory
• Hijacking intents and inter-app communication

Vulnerabilities hidden from static analysis

• Third-party SDK behavior
• Environment-dependent bugs
• Deep-link exploitation paths

Insufficient input validation

• File theft and file manipulation
• Launching arbitrary app components
• Unsafe deserialization

These issues are often invisible to manual testing or static analysis alone.

Why Oversecured DAST is different from other tools

Oversecured DAST’s core differentiation is automatic exploit generation: every DAST finding is validated with a real, working exploit executed against the running application. If an issue cannot be exploited in practice, it is not reported. This dramatically minimizes false positives and ensures that security teams only deal with real, actionable risk.

In addition, Oversecured DAST does not operate in isolation. It actively uses SAST results to guide dynamic testing, focusing runtime validation on code paths and configurations that are known to be risky. This combination of SAST-informed DAST and proof-based exploit validation is a major departure from traditional DAST tools, which typically perform generic checks without context. The result is a more precise, efficient, and trustworthy form of mobile application security testing.

Benefits of using DAST for mobile apps

Dynamic application security testing provides several key advantages:

• Zero false positives because Oversecured results are proof-based
• Real exploit validation instead of theoretical risks
• Faster triage and remediation cycles
• Improved security posture with less manual effort
• More reliable than traditional mobile penetration testing

For teams relying on cyber security software to scale their security testing, DAST is a critical component.

Conclusion

DAST is no longer optional in mobile app security. As apps grow more complex, runtime testing becomes essential for understanding real risk. Static tools alone can’t capture how an app behaves in production, and manual testing doesn’t scale.

By combining SAST and DAST, teams gain clarity, confidence, and actionable insight into their mobile security posture. Integrating dynamic application security testing into your workflow is one of the most effective ways to reduce risk without slowing development.

If you want to see how proof-based mobile DAST works in practice, book a demo with Oversecured and run a real dynamic scan on your app.