Bringing Zero Trust to mobile applications

What if your most trusted customer touchpoint turned out to be your biggest security liability?

Imagine your organization's most trusted consumer application suddenly becomes the gateway for a major security breach. Within days, your customer trust plummets, regulatory scrutiny intensifies, and competitors seize the opportunity to gain advantage. Unfortunately, this scenario is not hypothetical—it's a critical business risk today.

Despite the industry investing over $36 billion USD in Zero Trust architectures to secure internal networks, identities, and systems, a major strategic blind spot remains—consumer-facing mobile applications. These apps now power more than 70% of digital interactions. Yet they operate in highly adversarial environments, including unmanaged devices, insecure networks, and third-party dependencies. This creates an ideal attack surface for cybercriminals.

And the adversary is no longer a lone actor. Cybercrime has become industrialized. Hackers are now well-funded, well-organized, and increasingly agile. They are outpacing the security industry in both speed and innovation.

Global cybercrime costs have soared to $18 million per minute, or $9.5 trillion per year—an amount equivalent to the gross domestic product of the world’s third-largest economy.

Recent global security reports confirm just how far this threat has evolved. In the last year alone, over 33 million attacks targeting mobile users were recorded. These incidents were not isolated or random. They were part of large, organized operations that use fake apps, impersonation tactics, and automated tools to deceive users, steal access, and quietly infiltrate mobile channels.

This article introduces a Zero Trust for Mobile Applications framework that operates at the runtime, closing the gap left by legacy strategies. By extending Zero Trust principles into mobile runtime environments, organizations can:

The time to act is now. Mobile is no longer just a channel. It is a critical business platform that must be protected with the same rigor as internal systems. This article explores the modern mobile threat landscape, explains why traditional Zero Trust implementations fall short, and presents a pragmatic, phased roadmap to securing mobile applications using proven Zero Trust principles. The following section, ‘The Strategic Gap,’ unpacks in detail why mobile remains the last mile in Zero Trust.

1. The Strategic Gap

Zero Trust has become the gold standard for modern security. It replaced outdated cybersecurity assumptions with a simple principle: no user, device, or system should be trusted by default. Every access request must be verified—continuously and contextually. Governments have adopted it as policy. Industries have embedded it into compliance standards. Organizations have invested heavily to align it with their infrastructure.

This is all for good reason. The digital landscape has changed. Work takes place everywhere. Devices are diverse. Threats are persistent. Zero Trust offers a clear response to this transformed environment: protect everything, verify constantly, and assume that breaches are inevitable.

To operationalize this vision, foundational frameworks such as NIST SP 800-207, CISA Maturity Model, DoD’s 7-Pillar architecture were developed. These frameworks were designed around enterprise systems, where organizations have full visibility and control over endpoints, infrastructure, and users.

But that assumption no longer holds in our mobile-first world.

We are witnessing a profound shift in how businesses engage with their customers. Strategies built around mobile applications are superseding traditional models based on in-person interactions or desktop portals.

Today, more than 70% of digital interactions occur through mobile apps (OWASP Mobile Top 10, 2024). This is not just an abstract statistic. It reflects how the world now operates.

For most businesses, mobile apps have become the primary, and most of the time, the only interface for customers, enabling transactions, delivering services, and carrying the weight of brand reputation with every interaction.

As of 2025, more than 90% of global internet users access digital services through mobile devices. That scale is transformative for customer reach and service delivery. However, it also introduces a significant downside. Mobile applications have become one of the most exploited entry points for attackers.

Despite this trend, security investment has not kept pace with global change.

Organizations have invested over $36 billion in Zero Trust initiatives, with spending set to hit $78 billion by 2029 (MarketsandMarkets). Yet less than 1% of this investment targets the mobile layer. This is not a mere oversight—it is a strategic surrender to fraudsters, hackers, and regulators. By failing to proactively secure mobile channels in line with regulatory expectations, businesses are effectively giving regulators the upper hand: instead of shaping their own security destiny, they passively accept the inevitable consequences—penalties, reputational damage, and operational disruption—that follow a breach or compliance failure in this space.

The underlying issue is architectural in nature. Mobile environments are decentralized and difficult to govern. Unlike managed enterprise environments, mobile users operate in diverse conditions security teams cannot easily monitor or control. Consumers frequently rely on outdated operating systems, install applications from unverified sources, and grant broad permissions, all of which creates vulnerabilities that standard enterprise tools are not equipped to detect or manage.

This architectural weakness creates ideal conditions for exploitation. According to recent research, “the most dangerous mobile threats occur while the app is actively being used, at runtime”, particularly in mobile environments, where traditional enterprise controls have limited reach. (Enhancing Mobile Data Security with Zero Trust, 2023; Corellium, 2023)

The consequences are increasingly measurable:

• Financial damage—IBM reported the average cost of a data breach reached 45 million dollars in 2024
• Loss of customer trust—The consequences of mobile security lapses go well beyond financial losses. Over half of affected organizations experienced application downtime, while 48% reported leaks of sensitive data. These incidents also eroded consumer trust (41%) and degraded the overall user experience (38%) (DevPro Journal, 2025).
• Loss of future revenue—Damaged reputation reduces customer acquisition, lifetime value, and even investor confidence
•  Regulatory exposure—Risk of noncompliance under frameworks such as GDPR, CCPA, and others

These outcomes are not theoretical. In 2024, mobile channels accounted for over 42% of all fraud attacks globally, up from 36% the previous year (Global Fraud Trends Report 2024). This sharp increase signals a fundamental shift. Threat actors are targeting mobile because that is where economic and other types of value reside—through payments, authentication, and access to sensitive enterprise services.

What was once a secondary channel has now become the primary focus for attackers. These are not isolated incidents. Many modern threats completely bypass traditional security measures by targeting what happens while the mobile app is in use. Attackers use techniques such as session hijacking, screen overlays, and unauthorized modification of applications to access sensitive personal information. This information is often used to commit fraud, impersonate users, or infiltrate other systems. Without security controls that operate during the actual use of the app, organizations remain vulnerable at the most critical stage of the customer experience, when trust is highest and exposure is greatest.

This article addresses that gap—offering a practical, standards-aligned approach to extend Zero Trust into the mobile runtime layer where traditional tools fall short.

Zero Trust is a journey. But without factoring in the mobile element, you are navigating without a compass.

2. Bridging the Gap: 6 Pillars Zero Trust for Mobile

The challenges are clear. The threat landscape has shifted. Yet current Zero Trust strategies remain tethered to assumptions that no longer reflect how users access services. Mobile is now the primary digital touchpoint, but it remains the least protected. To close this gap, we cannot simply extend enterprise models outward. We need an approach purpose-built for the mobile reality.

This is not about reinventing Zero Trust. It is about refining it for where it matters most.

Our approach builds on what already works. It leverages the architectural principles of the two most mature Zero Trust Frameworks available:

• NIST SP 800-207 for architectural principles
• CISA’s Zero Trust Maturity Model for practical roadmap and coverage

And it combines these principles with the mobile-specific threat insights provided by OWASP’s Mobile Application Security Verification Standard: MASVS v2.0 (2023) and MSTG v1.4.

Together, these foundations form a rigorous, standards-aligned base.

But adaptation is essential. Mobile environments offer no centralized identity provider, no guaranteed device or network control, and no uniform telemetry. Security must be reimagined for a decentralized, unpredictable world.

2.1 Unique Vale Proposition: The Six-Pillar Mobile Zero Trust Model

This article introduces a novel six-pillar model of Mobile Zero Trust—grounded in established cybersecurity standards but architected specifically for the decentralised, runtime nature of mobile applications.

Why This Framework Stands Apart

While leading Zero Trust frameworks—such as NIST SP 800-207 and CISA ZTMM provide strong architectural guidance for enterprise IT, they were built for environments where organizations control endpoints, networks, and identities. In contrast, the reality of mobile applications is decentralization, untrusted user devices, fragmented platforms, and real-time threats at the app runtime. Most traditional models cannot address these critical blind spots.

What Makes This Six-Pillar Framework Unique

• Mobile-First, Runtime-Centric Enforcement: Unlike NIST or CISA models, which focus on network segmentation, identity providers, and perimeter controls, this model prioritises in-app and runtime security. Enforcement happens inside the app, where the risk lives—on unmanaged devices and across global user populations.
• Integrated SDK and Embedded Component Security: This model uniquely covers the security of embedded SDKs and third-party components within the mobile app itself—an area rarely addressed by generic frameworks but essential for today’s interconnected mobile apps.
• High-Fidelity Telemetry and Continuous, Contextual Monitoring: Moving beyond static risk assessments or pre-login checks, telemetry in this model extends into live user sessions, providing actionable insights to enterprise and enabling rapid response.
• Universal Standards Mapping for Mobile Realities: Each pillar is mapped not only to NIST and CISA core recommendations, but also aligned with critical mobile standards such as OWASP MASVS, GDPR, and PSD2. This allows for immediate regulatory and audit readiness in sectors where compliance is non-negotiable.
• Phased, Measurable Roadmap Designed for Mobile Risk and Business Reality: The implementation roadmap is tailored to mobile maturity, app lifecycle, and industry compliance needs—allowing incremental adoption without an ‘all-or-nothing’ redesign.
• Defence Across the Full Lifecycle: The model supports protection from app launch—integrity validation and device attestation—through transaction execution and API calls, enabling continuous risk evaluation and adaptive enforcement per session.

2.2 The Six Pillars of Zero Trust for Mobile Applications

This is the genesis of our 6 Pillar Zero Trust Model for Mobile Applications—an architecture built for the realities of untrusted devices,
open networks, and decentralized identity inherent in consumer mobile apps.

Each of these pillars addresses a distinct dimension of real-time mobile security and trust enforcement.

Table 1: Six Pillars model of Zero Trust for Mobile Applications

Within this framework, ‘Runtime Protection’ refers to the combined enforcement of code integrity, memory safety, and asset confidentiality—including static assets stored within the app package or sandbox, which are decrypted, validated, or protected at runtime. Security is embedded into the app itself. Self-defending capabilities, such as anti-tampering, anti-debugging, and dynamic runtime integrity verification, are applied.

The runtime environment must not only secure the host application but also embedded components such as third-party SDKs. These SDKs often handle sensitive operations—payments, biometrics, or cryptography—and are therefore high-value targets for reverse engineering, tampering, and misuse.

Effective runtime protection must ensure that all components exhibit the same integrity, obfuscation, and anti-tampering properties as the core application. This pillar enforces ZTA’s assumption of continuous compromise by enabling autonomous response within the mobile environment (OWASP, 2024; PSD2 RTS, 2024).

Together, these six pillars translate Zero Trust from a principle into a deployable architecture for mobile security. They allow security leaders to take control where it matters most: inside the app, during live sessions, on untrusted devices.

This model actively extends and operationalizes these foundational standards, pushing NIST and CISA principles into the mobile edge while enforcing OWASP-aligned controls to deliver robust, layer-by-layer protection and realize Zero Trust where traditional security boundaries dissolve. Each pillar is explicitly mapped to established security and compliance standards, as presented in the following section.

2.3 Standards Alignment and Control Mapping

Table 2: Mapping of Zero Trust Mobile Pillars to Security Standards and Regulatory Frameworks

* While GDPR does not explicitly require device trust, Articles 5(1)(f) and 32 imply the need to ensure device security as part of broader obligations to maintain data confidentiality and processing integrity.

This mapping ensures the framework’s compatibility with regulatory expectations while supporting adoption within existing enterprise Zero Trust roadmaps.

3. Operationalizing Mobile Zero Trust Framework: A Phased Deployment Approach

Implementing Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) in mobile environments requires an approach that is adaptive to operational constraints, device heterogeneity, and user behaviour. Unlike traditional enterprise systems, mobile applications operate in decentralized, adversarial conditions where runtime manipulation, environmental tampering, and spoofed signals can occur undetected if foundational controls are not prioritized.

To truly bring Zero Trust to mobile apps, organizations must evolve their approach. We advocate for a phased deployment that starts at the runtime. This ‘Runtime-First’ approach neutralizes high-impact threats early on, while laying a foundation for progressive security maturity across all six pillars.

Here is our phased approach, taking you from zero to 90 days.

Phase 1: Immediate Threat Neutralization (0-30 Days)

Pillars: 1. Runtime Protection + 2. Device Trust

Runtime Protection and Device Trust are the non-negotiable foundation of mobile Zero Trust. They establish a secure execution environment that ensures all other controls—such as authentication, data protection, and API security—operate reliably and cannot be bypassed. These two pillars apply Zero Trust principles where they are needed most: inside the app itself, at the point of greatest exposure. Their importance is explicitly acknowledged in multiple standards, including OWASP MASVS (V7: Code Quality and Build Settings), PCI-DSS section 6.3.3, and PSD2 RTS Article 9, which all call for strong integrity and security enforcement within the mobile software environment.

Actions

• Deploy runtime security controls to enable:
  • Anti-tampering
  • Anti-debugging
  • Code obfuscation & binary hardening
  • Kill switches for runtime violations
• Implement Device Trust:
  • Mobile attestation frameworks to assess device integrity and context
  • Detection of rooted/jailbroken devices, emulators, and runtime manipulation
• Secure Bootstrapping: Integrate posture checks at app launch, prior to identity prompts or sensitive data access.

Business Outcomes

• Fraud and IP Risk Reduction
  Prevent app tampering, impersonation, and unauthorized access that lead to fraud, data breaches, and intellectual property loss.
• Accelerated Compliance Readiness
  Meet key regulatory requirements faster, including PSD2's Strong Customer Authentication and PCI-DSS controls for mobile app integrity and secure authentication.
• Faster, Safer Market Expansion
  Remove security roadblocks to mobile-first growth. Enable secure global app launches without delays or last-minute compliance hurdles.
• Preserved Brand Trust and User Experience
  Maintain app integrity, protect store ratings, and deliver a secure experience that reinforces customer confidence.

Phase 2: Core Trust Validation (30-60 Days)

Pillars: 3. Identity Assurance + 4. Data Protection

Identity Assurance and Data Protection form the core validation layer within the Zero Trust mobile framework. These pillars ensure that user identities remain uncompromised and sensitive data is consistently protected, maintaining trust throughout every user interaction. They align directly with recognized best practices and standards as demonstrated on Table 3.

Actions

• Identity Assurance: Deploy strong customer authentication (SCA) using biometrics or cryptographic binding (e.g., FIDO2, NIST SP 800-63B).
• Session Trust Binding: Utilize PKCE in OAuth flows to tie authentication tokens to both runtime posture and device context, preventing token reuse or replay. Adhere to OAuth 2.1 guidelines for secure lifecycle management.
• Data Protection: Implement identity-bound encryption for sensitive data at rest, leveraging secure enclaves or platform key stores in line with standards (NIST SP 800-57, GDPR Art. 32).
• Runtime Component Trust: Extend runtime trust to embedded components (including third-party SDKs and native libraries). Apply consistent runtime integrity, anti-tampering, and obfuscation controls across the entire app, ensuring privileged embedded code is not an exploitation vector.

Business Outcomes 

• Users are continuously re-evaluated during sessions, factoring in device and embedded component behaviour.
• Sensitive data remains cryptographically tied to session integrity.
• Embedded SDKs and native libraries are protected by enforced runtime integrity, reducing tampering risks.
• All authentication and encryption regulatory requirements are satisfied.

Phase 3: Advanced Safeguards & Observability (60-90 Days)

Pillars:  5. API Security + 6. Continuous Monitoring

In this phase, organizations expand their Zero Trust posture beyond the app and device, focusing on the secure flow of data and continuous situational awareness. This phase strengthens real-time prevention through hardened API interactions, while simultaneously enabling early threat detection and automated response. API Security ensures that every interaction between the mobile app and backend services is authenticated, integrity-checked, and contextually validated. This prevents common attack vectors like replay attacks, session token abuse, and API scraping—making the app resilient against unauthorized access even from within compromised sessions.

Continuous Monitoring completes the Zero Trust loop by observing the runtime environment in real time. By analysing user behaviour, device state, and environmental changes, organizations can identify anomalies, enforce policy changes mid-session, and automate containment.

Together, these pillars reinforce a live trust evaluation architecture—one where every request and behaviour is verified continuously, not just at login.

Actions

• Secure API Communication:
  • Enforce Mutual TLS (mTLS) for encrypted, authenticated connections between app and backend
  • Implement per-request attestation using runtime and device integrity checks to verify that API calls originate from untampered app instances
  • Apply dynamic, behaviour-based rate limiting via a centralized policy engine to identify and block abuse patterns like credential stuffing or scraping

• Enable Proactive Detection & Response:
  • Integrate User and Entity Behaviour Analytics (UEBA) to correlate identity, device, and runtime signals for anomaly detection
  • Feed telemetry into SOC, SIEM, or XDR platforms to extend visibility and threat correlation across the enterprise
  • Automate response actions with Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR)—e.g., triggering kill switches, revoking tokens, or modifying access policies in real time
  • Track session anomalies, environment drift, and behavioural outliers indicative of compromise or abuse.

Business Outcomes

• Proactive Threat Containment
  Stop malicious activity—like API misuse, session hijacking, or behavioural anomalies—in real time through verified API requests and live app telemetry.
• Reduced Incident Response Costs
  Accelerate detection and containment workflows through automation, cutting incident response costs by up to 65%(IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report, 2024).
• Strengthened Compliance with Data Regulations
  API-level verification and continuous monitoring support regulatory mandates such as GDPR Article 32, PSD2 RTS Article 9, and NIS2, helping reduce the risk of fines.
• Enterprise-Grade Observability for Mobile
  Integrate mobile security telemetry into centralized operations, enabling full-spectrum monitoring and threat detection across both mobile and traditional channels.

The table below provides a clear mapping of each phase in the Zero Trust Phased Deployment Approach to the most relevant industry standards and regulations: NIST SP 800-207, CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model, PSD2, GDPR, PCI-DSS, and OWASP MASVS.

Table 3: Compliance Mapping

This structured maturity progression can serve as a diagnostic tool for architecture teams, as well as a planning asset for CISO dashboards, Zero Trust program boards, or compliance reporting.

Example in Practice: Zero Trust in the Mobile Runtime

Leading digital-first organizations are already applying these principles. Rather than relying solely on pre-deployment checks or backend logic, they embed runtime protections directly into their mobile apps. These protections:

• Detect tampering and malicious behaviour in real time, shrinking the mobile attack surface
• Strengthen compliance posture for NIS2, PSD2, HIPAA, and GDPR by enforcing controls on identity, access, and data
• Accelerate release cycles by embedding security controls pre-publication, reducing post-release vulnerabilities and delays in app store approvals
• Reinforce user trust, which is critical in industries where mobile is the primary customer channel

Such leaders recognize that Zero Trust in mobile is not about box-checking, but about architectural resilience. They are turning frameworks into action by treating the app as a first-class security environment-one that actively verifies, enforces, and adapts based on live conditions.

This operational shift—from static controls to runtime enforcement—marks the difference between having a Zero Trust strategy and executing it in mobile-first environments.

4. Strategic Next Steps: Securing the Mobile Frontier

For security leaders, mobile cannot remain a blind spot in your Zero Trust strategy. It’s time to extend the principles of least privilege, continuous verification, and runtime protection directly to the app layer—where users, data, and attackers meet. To close this gap and operationalize Zero Trust in mobile environments, executive teams should take the following focused actions:

Step 1: Prioritize Runtime Security in Your Zero Trust Strategy

Reframe mobile not as an endpoint, but as a standalone application environment—with its own risks, controls, and threat landscape. Assess whether your Zero Trust roadmap addresses runtime threats such as device compromise, credential replay, session hijacking, and API misuse.

Outcome: Align mobile risk posture with enterprise governance and executive oversight.

Step 2: Use the Six Pillars Model as a Strategic Assessment Tool

Adopt the Six Pillars of Mobile Zero Trust framework—identity, device, data, APIs, monitoring, and runtime—as a reference model. Map existing controls across each pillar and identify where protections stop at the device edge.

Outcome: Deliver a focused gap analysis to drive prioritization, roadmap alignment, and investment.

Step 3: Shift Security Left in the Mobile App Lifecycle

Move from reactive monitoring to proactive, in-app defences. Require features like runtime integrity, attestation, and self-protection as default controls in every release. Embed these into CI/CD and mobile DevSecOps pipelines.

Outcome: Accelerate secure releases, reduce attack exposure, and enable faster compliance readiness.

Step 4: Operationalize Trust Signals Across the Enterprise

Ensure runtime telemetry and behavioural signals from mobile apps are captured, correlated, and acted upon. Integrate these insights into your broader security stack to enhance detection, automate policy, and drive continuous improvement.

Outcome: Achieve real-time visibility and response across mobile and non-mobile assets.

Step 5: Partner with a Mobile-First Security Provider

Work with a partner who brings deep expertise in runtime protection, Zero Trust enforcement, and threat visibility—purpose-built for mobile environments. Avoid retrofitting enterprise tools to mobile realities.

Outcome: Accelerate execution, reduce complexity, and close critical coverage gaps.

The Time to Execute is Now

The frameworks are ready. The risk is measurable. The return—on compliance, brand trust, and digital resilience—is tangible.

Zero Trust is no longer optional. And mobile is no longer peripheral.

If your Zero Trust execution doesn’t reach the app runtime, your defences are incomplete.

Make mobile a core pillar of your Zero Trust strategy. Start at the runtime. Secure what matters.

Further information on Zero Trust

If you would like more information on Zero Trust security, take a look at these.

Our Mobile app security glossary has an entry on Zero Trust that provides a summary of what it is, as well as a deep dive into Zero Trust principles, such as Zero Trust architecture (ZTA) and Zero Trust extended (ZTX). We also offer examples of Zero Trust in action, and guidance on how to implement Zero Trust for app protection.

Alex Tabalipa has published a paper called Bridging the Mobile Trust Gap: A Zero Trust Framework for Consumer-Facing Applications that expands on the six-pillar Zero Trust framework introduced in this article.