Mobile payment providers are entering a phase where global expansion, regulatory expectations, and card-scheme alignment all hinge on one capability: demonstrating strong client-side protection. As a result, EMVCo Software-Based Mobile Payment (SBMP) evaluations have become a strategic milestone for mobile payment apps, wallets, payment SDKs, and Tap-to-Mobile solutions.
EMVCo SBMP evaluations increasingly serve as a commercial prerequisite for scheme participation and partnerships with major payments networks. For many payment providers, SBMP readiness directly influences whether an app can be approved, onboarded or scaled. Delays in evaluation or remediation can translate into missed launch windows and added certification cost.
Most evaluation setbacks don’t stem from backend design flaws. They originate on the device itself. There, exposed keys, weak runtime protections, or evadable integrity checks create openings attackers can exploit. These failures slow launches, increase fraud risk, and force avoidable redesigns late in the release cycle.
This guide offers a global view of what labs typically focus on during an EMVCo SBMP evaluation, why mobile apps struggle, and how teams can build readiness directly into their development and compliance roadmap.
The majority of SBMP expectations apply globally. However, two regions face distinct forces that shape team preparations and priorities.
SBMP expectations map naturally to PSD3, PSR, DORA, and GDPR requirements for mobile payments. Providers must demonstrate strong, repeatable client-side safeguards that stand up to audit scrutiny. SBMP readiness directly strengthens regulatory posture and reduces compliance risk.
Read more: Transaction Risk Analysis under PSD2: Turning compliance into competitive advantage
In APAC, wallets, superapps, QR payments, and Tap-to-Mobile offerings must operate securely across fragmented devices, custom ROMs, rooted phones, and cloned app ecosystems. SBMP-aligned protection becomes essential for expanding cross-border, maintaining scheme relationships, and protecting high-volume payment flows.
These regional sections do not change the core evaluation framework. But they influence how aggressively teams must implement and validate protections.
SBMP evaluations assess whether a mobile payment app can withstand real-world attacker techniques—static, dynamic, and tamper-based. This is not theoretical compliance or a checklist exercise. It is a practical, attack-resistance assessment.
For mobile payment providers, the consequences of misalignment are operational and strategic:
Late-stage redesigns that disrupt launches
Evaluation cycles that stretch by months
Increased fraud exposure through key extraction and cloning
Risk to card-scheme partnerships
Regulatory friction and lack of confidence (particularly in EMEA)
Inability to safely scale across high-risk device ecosystems (particularly in APAC)
Understanding how evaluations work is now a prerequisite for reliable roadmap execution and partnership with major card schemes.
Learn more: Insecure mobile payment systems
EMVCo’s SMMP framework establishes required outcomes for secure, software-based mobile payments. Labs assess whether an app can resist defined categories of attack, but EMVCo does not prescribe methods or mandate how a provider must implement those controls.
This allows teams to adopt flexible approaches. But it also means evaluators expect robust, repeatable, multi-layer protections, not ad hoc patches. EMVCo aligns closely with what regulators and ecosystems already expect: protection of sensitive logic, safeguarding of keys, and resistance to tampering. Gaps in consistency or coverage are among the quickest ways to fail.
SBMP readiness also strengthens parallel mandates:
In EMEA, it reinforces controls expected under PSD3, PSR, DORA, and GDPR.
In APAC, it supports cross-market wallet expansion and partnership requirements for global schemes.
This clarity positions SBMP as both a security benchmark and a compliance accelerator.
Because SBMP requirements are global, evaluation focus areas are consistent across labs. Process details may vary, but the core attack categories assessed do not. Labs focus on attack surfaces that criminals target first. That means those that influence fraud risk, key extraction, app cloning, and runtime manipulation.
These are the four core focus areas typically assessed in an EMVCo SBMP evaluation. Below is a global breakdown, with region-specific context where it meaningfully alters emphasis.
Static analysis mirrors the techniques attackers use before the app ever runs. Evaluators look at:
How resistant the application is to reverse engineering
Exposure of sensitive logic, configuration files, or payment operations
Visibility and structure of cryptographic routines
How key material is obfuscated and safeguarded
Integrity controls around embedded assets
This phase often reveals whether client-side protections are structurally sound or easily bypassed.
Static weaknesses are widely exploited in markets with high rates of app cloning and fraudulent wallet replication.
Dynamic analysis examines how the app behaves under active manipulation on compromised devices. Evaluators probe:
Debugger and instrumentation resistance
Protection against hooking tools
Root/jailbreak detection and resistance to common bypass techniques
Runtime integrity checks and environment validation
How sensitive computations behave under observation
Resilience against forced code-path manipulation or unauthorized API calls
In practice, teams need to assume compromised devices exist in the field and prove the app can still enforce controls when they do.
Evaluators expect the application to detect and respond to modification attempts. They require clear, reliable mechanisms for:
Detecting cloned or modified application packages
Validating app integrity checks across builds and devices
Providing safe, predictable app responses to app tampering events
Protecting update channels and app provenance
Strong tamper detection supports operational resilience requirements under DORA and strengthens overall audit readiness.
Read more: DORA incident reporting for financial mobile apps
White-box cryptography is critical to SBMP.
Evaluators assess whether keys and sensitive computations remain secure even if attackers enjoy full visibility into the runtime environment. They examine:
Resistance to extraction techniques
How cryptographic logic is protected in static and dynamic contexts
Whether white-box implementations maintain integrity under stress
Exposure of sensitive operations in the binary
Weak or custom white-box solutions are a top cause of SBMP delays.
Across labs, markets, and payment models, failure patterns are consistent. Most issues arise from implementation gaps rather than fundamental design flaws.
This common SBMP failure path shows how client-side gaps lead to delays, rework, and higher compliance costs.
Security measures are applied unevenly across modules or build versions. Static, dynamic, and integrity controls are often added at different stages by different teams. This results in uneven coverage that evaluators quickly identify.
If key material, authentication flows, or payment logic can be extracted or inspected with common tools, evaluation outcomes deteriorate rapidly. Extractable keys, visible cryptographic operations, or exposed business logic lead to immediate risk findings.
If tamper or repackaging checks can be patched, disabled, or skipped, evaluators treat it as a systemic control gap. The app is flagged as failing to meet expected attack-resistance levels.
Apps may appear strong and pass controlled tests but fail in broader device ecosystems. This is particularly the case in APAC, where rooted, emulated, or customized environments are common.
Last-minute rushes to “add protection” integrations before certification often lack the depth and consistency evaluators expect. They result in fragile measures that cannot withstand lab scrutiny.
Evaluators do not expect perfection. They do expect coherent, layered, repeatable defenses that hold across environments, devices, and release versions. Inconsistent application rather than insufficient sophistication is the strongest predictors of SBMP rejection.
When client-side controls fall short, the impact is operational and financial as much as technical.
Teams that succeed treat SBMP as a foundational requirement, not an end-of-project hurdle. Teams that pass consistently follow a predictable approach: align early, use evaluation-aligned tools, and maintain rigorous protection consistency.
This is a practical SBMO readiness framework that is designed to reduce certification risk and keep releases predictable.
Treat client-side safeguards as part of your architecture and early threat modeling, not an afterthought. Early alignment minimizes redesign and protects delivery timelines.
An evaluated SPT aligns directly with SBMP requirements for shielding, integrity protection, and white-box cryptography. This reduces both engineering burden and certification risk.
SBMP isn’t tested in ideal environments. Evaluate behavior across rooted devices, emulators, fragmented hardware, and hostile environments. This is especially important for APAC deployments.
App shielding and asset protection must remain stable and predictable across builds. Version drift or inconsistent integration is a frequent cause of SBMP setbacks.
EMEA: Strengthen PSD3, PSR, and DORA compliance evidence.
APAC: Enable predictable scaling into fragmented device ecosystems and high-growth wallet markets.
Overall, readiness is less of a technical exercise and more about consistent, layered, evaluation-aligned protection.
Promon delivers EMVCo-evaluated app shielding and asset protection that align directly with the attack categories labs examine. White-box cryptography is incorporated internally as part of the protection layer. While we are not an evaluation lab, we help ensure your application brings the multi-layer, coherent defenses evaluators expect.
Promon enables teams to:
Withstand static and dynamic analysis
Protect key material and sensitive logic inside the application
Detect and respond to tampering and repackaging
Ensure consistency across devices, environments, and releases
Reduce evaluation timelines and avoid late-stage redesigns
With post-compile integration, minimal developer overhead, and cross-platform flexibility, Promon supports both EMEA’s regulatory needs and APAC’s high-velocity scaling environments. This is critical for payment providers operating in both EMEA’s regulatory landscape and APAC’s fast-moving market.
SBMP evaluations are no longer niche. They are a critical step in mobile payment strategy. By understanding lab focus areas, preparing early, and adopting evaluation-aligned protections, teams can transform SBMP from a source of uncertainty into a repeatable, reliable part of the product lifecycle.
With strong client-side security in place, teams can reduce certification risk, accelerate time to market, and reinforce trust with regulators, card schemes, and customers across EMEA, APAC, and beyond.