MASVS vs MASTG vs Mobile Top 10: Pick the Right OWASP Resource

Pick the resource by the job

The MASVS, MASTG and Mobile Top 10 are complementary. None independently inspects your application simply because you cite it in documentation.

Follow one feature through the resources

Consider a note-taking app that synchronizes private notes. Begin with the requirement to protect sensitive stored and transmitted data. Then identify tests covering the local database, backups, network clients, session expiry and cross-account access.

The risk-awareness language helps explain why these tests matter. The control framework defines expectations. The test guide suggests evidence collection. The release decision still belongs to the team reviewing the actual results.

Record versions and exceptions

Store the source revision or review date used for each mapping. Frameworks evolve and older assessment templates may include superseded names or organizational structures. Do not claim a current assessment based solely on a copied spreadsheet with an old title replaced.

Document an exception with its rationale, owner and expiry or reassessment trigger. “Not applicable because the app has no authenticated network feature” is meaningful; “not applicable because the scanner did not report it” is not.

Avoid meaningless compliance statements

A public claim should match the work performed. “Reviewed selected storage and network controls against these references” is narrower and more defensible than “OWASP certified.” Include scope and limitations in internal reports, especially when source code, devices or backend access were unavailable.

Put static tools in the right place

APKLint can provide observations about manifests, packages and configured SDK indicators. Use those observations as inputs to the control review. Runtime behavior, backend authorization and organizational handling of sensitive data require evidence beyond an uploaded APK.