Mobile applications often contain several code types. Map critical flows without assuming equal protection for managed code, native libraries and bridges.
Evaluation approach
Match the layer running each check to the layer processing sensitive data. Review conversions and failure behavior at language boundaries.
Application example
Check that a field validated in Java reaches its native operation unchanged through JNI. Inventory separate copies of critical values.
Limits and considerations
Moving business logic into native code changes analysis techniques; it does not remove the attack surface.
Data can change at a layer boundary
As a Java, Kotlin or JavaScript decision becomes a native call, data formats and authorization assumptions can change. Native code in the same process is not automatically a separate trusted zone.
Inspect critical parameters crossing layers together with the final operation. A RASP signal not enforced in the receiving layer can leave a gap. Match protected-module lists to actual distributed artifacts.
Checks and decisions
- Map layer boundaries
- Reduce data copies
- Check every ABI
A simple application-wide coverage map makes omitted areas visible.
Sources
The primary references above provide the technical basis. Example workflows and evaluation suggestions are this publication’s explanations, not independent test results for a particular product.