Protection architecture
Designing client, server, framework and policy layers together.
Application protection SDK integration architecture
A protection SDK becomes part of the application lifecycle, data flow and failure handling.
Read the guidePost-build application protection
Post-build protection inserts another step between compilation and the final signed artifact. Traceability, signing order and diagnostics are central evaluation areas.
Read the guideCompiler-based RASP integration
Compiler-level protection participates in code generation. Verify framework compatibility, optimization interactions and final-package coverage with separate evidence.
Read the guideProtection across native and managed code
Mobile applications often contain several code types. Map critical flows without assuming equal protection for managed code, native libraries and bridges.
Read the guideApplication protection for Flutter
Flutter combines Dart code, native plugins and platform services. Shared code must not hide distinct Android and iOS protection requirements.
Read the guideRASP for React Native applications
React Native protection extends beyond JavaScript. Native bridges, sensitive storage and server decisions define the application's real trust boundaries.
Read the guideApplication protection for Unity games
Client integrity and game-economy security are different concerns. Rewards, purchases and competitive results must not depend solely on local values.
Read the guideKotlin Multiplatform and platform-specific RASP
Kotlin Multiplatform shares business code while platform trust mechanisms remain different.
Read the guideProtection for Capacitor and Cordova applications
In applications combining web content with native functions, the bridge is a critical trust boundary.
Read the guideDesigning an application protection policy engine
A policy engine converts security signals into transaction decisions. Define its inputs, version, failure behavior and user effects explicitly.
Read the guideEvaluating RASP signals together
Signals vary in reliability and age. Preserve their source, freshness and business impact when combining them; an unexplained score is insufficient.
Read the guideBinding integrity evidence to a transaction
Evidence not tied to the correct amount, recipient and operation may be reused in another context. Bind verification to the work the server actually performs.
Read the guideRASP verification at the API gateway
An API gateway can provide a shared verification point. Define how trusted decisions reach downstream services and whether alternative routes enforce the same rules.
Read the guideRASP for offline applications
Offline decisions rely on limited evidence. Define the duration and scope of local authority and the checks required when connectivity returns.
Read the guideRotating mobile transaction keys
Key rotation involves more than generating a replacement. Plan access to old data, older-client behavior and rejection of revoked authority together.
Read the guideCaching attestation results
A cached integrity result may no longer represent the environment at transaction time.
Read the guideSecuring the RASP event channel
Reliable delivery matters as much as event generation. Design the channel around identity, integrity, replay handling and data minimization.
Read the guideFeature flags for security controls
A flag that changes enforcement is more than an interface experiment. Authorized changes, visible versions and safe rollback belong in its design.
Read the guideWhite-box cryptography and mobile protection
White-box cryptography aims to protect key use in hostile client environments. Evaluate resistance within a defined threat model rather than accepting absolute claims.
Read the guideDesigning secret delivery to mobile applications
Delivering a secret involves more than an encrypted download. Define who may use it, for what purpose, for how long and under which device context.
Read the guideBinding evidence to JSON and Protobuf requests
Evidence must remain bound to the same business data regardless of request format.
Read the guideCombining RASP with server authorization
Application evidence informs access decisions but does not establish an account's rights to every object and function. Keep those responsibilities explicit.
Read the guideRASP compatibility with third-party SDKs
Several SDKs can affect networking, lifecycle and runtime behavior inside one process. Measure compatibility through real user flows as well as successful compilation.
Read the guideSecure device registration flows
Registering a device expands an account's trust boundary. Key generation, user verification, registration binding and removal of old devices form one lifecycle.
Read the guideWhere to place RASP checks
Check placement determines which risks can be observed. Startup checks and transaction-time evaluation have different freshness and performance costs.
Read the guide