mastg
v1.9.0 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on mastg's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
OWASPOWASPA nonprofit foundation that publishes open standards, guides, and ranked vulnerability lists—most famously the OWASP Top 10—giving cyber tools a vendor-neutral benchmark to test or report against. MASTG is a comprehensive manual for mobile app security testing and reverse engineering that describes technical processes for verifying mobile security weaknesses.
Summary
mastg, the OWASP Mobile Application Security Testing Guide, is an open-source manual, free to use, that documents technical processes for testing and reverse-engineering mobile apps. It is a reference document rather than software you run, published as a web guide and downloadable checklists, and it is meant for penetration testers and mobile app developers who need to verify an app against the OWASP MASVSOWASP MASVSA standard maintained by OWASP that defines security requirements for mobile applications, giving cyber tools a versioned checklist to test or score apps against. controls, with weaknesses catalogued separately in MASWE. It sits alongside other OWASP standards as the practical, how-to counterpart to the MASVS checklist rather than competing with a scanning tool. It is adopted by named platform providers and standards bodies, and its release history shows steady, ongoing publication of updated checklists.
OWASP MASTG is a comprehensive manual for mobile app security testing and reverse engineering that describes technical processes for verifying mobile security weaknesses.
How mastg helps
Which security checks should I run against this mobile app before it ships?
walks through the technical test cases mapped to each MASVS control, so a tester works from a defined procedure instead of improvising
How do I confirm a weakness I found actually maps to a recognized standard?
cross-references the finding against the cataloged MASWE weakness list, giving it a named identifier tied back to the MASVS control it violates
How do I reverse-engineer this app to see what it's really doing under the hood?
documents the technical processes for reverse-engineering mobile apps step by step, covering both iOS and Android
Can I practice these testing techniques before running them against a real client app?
provides crackmes to test the documented techniques against, so a tester validates their approach on a safe target first
Which parts of this app's testing scope have official industry backing behind them?
lists the platform providers and standards bodies that have adopted the MASVS, MASWE and MASTG, so a tester can point to recognized adoption when justifying the methodology
Am I working from a testing checklist that's still current?
is published as versioned, downloadable checklists alongside the web guide, so a tester can pull the latest release rather than working from a stale copy
Languages
Command line
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for mastg, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail mastg puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
6 entries
No entries match these filters.
- June 20262
- May 20231
- January 20221
- December 20211
- July 20211
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in OWASP/mastg, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 25 −22 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 3 +2 joined · −4 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 20% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 527 days first maintainer reply 3.5 days
- Open backlog 195 of 1,227 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 3 · 2 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 195
- Contributors / month 5
- Commits / month 15
- Stars 13,186
- other 100%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.
Choose a badge style and copy the code →