How can I ensure the integrity of my iOS app?

Question

I have the requirement that the signature of my Swift iOS app has to be checked. I think it is only relevant for jailbroken devices as iOS checks the integrity by itself.

I couldn't find much on the web - most libraries/snippets have not been updated for 5 years. My current approach would be to calculate the app signature (C-Code) and compare it with an array of signatures that have been loaded from the server. An array because to support multiple versions of the app.

Any ideas or comments on this approach? Maybe it is not relevant anymore for Swift?

Here are some resources that would inspire my solution:

Exadra37 · Accepted Answer

Your Current Approach

My current approach would be to calculate the app signature (C-Code) and compare it with an array of signatures that have been loaded from the server.

I need to alert you for the fact that in a rooted phone the attacker will be able to intercept your code at run-time and modify its behavior, this means that your logic to detect the signature is ok will always return true. They do this by using an introspection framework like Frida:

Inject your own scripts into black box processes. Hook any function, spy on crypto APIs or trace private application code, no source code needed. Edit, hit save, and instantly see the results. All without compilation steps or program restarts.

Your Requirement

I have the requirement that the signature of my Swift iOS app has to be checked. I think it is only relevant for jailbroken devices as iOS checks the integrity by itself.

Well if this requirement have the intention of only protecting your app from running in a rooted device, checking the signature of the app is not enough, once the device is rooted, any app on it can be easily manipulated, as I already mentioned. Protecting an app from attacks on the device itself is a daunting task, and is like playing the cat and mouse game with the attackers, by trying to keep ahead on the game. You will need to use in app protections to detect if the app is running in a jail-broken device, have an introspection framework attached, is running in an emulator, if a debugger is attached, etc. This is a never ending game with the attackers and they have a huge advantage, they can dedicated all their resources and time to break your app, if its worth it for them, but you may not have the same human resources, time and money to invest in this game. No matter how you decide to play the game you can always resort to the Apple Device Check API to mark in the API server that a specific device is not trustworthy.

In case the requirement to check the iOS app signature is more in line with protecting the API server from receiving requests from an iOS app that is not the genuine one you have uploaded to the Apple store, then a better solution may be possible, and is known by the the name of Mobile APP Attestation. So if this is also in the scope of your requirement you should keep reading, otherwise just skip it.

Before I dive into the Mobile APP Attestation concept I would like to first clear a misconception about WHO and WHAT is accessing an API server.

The Difference Between WHO and WHAT is Accessing the API Server

To better understand the differences between the WHO and the WHAT are accessing an API server, let’s use this picture:

Man in the Middle Attack

So replace the mobile app by web app, and keep following my analogy around this picture.

The Intended Communication Channel represents the web app being used as you expected, by a legit user without any malicious intentions, communicating with the API server from the browser, not using Postman or using any other tool to perform a man in the middle(MitM) attack.

The actual channel may represent several different scenarios, like a legit user with malicious intentions that may be using Curl or a tool like Postman to perform the requests, a hacker using a MitM attack tool, like MitmProxy, to understand how the communication between the web app and the API server is being done in order to be able to replay the requests or even automate attacks against the API server. Many other scenarios are possible, but we will not enumerate each one here.

I hope that by now you may already have a clue why the WHO and the WHAT are not the same, but if not it will become clear in a moment.

The WHO is the user of the web app that we can authenticate, authorize and identify in several ways, like using OpenID Connect or OAUTH2 flows.

OAUTH

Generally, OAuth provides to clients a "secure delegated access" to server resources on behalf of a resource owner. It specifies a process for resource owners to authorize third-party access to their server resources without sharing their credentials. Designed specifically to work with Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), OAuth essentially allows access tokens to be issued to third-party clients by an authorization server, with the approval of the resource owner. The third party then uses the access token to access the protected resources hosted by the resource server.

OpenID Connect

OpenID Connect 1.0 is a simple identity layer on top of the OAuth 2.0 protocol. It allows Clients to verify the identity of the End-User based on the authentication performed by an Authorization Server, as well as to obtain basic profile information about the End-User in an interoperable and REST-like manner.

While user authentication may let the API server know WHO is using the API, it cannot guarantee that the requests have originated from WHAT you expect, the browser were your web app should be running from, with a real user.

Now we need a way to identify WHAT is calling the API server, and here things become more tricky than most developers may think. The WHAT is the thing making the request to the API server. Is it really a genuine instance of the web app, or is a bot, an automated script or an attacker manually poking around with the API server, using a tool like Postman?

For your surprise, you may end up discovering that It can be one of the legit users manipulating manually the requests or an automated script that is trying to gamify and take advantage of the service provided by the web app.

Well, to identify the WHAT, developers tend to resort to an API key that usually is sent in the headers of the web app. Some developers go the extra mile and compute the key at run-time in the web app, inside obfuscated javascript, thus it becomes a runtime secret, that can be reverse engineered by deobusfaction tools, and by inspecting the traffic between the web app and API server with the F12 or MitM tools.

The above write-up was extracted from an article I wrote, entitled WHY DOES YOUR MOBILE APP NEED AN API KEY?. While in the context of a Mobile App, the overall idea is still valid in the context of a web app. You wish you can read the article in full here, that is the first article in a series of articles about API keys.

Mobile App Attestation

The use of a Mobile App Attestation solution will enable the API server to know WHAT is sending the requests, thus allowing to respond only to requests from a genuine mobile app while rejecting all other requests from unsafe sources.

The role of a Mobile App Attestation solution is to guarantee at run-time that your mobile app was not tampered with, is not running in a rooted device, not being instrumented by a framework like Frida, not being MitM attacked, and this is achieved by running an SDK in the background. The service running in the cloud will challenge the app, and based on the responses it will attest the integrity of the mobile app and device is running on, thus the SDK will never be responsible for any decisions.

MiTM Proxy

An interactive TLS-capable intercepting HTTP proxy for penetration testers and software developers.

On successful attestation of the mobile app integrity a short time lived JWT token is issued and signed with a secret that only the API server and the Mobile App Attestation service in the cloud are aware. In the case of failure on the mobile app attestation the JWT token is signed with a secret that the API server does not know.

Now the App must sent with every API call the JWT token in the headers of the request. This will allow the API server to only serve requests when it can verify the signature and expiration time in the JWT token and refuse them when it fails the verification.

Once the secret used by the Mobile App Attestation service is not known by the mobile app, is not possible to reverse engineer it at run-time even when the App is tampered, running in a rooted device or communicating over a connection that is being the target of a Man in the Middle Attack.

The Mobile App Attestation service already exists as a SAAS solution at Approov(I work here) that provides SDKs for several platforms, including iOS, Android, React Native and others. The integration will also need a small check in the API server code to verify the JWT token issued by the cloud service. This check is necessary for the API server to be able to decide what requests to serve and what ones to deny.

Summary

In the end, the solution to use in order to protect your API server must be chosen in accordance with the value of what you are trying to protect and the legal requirements for that type of data, like the GDPR regulations in Europe.

Going the Extra Mile

OWASP Mobile Security Project - Top 10 risks

The OWASP Mobile Security Project is a centralized resource intended to give developers and security teams the resources they need to build and maintain secure mobile applications. Through the project, our goal is to classify mobile security risks and provide developmental controls to reduce their impact or likelihood of exploitation.