Google Play Protect vs. MASC: Approaches to Mobile Malware Protection

A question often arises: if a device already has Google Play Protect (GPP) – Android’s built-in malware protection – what extra value does MASC provide for malware defense? It’s important to understand that MASC and Google Play Protect operate at different layers and with different scopes. They are complementary, not redundant. 

Scope and Visibility 

• Google Play Protect is a system service by Google that scans apps on the device (and those being installed) against known malware databases and behavior models. It has broad visibility of the entire device: it can scan all installed apps’ code and even remove or block apps deemed harmful. It’s essentially an antivirus/anti-malware for Android on the OS level. 

• MASC, by contrast, runs inside the context of a specific app. It has only the privileges that the app has. This means MASC cannot see everything on the device – for security reasons, . MASC cannot, for example, enumerate all running processes or examine other apps’ code (unless explicitly granted special permissions in some cases). MASC focuses on what it can directly observe that might indicate a threat to the app. 

In-App Threat Mitigation  

Rather than looking for known malware signatures, MASC’s strategy is to detect malicious behavior or conditions in the app’s environment and mitigate them. Many malware attacks on apps involve exploiting legitimate OS features or injecting themselves into the app’s process. MASC is excellent at spotting those patterns and reacting. MASC addresses malware-related risks through: 

• Unauthorized Accessibility Services: On Android, malware frequently abuses the Accessibility Service feature to read screen content or perform actions (this is a common tactic in banking trojans). MASC allows an app to maintain a whitelist of trusted accessibility services (e.g.,the phone’s default TalkBack for disabilities). If the protected app finds any non-whitelisted accessibility service active while it’s running, it will flag this in the health message as suspicious. The backend can then decide to warn the user or block certain high-risk actions. This mechanism provides a practical shield against whole categories of malware that rely on sneaking in via accessibility. Instead of trying to identify the malware by name, MASC simply says “this accessibility service isn’t recognized, so we won’t trust it.” 

• Third-Party Keyboards (Input Methods): Keylogger malware can operate as a custom keyboard to capture everything the user types. Similar to the above, MASC can enforce a whitelist or blacklist for keyboard apps. For instance, an organization might decide to only trust the system keyboard and maybe a few well-known ones. If the user is using an unapproved keyboard while focusing on the protected app, MASC can detect that and react (for example, it could block input into sensitive fields or send an alert). Again, this is about policy: one could outright prevent the app from being used with a disallowed keyboard, or simply log it. The point is, MASC gives fine-grained control on this potential malware vector. 

• Screen Sharing/Recording Apps: Remote access tools or screen recorders can be used maliciously to spy on a user’s screen. MASC includes sentinels to detect if the screen is being shared or if a remote control session is active on the device. If detected, it can react (some clients choose to automatically blank sensitive screens or block transactions if screen sharing is active, under the assumption that a fraudster might be watching). Known good screen-sharing apps, like the user’s own IT support tool, can be allowed via whitelist, and everything else would be flagged. 

• Suspicious Networking (Local Proxies): Some advanced malware will route traffic through a local malicious proxy, for instance, it might set up a fake VPN or use the Android VPNService to intercept communications, or use the hosts file to redirect endpoints. MASC monitors network parameters such as IP addresses being used for server connections. If it sees an unexpected local IP or an untrusted certificate in the connection, indicative of a man-in-the-middle by malware, it can detect that and report it. Play Protect wouldn’t catch that because it’s about how the app is communicating rather than the presence of a known bad app. 

• Known Malicious Apps: Although a normal app can’t usually list all installed packages, Android does allow certain apps (that need it for their function) to request the QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES permission. If the app using MASC has a justified use for this, e.g., a security app or enterprise-managed app, it could be granted. MASC can then scan the installed apps list for particular blacklisted package names – for example, known banking trojans or root-level exploits – and include a flag if they are present. This isn’t a primary feature (and Google has tightened the use of that permission), but it’s an option in high-security deployments. Essentially, if you know of specific malicious apps that are a no-go, MASC can be configured to look for them similar to how some mobile banking apps refuse to run if certain other apps are installed. 

• Integrity and Tampering Checks: If malware has somehow tampered with the app’s own code or libraries, MASC’s integrity sentinels will catch that. For example, if malware tried to inject a snippet of code into the app’s binary, the app would likely fail its self-check and MASC would raise an alarm or stop execution. 

It’s clear that MASC’s malware defenses are about the app defending itself. It looks outward at the environment and asks, “Is there anything fishy going on that could put me at risk?” This is inherently a narrower mission than Google Play Protect’s “find and disable bad apps on the whole device.” But it excels in that narrow mission by being customizable and immediate. 

How does this compare to Google Play Protect? The table below summarizes the differences: 

Table 1: Comparison of MASC’s in-app threat mitigation with Google Play Protect’s device-wide malware scanning. 

Why MASC is a Vital Complement 

Google Play Protect is excellent for the broad strokes – it will catch many known malware instances and keep the overall device safer. However, it may not catch targeted or brand-new attacks, and it doesn’t enforce an organization’s specific security policies. MASC steps in for that last mile of defense for the app. 

Play Protect might allow a remote control app like TeamViewer on the device (because it’s not malware per se), but a bank might not want their banking app to run while TeamViewer is active on the screen. MASC makes such tailored protections possible - it can detect TeamViewer’s presence as a screen-sharing tool and then block sensitive actions or shut down. Another example: if a niche piece of malware appears that isn’t yet in Google’s database, but tries to hook the banking app’s code, MASC’s hooking detectors would catch the odd behavior even if Google hasn’t flagged the malware app yet. 

On the flip side, MASC doesn’t remove malware from the device – if a phone is infested with many malware apps, MASC can shield the banking app, but the user still has a problem. In practice, organizations benefit from both: they encourage users to keep Google Play Protect on for overall safety, and they include MASC to have control over the app’s immediate environment and to gather intelligence specific to their app’s threat encounters. 

How is MASC “better” in malware detection?  

It’s not strictly about better or worse – it’s about the angle of protection. From the perspective of a bank or enterprise, MASC is better at ensuring their app’s integrity because it gives them the tools to define acceptable conditions around their app,something Google’s one-size-fits-all solution can’t do). It’s also real-time per session – MASC can stop an attack as it’s happening in the app. Google Play Protect usually operates on app install or periodic scans, not live during a sensitive transaction. In that sense, MASC can react in the moment to an on-screen Trojan overlay trying to steal a PIN for example, whereas Play Protect might only flag the Trojan app hours later or upon installation. 

By deploying MASC, an organization closes the gap between “device is mostly okay” and “app session is fully safe.” It addresses the scenario where something slips through the cracks of OS security by adding an application-layer shield that the organization itself controls. 

Final Thoughts

Cryptomathic MASC’s design philosophy ensures that security doesn’t come at the cost of usability. By carefully engineering its detection mechanisms and leveraging a flexible Reaction Engine, MASC achieves extremely low false positive rates, even as it scans for a wide array of threats. This means security and risk teams can trust the alerts they get from MASC, when it says a device is rooted or an app is under attack, it likely really is. And on the rare occasion something looks fishy but isn’t certain, MASC gives the tools to investigate and adapt rather than simply blocking or crashing – thereby preserving a smooth user experience. 

In an age where mobile apps are high-value targets and attackers constantly evolve their tactics, having a multi-layered defense is critical. MASC provides that extra layer within the app, marrying proactive threat detection with controlled response. The result is a more resilient mobile channel — one where both the users and the providers of the app can have greater peace of mind.

By leveraging MASC alongside platform security, organizations achieve a depth of defense that significantly lowers the risk of compromise. This balanced, thorough approach is what modern mobile security demands, and it’s exactly what MASC is built to deliver. 

Discover how MASC can protect your mobile applications. Download now.