Articles | Techstep

Mobile security in Europe: protecting public sector and enterprise organisations

Written by Techstep | Jan 20, 2026 3:38:12 PM

Mobile security has moved from “nice to have” to a board-level priority in Europe. It’s no longer realistic to treat mobile devices as just communication tools, because they’re often the quickest way into your organisation: always on, always connected, and routinely used to sign in, approve access, and open corporate data across email, files, and line-of-business systems. 

Across European work environments, a similar pattern emerges repeatedly. Mobile risk rarely arrives as a dramatic “mobile breach”. It turns up as a stolen session token, a compromised mailbox, a sensitive attachment forwarded from a personal device, or a phone that becomes the quiet side door into a bigger incident. 

This kind of compromise might not happen every day. Still, it sets a baseline: mobile security can’t depend entirely on users always doing the right thing. 

This article explains mobile security in Europe in practical terms — the main risks, what MDM can cover, where mobile threat defence adds protection, and how you can stay compliant with European regulations.

Key takeaways 

  • Mobile security means protecting phones and tablets as mission‑critical devices, not just tools for calls, messages, and email. 
  • European compliance pressure is rising, and regulators increasingly expect risk controls that work in practice, not just on paper — across NIS2, GDPR, and sector rules like DORA. 
  • MDM/UEM is the foundation, but it can’t see or stop many live threats such as smishing, on-device warning signs, risky networks and apps. 
  • Mobile Threat Defense (MTD) adds detection and response signals that policy controls can’t cover on their own. 
  • Most organisations get the best results when they combine management (MDM) and protection (MTD) into one approach.

Why mobile security is becoming more urgent in Europe 

Mobile devices are now a primary access path to sensitive services and data. And when that access is abused, the impact is rarely “mobile-only” — it quickly becomes a wider security and operational problem, often with regulatory consequences under frameworks like NIS2, GDPR, and DORA. 

Mobile’s role in modern attack chains 

In many real incidents across Europe, mobile isn’t the final destination. It’s the start of the chain. 

  • A user taps a link on a phone because it looks “safe enough”. 
  • A login session is hijacked. 
  • Multi-factor authentication (MFA) prompts are approved on the same device used to browse the phishing page. 
  • Mailbox rules, cloud app permissions, or collaboration tools become the attacker’s real working area. 

That’s why you can’t treat mobile as a side channel for comms — it’s often the quickest route into accounts, apps, and services. 

Consequences of weak mobile security 

When mobile security fails, the impact is usually the same: 

  • Data leakage: contact lists, emails, documents, and authentication tokens. 
  • Operational disruption: accounts locked, devices quarantined, services paused. 
  • Regulatory exposure: including GDPR administrative fines up to €20 million or 4% of worldwide turnover for certain infringements. (GDPR | EUR-Lex) 
  • Reputational damage: especially in public services where trust is part of the mission. 

None of this calls for panic. But it does call for urgency — and a plan that works in the real world. 

The European threat landscape is very real 

ENISA’s 2024 threat landscape notes that public administration was among the most targeted sectors in observed events (19%). (ENISA Threat Landscape 2024) 

But it’s not a “government-only” problem. ENISA also points to a wide range of targeted sectors — including healthcare, finance, energy and utilities, transport, telecoms/ICT, and other large employers with sensitive data and 24/7 services. (ENISA Threat Landscape 2024

The takeaway is simple: you don’t need to be a defence ministry to be a target. If phones and tablets are used to approve access, handle incidents, or reach core systems, your organisation is part of the risk picture too. 


European security regulations 
 

In this high-risk environment, Europe adds another layer of pressure: in many sectors, mobile security must stand up to regulatory scrutiny as well as technical reality. This regulatory landscape affects not only the organisations in scope, but also their suppliers, which is why it’s important to understand what each directive requires. 

  • NIS2 sets broad expectations for cybersecurity risk management, requiring organisations to take “appropriate and proportionate technical, operational and organisational measures”. (NIS2 Directive | EUR-Lex)  
  • GDPR applies whenever mobile devices handle personal data — which, in most organisations, means everyday items like emails, contacts, calendars, case notes, and documents. (GDPR | EUR-Lex) 
  • In financial services and its ICT supply chain, DORA raises expectations around ICT risk management, resilience, and incident handling — and mobile access to core systems is part of that picture. (DORA Regulation (EU) 2022/2554)
  • For critical entities, the CER Directive strengthens resilience expectations more broadly, with cyber risk as a key component. (CER Directive (EU) 2022/2557

Put simply: you need to show you manage mobile risk on purpose — you know what devices you have, you enforce baseline controls, and you can spot and respond when something goes wrong. 

Europe increasingly expects mobile controls to be visible, enforceable, and testable — because phones and tablets often become the first step in wider attacks. 


Current mobile threats facing 
organisations
 

To make sense of today’s mobile threat landscape, it helps to group risks by how they usually arrive: messages, apps, and networks. 


Smishing, phishing, and “tiny screen” decisions
 

Phishing isn’t new. Mobile makes it easier to fall for. 

  • Shortened links and limited context on screens.

  • People moving fast (commuting, between meetings, on-call).

  • Notifications that train users to tap. 

And the volume is relentless. Switzerland’s National Cyber Security Centre reported 975,309 phishing reports received, with 20,872 identified as actual phishing websites, and noted a 108% increase in identified phishing sites compared to the previous year. (Swiss NCSC Anti-Phishing Report 2024

A similar picture shows up elsewhere. The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre says that, as of November 2025, it had received more than 48 million reports and removed 237,000 scams across 422,000 URLs. (UK NCSC: Phishing and scams

That isn’t “mobile-only”, but it fits how people work: phones are where SMS lures and quick link clicks often happen. Proofpoint’s 2024 State of the Phish survey found 24% of users admitted responding to a message (email or SMS text) from someone they don’t know. (Proofpoint: 2024 State of the Phish report


Malicious and risky apps
 

In enterprise and public sector fleets, the problem is often not “an obviously bad app”. It’s: 

  • A legitimate-looking utility app with aggressive permissions. 
  • A repackaged app distributed outside standard channels. 
  • A popular app which quietly collects more data than you’d expect. 

In practice, the risky apps are not always obviously “dodgy”. They often look like everyday tools — which is why they can slip into managed fleets. 

A concrete example is Anatsa (also known as TeaBot), a banking trojan that Germany’s federal cyber agency says can take control of infected phones and steal banking data. (BSI: Anatsa / TeaBot) In documented campaigns, it has been delivered via harmless looking “document viewer” or “QR” apps, then pushed as a follow‑on payload through an update or downloaded component. (ThreatFabric: Anatsa targets Europe) The impact is straightforward: once it’s on a phone, it can hijack access to banking apps and credentials, which is the same type of control attackers want if a device also holds corporate logins, email access, or sensitive documents. 

Another high-impact, targeted case is Pegasus, a commercial mobile spyware used for targeted surveillance. It came to wider attention in Spain during “Catalangate”, where the phones of its Prime Minister and several ministers were infected. (Amnesty International: Catalans targeted with Pegasus) (AP: Pegasus case cooperation) Spain has not publicly confirmed the infection route, but Pegasus has been delivered in other documented campaigns via “zero-click” exploits in messaging apps — including iMessage and WhatsApp calling flaws — meaning victims don’t need to install anything. (Citizen Lab: FORCEDENTRY) (Google Project Zero: NSO zero-click iMessage exploit) (Financial Times: WhatsApp Pegasus hack

So yes, app controls and official stores help. But they don’t close the gap on their own — which is why mobile security needs both strong management controls and on-device threat detection. 


Unsafe networks and interception risks
 

Mobile users connect wherever they are. That includes unsecured Wi‑Fi in transport hubs, hotels, and public buildings. 

CERT-FR explains how weaknesses in wireless interfaces (cellular, Wi‑Fi, Bluetooth, NFC) can be exploited for interception, alteration of data, or spyware deployment. (CERT-FR/ANSSI CTI-013 report) A real example: CERT-FR cites a Paris case where a fake base station (IMSI catcher) was found in a vehicle and linked to SMS phishing messages impersonating Assurance Maladie. (CERT-FR/ANSSI CTI-013 report

And similar “fake mast” tactics have been seen in the UK, where police described an SMS blaster used from a car to push scam texts to phones nearby (UK Finance: SMS blaster case)and in Norway, where Økokrim uncovered an IMSI‑catcher driven around Oslo and Bergen to send smishing messages impersonating banks and harvesting sensitive banking details. (NRK: Økokrim IMSI‑catcher case) 

In practice: if your policy says “don’t use public Wi‑Fi”, but mobile teams use it anyway, the control only exists on paper. 


Future mobile threats organisations must prepare for
 

The next wave of mobile threats won’t arrive neatly labelled. Expect sharper social engineering, riskier app ecosystems, and more capable intrusion tooling — all landing on the devices people trust most. 

  • AI-assisted social engineering (using AI to write, translate, and tailor lures) will make phishing and impersonation easier to scale and harder to spot. The UK’s NCSC expects AI to primarily boost social engineering by improving how convincing attackers can be. (UK NCSC: The near-term impact of AI on the cyber threat)  
  • App supply-chain risk (issues in third-party SDKs, libraries, or services inside an app) will keep growing as mobile apps rely on external components. When one behaves badly, an otherwise “legitimate” app can leak data. 
  • Targeted intrusion capabilities (purpose-built tooling such as commercial spyware) will remain part of the European risk picture, which is why governments are also working on governance and oversight. (Pall Mall Process Code of Practice)
  • Post-quantum threats (the risk that future quantum computers could weaken today’s public‑key encryption) matter most where mobile data must stay confidential for years — think government records, health data, or critical infrastructure planning. (ENISA: Post-quantum cryptography

The point isn’t to predict every twist, but to tighten what you control today — starting with the foundation: device management. 
 

The mobile security foundation:
Mobile Device Management (MDM)
 

MDM (Mobile Device Management) is how you enrol, configure, and control smartphones and tablets at scale. 


What MDM gives you in real deployments
 

In public sector and regulated enterprise, mobile device management value is operational as much as technical. 

MDM typically supports: 

  • Standardised enrolment and onboarding (including corporate-owned and BYOD approaches). 
  • Configuration enforcement (passcodes, encryption, restrictions, certificates). 
  • App deployment and lifecycle (approved apps, updates, removal). 
  • Remote actions (lock, wipe, retire). 
  • Inventory and reporting (for audits and incident response). 

In practice: MDM is how you make policy real. Writing a policy is quick. Enforcing it across thousands of devices is the hard part. 

If you’re reviewing your MDM baseline or planning a rollout, you can see how Techstep approaches device management in practice here: Techstep Essentials MDM

 

Why MDM alone is no longer enough 

MDM is your mobile foundation, but it does not cover it all. 


Where policy controls hit a wall
 

MDM is strong at the basics: enrolment, baseline settings, approved apps, and compliance reporting. But it has a blind spot: it can’t reliably see what’s happening on the device at the moment.  

That matters because many mobile attacks don’t break policy — they work around it. Even with the strongest password, a smishing link can still steal a live session, a risky Wi‑Fi network can sit between the user and the service, and a malicious app can look normal until it starts abusing permissions or network traffic. MDM can enforce the response (block access, remove an app, quarantine a device), but it often needs another signal to know when to act. 

That’s the gap Mobile Threat Defense is designed to fill: it detects phishing and risky app behaviour, flags dangerous networks, and surfaces on-device indicators that MDM alone won’t catch. (Microsoft Security Blog: cookie theft to BEC) 
 

Mobile Threat Defense (MTD): What it is and where it fits 

Mobile Threat Defense (MTD) is a security technology designed to detect and respond to threats on mobile endpoints in real time. 
 
Where MDM tells you whether a device is configured correctly, MTD helps tell you whether a device is exposed or under attack right now. 


What MTD typically covers
 

MTD solutions usually focus on signals such as: 

  • Malware and risky app behaviour 
  • Phishing and smishing protection 
  • Network risk (e.g., suspicious Wi‑Fi, interception patterns) 
  • Operating system vulnerabilities and suspicious device posture 


What MTD doesn’t solve on its own
 

MTD isn’t a magic shield. Standalone deployments can struggle if they aren’t tied into how you manage devices and enforce policy. 

Common gaps include: 

  • Alerts without a clear way to fix the issue 
  • Too many tools and dashboards 
  • Difficulty turning detections into enforceable controls 


From baseline management to live mobile protection
 

In many European organisations, the question isn’t whether mobiles are managed. It’s whether phones and tablets are secured in a way that holds up under pressure — with policies enforced, data protected, and evidence that satisfies security, legal, and compliance teams. 


Why do we need unified mobile security
 

Split tooling makes this harder than it needs to be. If threat detection sits in one place and device controls sit in another, response slows down. Alerts get debated, tickets bounce between teams, and the practical fixes (block access, remove an app, quarantine a device) arrive late. 

A combined MDM + MTD setup works better because it joins the dots: the same controls that manage devices can also act on real-time risk signals. That usually means fewer tools, faster decisions, and clearer reporting for audits. 


Why sovereignty and data location matter now in Europe
 

In Europe, there’s also a very practical question: where does mobile security data live, and what deployment options do you have over time? With a more tense geopolitical climate and growing focus on digital sovereignty, that’s no longer a “nice to have” detail — it can decide whether a platform is acceptable for public services and regulated sectors. In practice, organisations are often expected to demonstrate data location, supplier assurance, and long-term choices — not just technical features. 


How this comes together in practice
 

That’s the thinking behind Techstep Essentials Mobile Threat Defense: Essentials MDM/UEM with embedded Pradeo Mobile Threat Defense. 

  • Unified platform: one console and policy engine for device controls and threat signals. 
  • European data control: built and hosted in Europe, with data kept within the EU. 
  • Deployment choice: cloud or on‑premise, with support for migration from existing deployments and a long-term commitment to the on‑prem option. 
  • Government certified: certified under Spain’s ENS by the National Cryptologic Centre (CCN) with a STIC catalogue listing, and holds a Facility Security Clearance from Poland’s Internal Security Agency (ABW). (CCN: ENS framework

Taken together, this is a rare combination for European organisations: day‑to‑day device control, live threat signals, and EU data and assurance evidence that procurement and auditors actually ask for. 

If you try to build the same outcome from separate tools, it often means bolting a mobile threat defence product onto a different UEM/MDM platform, or choosing a broader security suite where EU hosting, certification evidence, and on‑premise options don’t line up with public‑sector needs. 

You end up with fewer moving parts, quicker response, and a mobile security posture you can explain and defend. 
 


Summary 

Mobile security is no longer optional in Europe. Not because the sky is falling, but because mobile devices sit at the centre of identity, access, and data flow. 

MDM gives you the foundation: visibility, configuration control, and enforceable policy. But modern mobile threats often bypass policy-only defences. 

That’s why organisations increasingly pair management with Mobile Threat Defense — MDM to control the device, and MTD to detect and respond to what the device is experiencing in real time. 

If you’re reviewing your mobile security posture this year, focus on what you can prove: inventory, controls, monitoring, and response. And make sure your approach fits European compliance expectations and assurance frameworks, not just vendor messaging. (ENISA implementation guidance