For security reasons, my application needs to prohibit external devices. If it is determined that the current phone is connected to any external devices, including non MFI authenticated devices, the app will exit. Please tell me how to do it? Thanks for your help.

Cannot find developer mode in iPhone 16. Please help me resolve this

In our mobile we are using UUID as a device identifier . With this ID we using certain function like Primary device and secondary devices .
Primary device has more control to the app other than secondary device .
In our case user is getting new iPhone and the apps related data are moved to new device from old device from clone option.

While moving the keychain data is also moved , which is causing the new device also has same UUID and the customer are using both the devices in some cases ,

So both devices are considered as primary in our app .
Is there any way to identify the device is cloned ,

Needed suggestion

I need to open p12 file from other iOS applications to import private key to my application. My app is set up to be able to open nay file with following plist <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>CFBundleDocumentTypes</key> <array> <dict> <key>CFBundleTypeName</key> <string>Files</string> <key>LSHandlerRank</key> <string>Default</string> <key>LSItemContentTypes</key> <array> <string>public.item</string> <string>public.data</string> <string>public.content</string> </array> </dict> </array> </dict> </plist> But my don't appear in share dialog from Files or Mail app for example. There are however other third party apps that can accept this file. Some of them use Share extension which I don't have, but some of them don't have it as far as I can understand. At least they don't present any UI and open apps directly. Also I've tried to specify com.rsa.pkcs-12 UTI directly but it didn't help. Also noticed that *.crt files have similar behaviour. Am I missing something about this specific file type?

With Let's Encrypt having completely dropped support for OCSP recently [1], I wanted to ask if macOS has a means of keeping up to date with their CRLs and if so, roughly how often this occurs? I first observed an issue where a revoked-certificate test site, "revoked.badssl.com" (cert signed by Let's Encrypt), was not getting blocked on any browser, when a revocation policy was set up using the SecPolicyCreateRevocation API, in tandem with the kSecRevocationUseAnyAvailableMethod and kSecRevocationPreferCRL flags. After further investigation, I noticed that even on a fresh install of macOS, Safari does not block this test website, while Chrome and Firefox (usually) do, due to its revoked certificate. Chrome and Firefox both have their own means of dealing with CRLs, while I assume Safari uses the system Keychain and APIs. I checked cert info for the site here [2]. It was issued on 2025-07-01 20:00 and revoked an hour later. [1] https://letsencrypt.org/2024/12/05/ending-ocsp/ [2] https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=revoked.badssl.com

While working with Platform SSO on macOS, I’m trying to better understand how the system handles cases where a user’s local account password becomes unsynchronized with their Identity Provider (IdP) password—for example, when the device is offline during a password change. My assumption is that macOS may store some form of persistent token during the Platform SSO user registration process (such as a certificate or similar credential), and that this token could allow the system to unlock the user’s login keychain even if the local password no longer matches the IdP password. I’m hoping to get clarification on the following: Does macOS actually use a persistent token to unlock the login keychain when the local account password is out of sync with the IdP password? If so, how is that mechanism designed to work? If such a capability exists, is it something developers can leverage to enable a true passwordless authentication experience at the login window and lock screen (i.e., avoiding the need for a local password fallback)? I’m trying to confirm what macOS officially supports so I can understand whether passwordless login is achievable using the persistent-token approach. Thanks in advance for any clarification.

Hi everyone, I have a macOS application that uses Screen Recording permission. I build my app with an adhoc signature (not with a Developer ID certificate). For example, in version 1.0.0, I grant Screen Recording permission to the app. Later, I build a new version (1.1.0) and update by dragging the new app into the Applications folder to overwrite the previous one. However, when I launch the updated app, it asks for Screen Recording permission again, even though I have already granted it for the previous version. I don’t fully understand how TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control) determines when permissions need to be re-granted. Can anyone explain how TCC manages permissions for updated builds, especially with adhoc signatures? Is there any way to retain permissions between updates, or any best practices to avoid having users re-authorize permissions after every update?

I work for Brave, a browser with ~80M users. We want to introduce a new system for automatic updates called Omaha 4 (O4). It's the same system that powers automatic updates in Chrome. O4 runs as a separate application on users' systems. For Chrome, this works as follows: An app called GoogleUpdater.app regularly checks for updates in the background. When a new version is found, then GoogleUpdater.app installs it into Chrome's installation directory /Applications/Google Chrome.app. But consider what this means: A separate application, GoogleUpdater.app, is able to modify Google Chrome.app. This is especially surprising because, for example, the built-in Terminal.app is not able to modify Google Chrome.app. Here's how you can check this for yourself: (Re-)install Chrome with its DMG installer. Run the following command in Terminal: mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test. This works. Undo the command: rm -rf /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test Start Chrome and close it again. mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test now fails with "Operation not permitted". (These steps assume that Terminal does not have Full Disk Access and System Integrity Protection is enabled.) In other words, once Chrome was started at least once, another application (Terminal in this case) is no longer allowed to modify it. But at the same time, GoogleUpdater.app is able to modify Chrome. It regularly applies updates to the browser. For each update, this process begins with an mkdir call similarly to the one shown above. How is this possible? What is it in macOS that lets GoogleUpdater.app modify Chrome, but not another app such as Terminal? Note that Terminal is not sandboxed. I've checked that it's not related to codesigning or notarization issues. In our case, the main application (Brave) and the updater (BraveUpdater) are signed and notarized with the same certificate and have equivalent requirements, entitlements and provisioning profiles as Chrome and GoogleUpdater. The error that shows up in the Console for the disallowed mkdir call is: kernel (Sandbox) System Policy: mkdir(8917) deny(1) file-write-create /Applications/Google Chrome.app/foo (It's a similar error when BraveUpdater tries to install a new version into /Applications/Brave Browser.app.) The error goes away when I disable System Integrity Protection. But of course, we cannot ask users to do that. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Our desktop app for macos will be released in 2 channels appstore dmg package on our official website for users to download and install Now when we debug with passkey, we find that the package name of the appstore can normally arouse passkey, but the package name of the non-App Store can not arouse the passkey interface I need your help. Thank you

When we enable 3rd party authentication plugin using SFAuthorization window, then when user performs Lock Screen and then unlock the MAC. Now after unlock, if user tries to open Keychain Access, it is not getting opened. When trying to open Keychain Access, we are prompted for credentials but after providing the credentials Keychians are not getting opened. This is working on Sonoma 14.6.1 , but seeing this issue from macOS Sequoia onwards. Are there any suggested settings/actions to resolve this issue?

"I am attempting to read and write data to an Office Group Container, and I am consistently prompted with the "App would like to access data from other apps" alert. How can I configure the application or environment to suppress this repeated permission prompt?"

Problem Statement: Pre-requisite is to generate a PKCS#12 file using openssl 3.x or above. Note: I have created a sample cert, but unable to upload it to this thread. Let me know if there is a different way I can upload. When trying to import a p12 certificate (generated using openssl 3.x) using SecPKCS12Import on MacOS (tried on Ventura, Sonoma, Sequoia). It is failing with the error code: -25264 and error message: MAC verification failed during PKCS12 import (wrong password?). I have tried importing in multiple ways through, Security Framework API (SecPKCS12Import) CLI (security import <cert_name> -k ~/Library/Keychains/login.keychain -P "<password>”) Drag and drop in to the Keychain Application All of them fail to import the p12 cert. RCA: The issues seems to be due to the difference in the MAC algorithm. The MAC algorithm used in the modern certs (by OpenSSL3 is SHA-256) which is not supported by the APPLE’s Security Framework. The keychain seems to be expecting the MAC algorithm to be SHA-1. Workaround: The current workaround is to convert the modern p12 cert to a legacy format (using openssl legacy provider which uses openssl 1.1.x consisting of insecure algorithms) which the SecPKCS12Import API understands. I have created a sample code using references from another similar thread (https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/723242) from 2023. The steps to compile and execute the sample is mentioned in the same file. PFA the sample code by the name “pkcs12_modern_to_legacy_converter.cpp”. Also PFA a sample certificate which will help reproduce the issue by the name “modern_certificate.p12” whose password is “export”. Questions: Is there a fix on this issue? If yes, pls guide me through it; else, is it expected to be fixed in the future releases? Is there a different way to import the p12 cert which is resistant to the issue? This issue also poses a security concerns on using outdated cryptographic algorithms. Kindly share your thoughts. pkcs12_modern_to_legacy_converter.cpp

Hello, I am currently working on iOS application development using Swift, targeting iOS 17 and above, and need to implement mTLS for network connections. In the registration API flow, the app generates a private key and CSR on the device, sends the CSR to the server (via the registration API), and receives back the signed client certificate (CRT) along with the intermediate/CA certificate. These certificates are then imported on the device. The challenge I am facing is pairing the received CRT with the previously generated private key in order to create a SecIdentity. Could you please suggest the correct approach to generate a SecIdentity in this scenario? If there are any sample code snippets, WWDC videos, or documentation references available, I would greatly appreciate it if you could share them. Thank you for your guidance.

Has anybody else experienced something similar? This is on the login screen. I call update() and it doesn't call me back with view() 2025-08-21 17:04:38.669 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[1134:2df1] [***:LoginView] calling update() Then silence...

Using the SDK, I've printed out some log messages when I enter the wrong password: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] invoke 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] general: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] progname: 'SecurityAgentHelper-arm64' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] OS version: 'Version 15.5 (Build 24F74)' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] pid: '818' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] ppid: '1' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] euid: '92' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] uid: '92' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] session: 0x186e9 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] attributes: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] is root: f 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] has graphics: t 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] has TTY: t 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] is remote: f 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] auth session: 0x0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] context: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.088 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] authentication-failure: --S -14090 2025-08-20 15:58:14.088 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] pam_result: X-S 9 2025-08-20 15:58:14.089 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] hints: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.089 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] authorize-right: "system.login.console" 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-path: "/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app" 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-pid: 807 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-type: 'LDNB' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-uid: 0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-audit-token: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] 00 00 00 00 27 03 00 00 e9 86 01 00 68 08 00 00 ....'.......h... 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-pid: 807 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] flags: 259 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] reason: 0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] tries: 1 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] immutable hints: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-apple-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-firstparty-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-apple-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-firstparty-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.091 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] arguments: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.091 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] none 2025-08-20 15:58:14.108 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] LAContext: LAContext[4:8:112] 2025-08-20 15:58:14.119 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] token identities: 0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.120 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] token watcher: <TKTokenWatcher: 0x11410ee70> Specifically, is there a manual/link somewhere that can allow me to interpret: authentication-failure: --S -14090 and pam_result: X-S 9

When trying to check if a certificate has been revoked with SecPolicyCreateRevocation (Flags: kSecRevocationUseAnyAvailableMethod | kSecRevocationRequirePositiveResponse) and SecTrustEvaluateWithError I always get the result error code errSecIncompleteCertRevocationCheck, regardless if the certificate was revoked or not. Reproduction: Execute the program from the attached Xcode project (See Feedback FB21224106). Error output: Error: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67635 ""revoked.badssl.com","E8","ISRG Root X1" certificates do not meet pinning requirements" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription="revoked.badssl.com","E8","ISRG Root X1" certificates do not meet pinning requirements, NSUnderlyingError=0x6000018d48a0 {Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67635 "Certificate 0 “revoked.badssl.com” has errors: Failed to check revocation;" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Certificate 0 “revoked.badssl.com” has errors: Failed to check revocation;}}} To me it looks like that the revocation check just fails („Failed to check revocation;“), no further information is provided by the returned error. In the example the certificate chain of https://revoked.badssl.com (default code) and https://badssl.com is verified (to switch see comments in the code). I have a proxy configured in the system, I assume that the revocation check will use it. On the same machine, the browsers (Safari and Google Chrome) can successfully detect if the certificate was revoked (revoked.badssl.com) or not (badssl.com) without further changes in the system/proxy settings. Note: The example leaks some memory, it’s just a test program. Am I missing something? Feedback: FB21224106

Hello, We recently implemented SSL pinning in our iOS app (Objective-C) using the common approach of embedding the server certificate (.cer) in the app bundle and comparing it in URLSession:didReceiveChallenge:. This worked fine initially, but when our backend team updated the server certificate (same domain, new cert from CA), the app immediately started failing because the bundled certificate no longer matched. We’d like to avoid shipping and updating our app every time the server’s certificate changes. Instead, we are looking for the Apple-recommended / correct approach to implement SSL pinning without embedding the actual certificate file in the app bundle. Specifically: . Is there a supported way to implement pinning based on the public key hash or SPKI hash (like sha256/... pins) rather than the full certificate? . How can this be safely implemented using NSURLSession / SecTrustEvaluate (iOS 15+ APIs, considering that SecTrustGetCertificateAtIndex is deprecated)? . Are there Apple-endorsed best practices for handling certificate rotation while still maintaining strong pinning? Any guidance or code samples would be greatly appreciated. We want to make sure we are following best practices and not relying on brittle implementations. Thanks in advance!

Testing my security agent plugin on Tahoe and find that when unlocking the screen, I now get an extra window that pops up over the SFAuthorizationPluginView that says "macOS You must enter a password to unlock the screen" with a Cancel (enabled) and OK button (disabled). See the attached photo. This is new with Tahoe. When unlocking the screen, I see the standard username and password entry view and I enter my password and click OK. That is when this new view appears. I can only click cancel so there is no way to complete authenticating.

Hi, I’d like to confirm something regarding the hosting of the apple-app-site-association (AASA) file. We have a server that publicly hosts the AASA file and is accessible globally. However, this server sits behind an additional security layer (a security server/reverse proxy). My question is: Will this security layer affect Apple’s ability to access and validate the AASA file for Universal Links or App Clips? Are there specific requirements (e.g. headers, redirects, TLS versions, etc.) that we need to ensure the security server does not block or modify? Any guidance or best practices would be appreciated.

Hi, I have an application that uses SecureEnclave keys to protect secrets. By passing an LAContext object to the Secure Enclave operations, authentication state can be preserved across decrypt operations, and you do not need to re-authenticate for doing different operations. However, for security reasons, I would like to avoid that it is possible to do operations in batch with certain keys generated by the Secure Enclave, by any application. This would avoid malicious binaries to batch-extract all the secrets that are protected by a key from my Secure Enclave, and force to re-authenticate on every operation. Is there a way to prevent batch operations without re-authenticating for Secure Enclave keys? thanks, Remko