General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Apple Platform Security support document Developer > Security Enabling enhanced security for your app documentation article Creating enhanced security helper extensions documentation article Security Audit Thoughts forums post Cryptography: Forums tags: Security, Apple CryptoKit Security framework documentation Apple CryptoKit framework documentation Common Crypto man pages — For the full list of pages, run: % man -k 3cc For more information about man pages, see Reading UNIX Manual Pages. On Cryptographic Key Formats forums post SecItem attributes for keys forums post CryptoCompatibility sample code Keychain: Forums tags: Security Security > Keychain Items documentation TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations SecItem Fundamentals forums post SecItem Pitfalls and Best Practices forums post Investigating hard-to-reproduce keychain problems forums post App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access forums post Smart cards and other secure tokens: Forums tag: CryptoTokenKit CryptoTokenKit framework documentation Mac-specific resources: Forums tags: Security Foundation, Security Interface Security Foundation framework documentation Security Interface framework documentation BSD Privilege Escalation on macOS Related: Networking Resources — This covers high-level network security, including HTTPS and TLS. Network Extension Resources — This covers low-level network security, including VPN and content filters. Code Signing Resources Notarisation Resources Trusted Execution Resources — This includes Gatekeeper. App Sandbox Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

I am currently unable to enable passkey in my app so I am having to tell my users to skip the prompts for using passkey. We have noticed that after a few times of this the OS will stop asking the user to register their passkey. The question is, how long does this last before the OS asks you to use passkey again? Is it permanent until you re-install the app? Just looking for a time frame if anyone knows.

When developing and testing using my phone I got prompted for allowing app tracking. I later uploaded a build to TestFlight, deleted the old testing app and installed the TestFlight build. I am now stuck in an infinite loop of not getting prompted for allowing app tracking for the app. When entering the app settings the toggle for tracking never appears which leaves me not able to enter the app's content. My guess is that the prompt can only be shown once for the app bundle, but there has to be a way for me to get prompted again without changing the app bundle id. Help is appreciated since this app is scheduled to be published in a week.

I would like to make an app that uses Sign in with Apple to provide the users with a very convenient way of authenticating their (anonymous) identity. I'm using the identityToken that the SignInWithAppleButton provides to the onCompletion closure to build an AWS Identity Resolver that will be used to access AWS resources for that user. At the moment, everything works fine, except that the identityToken eventually stops working (I think after 24 hours) and is no longer usable for AWS identity resolvers. Is there a way to refresh the identityToken, or to generate a new one, without user interaction? I don't mind at all, if in some situations (eg logout from another device, deletion of account, etc), it cannot refresh the token, and it directs me to take further action by giving an error. Most importantly, I don't want the user to be forced to deal with the SignInWithAppleButton every time that they interact with web services. From the user's point of view, I would like the experience to be that they simply confirm that they agree to use SignInWithApple on first use (maybe once per device), and are never inconvenienced by it again. P.S. Sorry for posting this here. I tried to set the topic to "Privacy & Security" and ran into form validation errors.

Hi, we are having Sign in with Apple issues. For a large % of new users on our app which select this option, the first name and last name values are not being passed to us. This is the case in both scenarios - where the user shares their email address or hides it, and happens on iPhone when the user selects the default iCloud account. We're unclear why this is occurring.

My app has been rejected by App Store review because the sign in with Apple functionality is not working properly. I'm able to reproduce the issue on my end but I don't understand why it's happening. I have two other apps that implement the same OAuth flow in an identical manner, and those apps have no issues signing in with Apple. I've copied my OAuth flow to a fresh project to see if that would make a difference, and it gives me the exact same error. In the simulator I get "invalid_request, invalid web redirect URL", and on-device the FaceID authentication fails with a very non-specific "Sign Up Not Completed" error. I'm completely out of ideas here, so any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks!

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

Hello everyone, I’ve been working on ways to implement stricter accountability systems for personal use, especially to prevent access to NSFW content in apps like Reddit and Twitter. The main challenge is that iOS sandboxing and privacy policies block apps from monitoring or interacting with other apps on the system. While Apple’s focus on privacy is important, there’s a clear need for an opt-in exception for accountability tools. These tools could be allowed enhanced permissions under stricter oversight to help users maintain accountability and integrity without compromising safety. Here are a few ideas I’ve been thinking about: 1. Vetted Apps with Enhanced Permissions: Allow trusted applications to bypass sandbox restrictions with user consent and close monitoring by Apple. 2. Improved Parental Controls: Add options to send notifications to moderators (like accountability partners) when restrictions are bypassed or disabled. 3. Custom Keyboard or API Access: Provide a framework for limited system-wide text monitoring for specific use cases, again with user consent. If anyone has ideas for how to address this within current policies—or suggestions for advocating for more flexibility—I’d appreciate the input. I’m curious how others have handled similar challenges or if there are better approaches I haven’t considered.

Hi, I'm looking at adding App Attest to an app, and I think I understand the mechanics of the attestation process, but I'm having trouble figuring out how development and testing are supposed to work. Two main questions: The "App Attest Environment" -- the documentation says that attestation requests made in the .development sandbox environment don't affect the app's risk metrics, but I'm not sure how to actually use this sandbox. My understanding is that one of the things App Attest does is to ensure that your app has been appropriately signed by the App Store, so it knows that it hasn't been tampered with. But the docs say that App Store builds (and Test Flight and Developer Enterprise Program) always use the .production environment. Does App Attest actually work for local developer-build apps if you have this entitlement set? Presumably only on hardware devices since it requires the Secure Enclave? Does our headend have to do something different when verifying the public key and subsequent attested requests for an app that's using the .development sandbox? The docs do mention that a headend server should potentially track two keys per device/user pair so that it can have a production and development key. How does the headend know if a key is from the sandbox environment? Thanks!

Hi, I have a question about UIDevice identifierForVendor. I am distributing 3 apps using an enterprise account. All apps use the same developer account and certificates. The bundle IDs of the apps are as follows: com.abc.inhouse.mail com.abc.searchent com.abc.noteent In the Enterprise builds, apps 1 and 2 share the same identifierForVendor (IDFV). However, app 3 has a different IDFV value. According to Apple documentation, the IDFV is determined based on the bundle ID when distributing through Enterprise. Why does app 3 have a different IDFV? Are there any other factors besides the bundle ID that affect the IDFV in Enterprise builds? Please help me figure this out. Thank you for your time!

(Xcode 26.2, iPhone 17 Pro) I can't seem to get hardware tag checks to work in an app launched without the special "Hardware Memory Tagging" diagnostics. In other words, I have been unable to reproduce the crash example at 6:40 in Apple's video "Secure your app with Memory Integrity Enforcement". When I write a heap overflow or a UAF, it is picked up perfectly provided I enable the "Hardware Memory Tagging" feature under Scheme Diagnostics. If I instead add the Enhanced Security capability with the memory-tagging related entitlements: I'm seeing distinct memory tags being assigned in pointers returned by malloc (without the capability, this is not the case) Tag mismatches are not being caught or enforced, regardless of soft mode The behaviour is the same whether I launch from Xcode without "Hardware Memory Tagging", or if I launch the app by tapping it on launchpad. In case it was related to debug builds, I also tried creating an ad hoc IPA and it didn't make any difference. I realise there's a wrinkle here that the debugger sets MallocTagAll=1, so possibly it will pick up a wider range of issues. However I would have expected that a straight UAF would be caught. For example, this test code demonstrates that tagging is active but it doesn't crash: #define PTR_TAG(p) ((unsigned)(((uintptr_t)(p) >> 56) & 0xF)) void *p1 = malloc(32); void *p2 = malloc(32); void *p3 = malloc(32); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p1 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p1, PTR_TAG(p1)); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p2 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p2, PTR_TAG(p2)); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p3 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p3, PTR_TAG(p3)); free(p2); void *p2_realloc = malloc(32); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p2 after free+malloc = %p (tag: %u)\n", p2_realloc, PTR_TAG(p2_realloc)); // Is p2_realloc the same address as p2 but different tag? os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Same address? %s\n", ((uintptr_t)p2 & 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFF) == ((uintptr_t)p2_realloc & 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFF) ? "YES" : "NO"); // Now try to use the OLD pointer p2 os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Attempting use-after-free via old pointer p2...\n"); volatile char c = *(volatile char *)p2; // Should this crash? os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Read succeeded! Value: %d\n", c); Example output: p1 = 0xf00000b71019660 (tag: 15) p2 = 0x200000b711958c0 (tag: 2) p3 = 0x300000b711958e0 (tag: 3) p2 after free+malloc = 0x700000b71019680 (tag: 7) Same address? NO Attempting use-after-free via old pointer p2... Read succeeded! Value: -55 For reference, these are my entitlements. [Dict] [Key] application-identifier [Value] [String] … [Key] com.apple.developer.team-identifier [Value] [String] … [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.checked-allocations [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.checked-allocations.enable-pure-data [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.dyld-ro [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version [Value] [Int] 1 [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.hardened-heap [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions [Value] [Int] 2 [Key] get-task-allow [Value] [Bool] true What do I need to do to make Memory Integrity Enforcement do something outside the debugger?

Hi, This issue is happening during Passkey creation. We’ve observed that approximately 1% of our customer users encounter a persistent error during Passkey creation. For the vast majority, the process works as expected. We believe our apple-app-site-association file is correctly configured, served directly from the RP ID over HTTPS without redirects, and is up-to-date. This setup appears to work for most users, and it seems the Apple CDN cache reflects the latest version of the file. To help us diagnose and address the issue for the affected users, we would appreciate guidance on the following: What tools or steps does Apple recommend to identify the root cause of this issue? Are there any known recovery steps we can suggest to users to resolve this on affected devices? Is there a way to force a refresh of the on-device cache for the apple-app-site-association file? Thank you in advance for any input or guidance.

Hi everyone, We just completed an App Store Connect app transfer between two developer teams and ran into what seems like an inconsistency with TN3159 (Migrating Sign in with Apple users for an app transfer). According to the technote, both the source and destination teams should be able to call /auth/usermigrationinfo for 60 days after the transfer, even if the migration wasn’t run beforehand. However, right after the transfer completed, the source team (Team A) started receiving: {"error":"invalid_client"} on all /auth/usermigrationinfo requests, even though /auth/token with scope=user.migration still works fine. What we verified before transfer: Team A’s Sign in with Apple key (ES256) was linked to the app and Services ID. OAuth flow for com.org.appname.web returned valid tokens, and the decoded ID token showed aud=com.org.appname.web with a valid private relay email, confirming the key was trusted. What happens after transfer: The key now shows “Enabled Services: —” and the App/Services IDs are no longer selectable in the Developer portal. /auth/usermigrationinfo immediately returns invalid_client for Team A, even within the same day of the transfer. This effectively makes Team A unable to generate transfer_sub values, blocking the migration flow TN3159 describes. Questions: Is Team A supposed to retain authorization to call /auth/usermigrationinfo for 60 days post-transfer? If yes, is there any known workaround to re-authorize the key or temporarily re-bind it to the transferred identifiers? If not, does this mean transfer_sub must be generated before transfer acceptance, contrary to how TN3159 reads? Would really appreciate any confirmation or guidance from Apple or anyone who’s gone through this recently. Thanks,

Hi, I am in need of your help with publishing my game. I got the following explanation for the negative review of my app/game. Issue Description One or more purpose strings in the app do not sufficiently explain the use of protected resources. Purpose strings must clearly and completely describe the app's use of data and, in most cases, provide an example of how the data will be used. Next Steps Update the local network information purpose string to explain how the app will use the requested information and provide a specific example of how the data will be used. See the attached screenshot. Resources Purpose strings must clearly describe how an app uses the ability, data, or resource. The following are hypothetical examples of unclear purpose strings that would not pass review: "App would like to access your Contacts" "App needs microphone access" See examples of helpful, informative purpose strings. The problem is that they say my app asks to allow my app to find devices on local networks. And that this needs more explanation in the purpose strings. Totally valid to ask, but the problem is my app doesn't need local access to devices, and there shouldn't be code that asks this?? FYI the game is build with Unity. Would love some help on how to turn this off so that my app can get published.

I’d like to submit a feature request regarding the availability of Foundation Models in MessageFilter extensions. Background MessageFilter extensions play a critical role in protecting users from spam, phishing, and unwanted messages. With the introduction of Foundation Models and Apple Intelligence, Apple has provided powerful on-device natural language understanding capabilities that are highly aligned with the goals of MessageFilter. However, Foundation Models are currently unavailable in MessageFilter extensions. Why Foundation Models Are a Great Fit for MessageFilter Message filtering is fundamentally a natural language classification problem. Foundation Models would significantly improve: Detection of phishing and scam messages Classification of promotional vs transactional content Understanding intent, tone, and semantic context beyond keyword matching Adaptation to evolving scam patterns without server-side processing All of this can be done fully on-device, preserving user privacy and aligning with Apple’s privacy-first design principles. Current Limitations Today, MessageFilter extensions are limited to relatively simple heuristics or lightweight models. This often results in: Higher false positives Lower recall for sophisticated scam messages Increased development complexity to compensate for limited NLP capabilities Request Could Apple consider one of the following: Allowing Foundation Models to be used directly within MessageFilter extensions Providing a constrained or optimized Foundation Model API specifically designed for MessageFilter Enabling a supported mechanism for MessageFilter extensions to delegate inference to the containing app using Foundation Models Even limited access (e.g. short text only, strict execution limits) would be extremely valuable. Closing Foundation Models have the potential to significantly raise the quality and effectiveness of message filtering on Apple platforms while maintaining strong privacy guarantees. Supporting them in MessageFilter extensions would be a major improvement for both developers and users. Thank you for your consideration and for continuing to invest in on-device intelligence.

We implemented a feature to receive name and email address after Sign in with Apple, and it works perfectly in our testing. However, during the app review, they says it doesn't work, and the app is rejected. Why does it work differently?

I'm experiencing a strange issue where ASWebAuthenticationSession works perfectly when running from Xcode (both Debug and Release), but fails on TestFlight builds. The setup: iOS app using ASWebAuthenticationSession for OIDC login (Keycloak) Custom URL scheme callback (myapp://) prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = false The issue: When using iOS Keychain autofill (with Face ID/Touch ID or normal iphone pw, that auto-submits the form) -> works perfectly When manually typing credentials and clicking the login button -> fails with white screen When it fails, the form POST from Keycloak back to my server (/signin-oidc) never reaches the server at all. The authentication session just shows a white screen. Reproduced on: Multiple devices (iPhone 15 Pro, etc.) iOS 18.x Xcode 16.x Multiple TestFlight testers confirmed same behavior What I've tried: Clearing Safari cookies/data prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = true and false Different SameSite cookie policies on server Verified custom URL scheme is registered and works (testing myapp://test in Safari opens the app) Why custom URL scheme instead of Universal Links: We couldn't get Universal Links to trigger from a js redirect (window.location.href) within ASWebAuthenticationSession. Only custom URL schemes seemed to be intercepted. If there's a way to make Universal Links work in this context, without a manual user-interaction we'd be happy to try. iOS Keychain autofill works The only working path is iOS Keychain autofill that requires iphone-authentication and auto-submits the form. Any manual form submission fails, but only on TestFlight - not Xcode builds. Has anyone encountered this or know a workaround?

I was testing an app with AppleSignIn with a Firebase backend and wanted to test account deletion functionality. I was unaware of needing to revoke the token with Apple before proceeding with account deletion. Now, when I try to create a new account with the same appleId email, the token passed to Firebase is invalid and the login fails. As such, I am blocked from testing my app with authenticated Apple users, so I'm trying to understand what the workaround is. Thanks in advance!

General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Privacy Resources Security Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Hi, I’ve added attestation to my app, and everything worked as expected during setup. However, after deployment, I noticed some unknownSystemFailure entries in the production logs on New Relic. Could you help me understand what typically causes this error? The documentation suggests issues such as failing to generate a token. What scenarios could lead to that?