Problem Description: In our App, When we launch the web login part using ASWebAuthentication + Universal Links with callback scheme as "https", we are not receiving callback. Note: We are using "SwiftUIWebAuthentication" Swift Package Manager to display page in ASWebAuth. But when we use custom url scheme instead of Universal link, app able to receive call back every time. We use ".onOpenURL" to receive universal link callback scheme.

Hi, When calling generateAssertion on DCAppAttestService.shared, it gives invalidKey error when there was an update for an offloaded app. The offloading and reinstall always works fine if it is the same version on app store that was offloaded from device, but if there is an update and the app tries to reuse the keyID from previous installation for generateAssertion, attestation service rejects the key with error code 3 (invalid key) for a significant portion of our user. In our internal testing it failed for more than a third of the update attempts. STEPS TO REPRODUCE: install v1 from app store generate key using DCAppAttestService.shared.generateKey Attest this key using DCAppAttestService.shared.attestKey Send the attestation objection to our server and verify with apple servers Generate assertions for network calls to backend using DCAppAttestService.shared.generateAssertion with keyID from step 2 Device offloads the app (manually triggered by user, or automatically by iOS) A new version v2 is published to App Store Use tries to open the app Latest version is download from the App Store App tries to use the keyID from step 2 to generate assertions DCAppAttestService throws invalidKey error (Error Domain=com.apple.devicecheck.error Code=3) Step 7 is critical here, if there is no new version of the app, the reinstalled v1 can reuse the key from step 2 without any issues Is this behaviour expected? Is there any way we can make sure the key is preserved between offloaded app updates? Thanks

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.

iOS18.1.1 macOS15.1.1 xcode16.1 Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 "Unable to verify webcredentials association of ********** with domain ******************. Please try again in a few seconds." Our domain must query with VPN, so I set webcredentials:qa.ejeokvv.com?mode=developer following: "If you use a private web server, which is unreachable from the public internet, while developing your app, enable the alternate mode feature to bypass the CDN and connect directly to your server. To do this, add a query string to your associated domains entitlement, as shown in the following example: :?mode= " but it still not working, even after I set mode=developer. Please help!!!!

In some crashlog files, there are additional pieces of information related to codesigning. I can understand what most of themcorresponds to (ID, TeamID, Flags, Validation Category). But there is one I have some doubt about: Trust Level. As far as I can tell (or at least what Google and other search engines say), this is an unsigned 32 bit integer that defines the trust level with -1 being untrusted, 0, being basically an Apple executable and other potential bigger values corresponding to App Store binaries, Developer ID signature, etc. Yet, I'm not able to find a corresponding detailed documentation about this on Apple's developer website. I also had a look at the LightweightCodeRequirements "include" file and there does not seem to be such a field available. [Q] Is there any official documentation listing the different values for this trust level value and providing a clear description of what it corresponds to?

I’m concerned because my iCloud account was recently migrated to AWS (Amazon Web Service) against my will, and now it seems.like people are rummaging through my files, photos, and mail, When I try to contact Apple Support, I get bumped to a spoofed site. Calling the hotline is the same, I get a Siri operator with platitudes and gaslighting but no action. I have run sysdiagnose and it looks really sketchy. Can anyone help?

Hi, how can you authenticate a User through Biometrics with iPhone Passcode as Fallback in the Autofill Credential Provider Extension? In the App it works without a problem. In the Extension I get "Caller is not running foreground" Yeah, it isn't, as it's just a sheet above e.g. Safari. I'd like to avoid having the user setup a Passcode dedicated to my App, especially because FaceID is way faster. Does anybody know how to achieve iOS native Auth in the extension? Please let me know, a code sample would be appreciated. Regards, Mia

Our background monitoring application uses a Unix executable that requests Screen Recording permission via CGRequestScreenCaptureAccess(). This worked correctly in macOS Tahoe 26.0.1, but broke in 26.1. Issue: After calling CGRequestScreenCaptureAccess() in macOS Tahoe 26.1: System dialog appears and opens System Settings Our executable does NOT appear in the Screen Recording list Manually adding via "+" button grants permission internally, but the executable still doesn't show in the UI Users cannot verify or revoke permissions Background: Unix executable runs as a background process (not from Terminal) Uses Accessibility APIs to retrieve window titles Same issue occurs with Full Disk Access permissions Environment: macOS Tahoe 26.1 (worked in 26.0.1) Background process (not launched from Terminal) Questions: Is this a bug or intentional design change in 26.1? What's the recommended approach for background executables to properly register with TCC? Are there specific requirements (Info.plist, etc.) needed? This significantly impacts user experience as they cannot manage permissions through the UI. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

I am writing a MacOS app that uses the Apple crypto libraries to create, save, and use an RSA key pair. I am not using a Secure Enclave so that the private key can later the retrieved through the keychain. The problem I am running into is that on my and multiple other systems the creation and retrieval works fine. On a different system -- running MacOS 15.3 just like the working systems -- the SecKeyCreateRandomKey function appears to work fine and I get a key reference back, but on subsequent runs SecItemCopyMatching results in errSecItemNotFound. Why would it appear to save properly on some systems and not others? var error: Unmanaged<CFError>? let access = SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(kCFAllocatorDefault, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, .biometryAny, &error)! let tag = TAG.data(using: .utf8)! // com.example.myapp.rsakey let attributes: [String: Any] = [ kSecAttrKeyType as String: KEY_TYPE, // set to kSecAttrKeyTypeRSA kSecAttrKeySizeInBits as String: 3072, kSecPrivateKeyAttrs as String: [ kSecAttrIsPermanent as String: true, kSecAttrApplicationTag as String: tag, kSecAttrAccessControl as String: access, ], ] guard let newKey = SecKeyCreateRandomKey(attributes as CFDictionary, &error) else { throw error!.takeRetainedValue() as Error } return newKey This runs fine on both systems, getting a valid key reference that I can use. But then if I immediately try to pull the key, it works on my system but not the other. let query = [ kSecClass as String: kSecClassKey, kSecAttrApplicationTag as String: tag, kSecReturnRef as String: true, ] var item: CFTypeRef? let status = SecItemCopyMatching(query as CFDictionary, &item) let msg = SecCopyErrorMessageString(status, nil) if status == errSecItemNotFound { print("key not found") } guard status == errSecSuccess else { print("other retrieval error") } return item as! SecKey I've also tried a separate query using the secCall function from here (https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/710961) that gets ALL kSecClassKey items before and after the "create the key" function and it'll report the same amount of keys before and after on the bugged system. On the other machines where it works, it'll show one more key as expected. In the Signing & Capabilities section of the project config, I have Keychain Sharing set up with a group like com.example.myapp where my key uses a tag like com.example.myapp.rsakey. The entitlements file has an associated entry for Keychain Access Groups with value $(AppIdentifierPrefix)com.example.myapp.

Hi https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?client_id=com.adobe.services.adobeid-na1.web shows: invalid_request But https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?client_id=xrqxnpjgps shows: invalid_client I've created a Primary App ID and ticked "Sign In with Apple". I've created a Service ID and ticked "Sign In with Apple" (identifier is xrqxnpjgps). When I click "Configure" for the "Sign In with Apple" of the Service ID, it is linked to the Primary App ID. Why do I get an invalid_client error? I've contacted the support by mail, and have been redirected here, does someone here have the ability/access/knowledge/will to figure out the cause and then tell me? Regards

I am developing a daemon-based product that needs a cryptographic, non-spoofable proof of machine identity so a remote management server can grant permissions based on the physical machine. I was thinking to create a signing key in the Secure Enclave and use a certificate signed by that key as the machine identity. The problem is that the Secure Enclave key I can create is only accessible from user context, while my product runs as a system daemon and must not rely on user processes or launchAgents. Could you please advise on the recommended Apple-supported approaches for this use case ? Specifically, Is there a supported way for a system daemon to generate and use an unremovable Secure Enclave key during phases like the pre-logon, that doesn't have non user context (only the my application which created this key/certificate will have permission to use/delete it) If Secure Enclave access from a daemon is not supported, what Apple-recommended alternatives exist for providing a hardware-backed machine identity for system daemons? I'd rather avoid using system keychain, as its contents may be removed or used by root privileged users. The ideal solution would be that each Apple product, would come out with a non removable signing certificate, that represent the machine itself (lets say that the cetificate name use to represent the machine ID), and can be validated by verify that the root signer is "Apple Root CA"

Hi! We are developing an authentication plugin for macOS that integrates with the system's authentication flow. The plugin is designed to prompt the user for approval via a push notification in our app before allowing access. The plugin is added as the first mechanism in the authenticate rule, followed by the default builtin:authenticate as a fallback. When the system requests authentication (e.g., during screen unlock), our plugin successfully displays the custom UI and sends a push notification to the user's device. However, I've encountered the following issue: If the user does not approve the push notification within ~30 seconds, the system resets the screen lock (expected behavior). If the user approves the push notification within approximately 30 seconds but doesn’t start entering their password before the timeout expires, the system still resets the screen lock before they can enter their password, effectively canceling the session. What I've Tried: Attempted to imitate mouse movement after the push button was clicked to keep the session active. Created a display sleep prevention assertion using IOKit to prevent the screen from turning off. Used the caffeinate command to keep the display and system awake. Tried setting the result as allow for the authorization request and passing an empty password to prevent the display from turning off. I also checked the system logs when this issue occurred and found the following messages: ___loginwindow: -[LWScreenLock (Private) askForPasswordSecAgent] | localUser = >timeout loginwindow: -[LWScreenLock handleUnlockResult:] _block_invoke | ERROR: Unexpected _lockRequestedBy of:7 sleeping screen loginwindow: SleepDisplay | enter powerd: Process (loginwindow) is requesting display idle___ These messages suggest that the loginwindow process encounters a timeout condition, followed by the display entering sleep mode. Despite my attempts to prevent this behavior, the screen lock still resets prematurely. Questions: Is there a documented (or undocumented) system timeout for the entire authentication flow during screen unlock that I cannot override? Are there any strategies for pausing or extending the authentication timeout to allow for complex authentication flows like push notifications? Any guidance or insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Hello, I'm an application developer related to Apple system extensions. I developed an endpoint security system extension that can run normally before the 14.x system. However, after I upgraded to 15.x, I found that when I uninstalled and reinstalled my system extension, although the system extension was installed successfully, a system warning box would pop up when I clicked enable in the Settings, indicating a failure. I conducted the following test. I reinstalled a brand-new MAC 15.x system. When I installed my applications, the system extensions could be installed successfully and enabled normally. However, when I uninstalled and reinstalled, my system extension couldn't be enabled properly and a system warning popped up as well. I tried disabling SIP and enabling System Extension Developers, but it still didn't work. When the system warning box pops up, I can see some error log information through the console application, including an error related to Failed to authorize right 'com.apple.system-extensions.admin' by client '/System/Library/ExtensionKit/Extensions/SettingsSystemExtensionController.appex' [2256] for authorization created by '/System/Library/ExtensionKit/Extensions/SettingsSystemExtensionController.appex' [2256] (3,0) (-60005) (engine 179) as shown in the screenshot. The same problem, mentioned in Cannot approve some extensions in MacOS Sequoia , but there is no solution

I have been trying to find a way to be able to sign some data with private key of an identity in login keychain without raising any prompts. I am able to do this with system keychain (obviously with correct permissions and checks) but not with login keychain. It always ends up asking user for their login password. Here is how the code looks, roughly, NSDictionary *query = @{ (__bridge id)kSecClass: (__bridge id)kSecClassIdentity, (__bridge id)kSecReturnRef: @YES, (__bridge id)kSecMatchLimit: (__bridge id)kSecMatchLimitAll }; CFTypeRef result = NULL; OSStatus status = SecItemCopyMatching((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)query, (CFTypeRef *)&amp;amp;result); NSArray *identities = ( NSArray *)result; SecIdentityRef identity = NULL; for (id _ident in identities) { // pick one as required } SecKeyRef privateKey = NULL; OSStatus status = SecIdentityCopyPrivateKey(identity, &amp;amp;privateKey); NSData *strData = [string dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]; unsigned char hash[CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; CC_SHA256(strData.bytes, (CC_LONG)strData.length, hash); NSData *digestData = [NSData dataWithBytes:hash length:CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; CFErrorRef cfError = NULL; NSData *signature = (__bridge_transfer NSData *)SecKeyCreateSignature(privateKey, kSecKeyAlgorithmRSASignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA256, (__bridge CFDataRef)digestData, &amp;amp;cfError); Above code raises these system logs in console default 08:44:52.781024+0000 securityd client is valid, proceeding default 08:44:52.781172+0000 securityd code requirement check failed (-67050), client is not Apple-signed default 08:44:52.781233+0000 securityd displaying keychain prompt for /Applications/Demo.app(81692) If the key is in login keychain, is there any way to do SecKeyCreateSignature without raising prompts? What does client is not Apple-signed mean? PS: Identities are pre-installed either manually or via some device management solution, the application is not installing them.

I recently turned on the enhanced security options for my macOS app in Xcode 26.0.1 by adding the Enhanced Security capability in the Signing and Capabilities tab. Then, Xcode adds the following key-value sets (with some other key-values) to my app's entitlements file. <key>com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version</key> <integer>1</integer> <key>com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions</key> <integer>2</integer> These values appear following the documentation about the enhanced security feature (Enabling enhanced security for your app) and the app works without any issues. However, when I submitted a new version to the Mac App Store, my submission was rejected, and I received the following message from the App Review team via the App Store Connect. Guideline 2.4.5(i) - Performance Your app incorrectly implements sandboxing, or it contains one or more entitlements with invalid values. Please review the included entitlements and sandboxing documentation and resolve this issue before resubmitting a new binary. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version" value must be boolean and true. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions" value must be boolean and true. When I changed those values directly in the entitlements file based on this message, the app appears to still work. However, these settings are against the description in the documentation I mentioned above and against the settings Xcode inserted after changing the GUI setting view. So, my question is, which settings are actually correct to enable the Enhanced Security and the Additional Runtime Platform Restrictions?

Hello Apple Developer Community, We have been experiencing a persistent notification issue in our application, Flowace, after updating to macOS 15 and above. The issue is affecting our customers but does not occur on our internal test machines. Issue Description When users share their screen using Flowace, they receive a repetitive system notification stating: "Flowace has accessed your screen and system audio XX times in the past 30 days. You can manage this in settings." This pop-up appears approximately every minute, even though screen sharing and audio access work correctly. This behavior was not present in macOS 15.1.1 or earlier versions and appears to be related to recent privacy enhancements in macOS. Impact on Users The frequent pop-ups disrupt workflows, making it difficult for users to focus while using screen-sharing features. No issues are detected in Privacy &amp; Security Settings, where Flowace has the necessary permissions. The issue is not reproducible on our internal test machines, making troubleshooting difficult. Our application is enterprise level and works all the time, so technically this pop only comes after a period of not using the app. Request for Assistance We would like to understand: Has anyone else encountered a similar issue in macOS 15+? Is there official Apple documentation explaining this new privacy behavior? Are there any interim fixes to suppress or manage these notifications? What are Apple's prospects regarding this feature in upcoming macOS updates? A demonstration of the issue can be seen in the following video: https://youtu.be/njA6mam_Bgw Any insights, workarounds, or recommendations would be highly appreciated! Thank you in advance for your help. Best, Anuj Patil Flowace Team

In the macOS 14.0 SDK, environment and library constraints were introduced, which made defense against common attack vectors relatively simple (especially with the LightWeightCodeRequirements framework added in 14.4). Now, the application I'm working on must support macOS 13.0 too, so I was looking into alternatives that do work for those operating systems as well. What I found myself is that the SecCode/SecStaticCode APIs in the Security Framework do offer very similar fashion checks as the LightWeightCodeRequirements framework does: SecCodeCopySigningInformation can return values like signing identifier, team identifier, code requirement string and so on. SecStaticCodeCreateWithPath can return a SecStaticCode object to an executable/app bundle on the file system. Let's say, I would want to protect myself against launchd executable swap. From macOS 14.0 onward, I would use a Spawn Constraint for this, directly in the launchd.plist file. Before macOS 14.0, I would create a SecStaticCode object for the executable path found in the launchd.plist, and then examine its SecCodeCopySigningInformation dictionary. If the expectations are met, only then would I execute the launchd.plist-defined executable or connect to it via XPC. Are these two equivalent? If not, what are the differences?

Hi Team, We are trying to understand deep sleep behaviour, can you please help us clarifying on the below questions: When will we configure Hibernate 25, is it valid for M series MacBooks? Is Hibernate 25 called deep sleep mode? What are the settings I need to do on Mac, to make my Mac go in to deep sleep? When awakening from deep sleep , what would be macOS system behaviour? If we have custom SFAuthorization plug in at system.login.screensaver, what would be the behaviour with deep sleep?

Hello, I recently installed an iOS app called SpyBuster by MacPaw. This app shows as list all my installed apps. How is this possible ? As a developer, I know this is prohibited by Apple - third party app to scan application workspace.

In my app, I use SecItem to store some data in the Keychain. I’d like to know — when a user sets up a new iPhone and transfers data from the old device, will those Keychain items be migrated or synced to the new device?