Trusted execution is a generic name for a Gatekeeper and other technologies that aim to protect users from malicious code. General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums tag: Gatekeeper Developer > Signing Mac Software with Developer ID Apple Platform Security support document Safely open apps on your Mac support article Hardened Runtime document WWDC 2022 Session 10096 What’s new in privacy covers some important Gatekeeper changes in macOS 13 (starting at 04: 32), most notably app bundle protection WWDC 2023 Session 10053 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 14 (starting at 17:46), namely, app container protection WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 15 (starting at 12:23), namely, app group container protection Updates to runtime protection in macOS Sequoia news post Testing a Notarised Product forums post Resolving Trusted Execution Problems forums post App Translocation Notes forums post Most trusted execution problems are caused by code signing or notarisation issues. See Code Signing Resources and Notarisation Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

When presenting a cookie banner for GDPR purposes, should ATT precede the cookie banner? It seems that showing a Cookie Banner and then showing the ATT permission prompt afterwards (if a user elects to allow cookies/tracking) would be more appropriate. Related question: Should the “Allow Tracking” toggle for an app in system settings serve as a master switch for any granular tracking that might be managed by a 3rd party Consent Management Platform? If ATT is intended to serve as a master switch for tracking consent, if the ATT prompt is presented before a cookie banner, should the banner even appear if a user declines tracking consent? I’m not finding any good resources that describe this flow in detail and I’m seeing implementations all over the place on this. Help! Thanks!!!

Hello, I currently have an app that includes the "Sign in with Apple" feature, and I need to transfer this app to another app team. I have reviewed all official documentation but have not found the answer I need. My situation has some specificities, and I hope to receive assistance. The .p8 key created by the original developer team has been lost, and the app’s backend does not use a .p8 key for verification—instead, it verifies by obtaining Apple’s public key. However, according to the official documentation I reviewed, obtaining a transfer identifier during the app transfer process requires a client_secret generated from the original team’s .p8 key. This has left us facing a challenge, and we have two potential approaches to address this issue: Q1: During the transfer, is it possible to skip obtaining the transfer identifier and proceed directly with the app transfer, without performing any backend operations? Is this approach feasible? Q2: If the above approach is not feasible, should we create a new .p8 key in the original team’s account and use this new key for the transfer? If a new key is generated, do we need to re-release a new version of the app before initiating the transfer? If neither of the above approaches is feasible, are there better solutions to resolve our issue? I hope to receive a response. Thank you. TN3159: Migrating Sign in with Apple users for an app transfer | Apple Developer Documentation/ https://developer.apple.com/documentation/signinwithapple/transferring-your-apps-and-users-to-another-team

Hi, I followed step by step documentation to implement SignIn with Apple in iOS/Android application. I created an AppId com.nhp.queenergy, a related ServiceId com.nhp.queenergy.apple, and a KeyId. Authorization request is correctly performed by using ServiceId as client_id and my backend redirect_uri I receive code on my backend Token request is performed by using ServiceId as client_id, same redirect_uri, the code I have just received and the client_secret as JWT signed with my .p8 certificate with the following decoded structure Header { "kid": , "typ": "JWT", "alg": "ES256" } Payload { "iss": , "sub": "com.nhp.queenergy.apple", "aud": "https://appleid.apple.com", "exp": 1756113744, "iat": 1756111944 } I always receive "invalid_grant" error without any further error description. Moreover the error is always the same even though I use any fake string as client secret. If the code expires, as expected the error changes by adding "The code has expired or has been revoked." I really don't know how to solve this issue Best regards

I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. There have been substantial changes in this space recently. While much of this is now covered in the official docs (r. 92322409), I’ve updated this post to go into all the gory details. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the App & System Services > Core OS topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if your question is about app group containers, also include Files and Storage. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony There are two styles of app group ID: iOS-style app group IDs start with group., for example, group.eskimo1.test. macOS-style app group IDs start with your Team ID, for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. This difference has been the source of numerous weird problems over the years. Starting in Feb 2025, iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on macOS for all product types [1]. If you’re writing new code that uses app groups, use an iOS-style app group ID. If you have existing code that uses a macOS-style app group ID, consider how you might transition to the iOS style. IMPORTANT The Feb 2025 changes aren’t tied to an OS release but rather to a Developer website update. For more on this, see Feb 2025 Changes, below. [1] If your product is a standalone executable, like a daemon or agent, wrap it in an app-like structure, as explained in Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement. iOS-Style App Group IDs An iOS-style app group ID has the following features: It starts with the group. prefix, for example, group.eskimo1.test. You allocate it on the Developer website. This assigns the app group ID to your team. You then claim access to it by listing it in the App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. That claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile [1]. The Developer website will only let you include your team’s app group IDs in your profile. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. iOS-style app group IDs originated on iOS with iOS 3.0. They’ve always been supported on iOS’s child platforms (iPadOS, tvOS, visionOS, and watchOS). On the Mac: They’ve been supported by Mac Catalyst since that technology was introduced. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Starting in Feb 2025, they’re supported for other Mac products. [1] Strictly speaking macOS does not require that, but if your claim is not authorised by a profile then you might run into other problems. See Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. macOS-Style App Group IDs A macOS-style app group ID has the following features: It should start with your Team ID [1], for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. It can’t be explicitly allocated on the Developer website. Code that isn’t sandboxed doesn’t need to claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. [2] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted on macOS, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile [3]. However, if you claim an app group ID that’s not authorised in some way, you might run into problems. More on that later in this post. If you submit an app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense, that is, they either start with your Team ID (macOS style) or are assigned to your team (iOS style). [1] This is “should” because, historically, macOS has not actually required it. However, that’s now changing, with things like app group container protection. [2] This was true prior to macOS 15. It may still technically be true in macOS 15 and later, but the most important thing, access to the app group container, requires the entitlement because of app group container protection. [3] Technically it’s a validation-required entitlement, something that we’ll come back to in the Entitlements-Validated Flag section. Feb 2025 Changes On 21 Feb 2025 we rolled out a change to the Developer website that completes the support for iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Specifically, it’s now possible to create a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group ID. Note This change doesn’t affect Mac Catalyst or iOS Apps on Mac, which have always been able to use iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Prior to this change it was possible to use an iOS-style app group ID on the Mac but that might result in some weird behaviour. Later sections of this post describe some of those problems. Of course, that information is now only of historical interest because, if you’re using an iOS-style app group, you can and should authorise that use with a provisioning profile. We also started seeding Xcode 16.3, which has since been release. This is aware of the Developer website change, and its Signing & Capabilities editor actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. Note This Xcode behaviour is the only option for iOS and its child platforms. With Xcode 16.3, it’s now the default for macOS as well. If you have existing project, enable this behaviour using the Register App Groups build setting. Finally, we updated a number of app group documentation pages, including App Groups entitlement and Configuring app groups. Crossing the Streams In some circumstances you might need to have a single app that accesses both an iOS- and a macOS-style app group. For example: You have a macOS app. You want to migrate to an iOS-style app group ID, perhaps because you want to share an app group container with a Mac Catalyst app. But you also need to access existing content in a container identified by a macOS-style app group ID. Historically this caused problems (FB16664827) but, as of Jun 2025, this is fully supported (r. 148552377). When the Developer website generates a Mac provisioning profile for an App ID with the App Groups capability, it automatically adds TEAM_ID.* to the list of app group IDs authorised by that profile (where TEAM_ID is your Team ID). This allows the app to claim access to every iOS-style app group ID associated with the App ID and any macOS-style app group IDs for that team. This helps in two circumstances: It avoids any Mac App Store Connect submission problems, because App Store Connect can see that the app’s profile authorises its use of all the it app group IDs it claims access to. Outside of App Store — for example, when you directly distribute an app using Developer ID signing — you no longer have to rely on macOS granting implicit access to macOS-style app group IDs. Rather, such access is explicitly authorised by your profile. That ensures that your entitlements remain validated, as discussed in the Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. A Historical Interlude These different styles of app group IDs have historical roots: On iOS, third-party apps have always used provisioning profiles, and thus the App Groups entitlement is restricted just like any other entitlement. On macOS, support for app groups was introduced before macOS had general support for provisioning profiles [1], and thus the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted. The unrestricted nature of this entitlement poses two problems. The first is accidental collisions. How do you prevent folks from accidentally using an app group ID that’s in use by some other developer? On iOS this is easy: The Developer website assigns each app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. macOS achieved a similar result by using the Team ID as a prefix. The second problem is malicious reuse. How do you prevent a Mac app from accessing the app group containers of some other team? Again, this isn’t an issue on iOS because the App Groups entitlement is restricted. On macOS the solution was for the Mac App Store to prevent you from publishing an app that used an app group ID that’s used by another team. However, this only works for Mac App Store apps. Directly distributed apps were free to access app group containers of any other app. That was considered acceptable back when the Mac App Store was first introduced. That’s no longer the case, which is why macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. See App Group Container Protection, below. [1] I’m specifically talking about provisioning profiles for directly distributed apps, that is, apps using Developer ID signing. Entitlements-Validated Flag The fact that the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted on macOS is, when you think about it, a little odd. The purpose of entitlements is to gate access to functionality. If an entitlement isn’t restricted, it’s not much of a gate! For most unrestricted entitlements that’s not a problem. Specifically, for both the App Sandbox and Hardened Runtime entitlements, those are things you opt in to, so macOS is happy to accept the entitlement at face value. After all, if you want to cheat you can just not opt in [1]. However, this isn’t the case for the App Groups entitlement, which actually gates access to functionality. Dealing with this requires macOS to walk a fine line between security and compatibility. Part of that solution is the entitlements-validated flag. When a process runs an executable, macOS checks its entitlements. There are two categories: Restricted entitlements must be authorised by a provisioning profile. If your process runs an executable that claims a restricted entitlement that’s not authorised by a profile, the system traps. Unrestricted entitlements don’t have to be authorised by a provisioning profile; they can be used by any code at any time. However, the App Groups entitlement is a special type of unrestricted entitlement called a validation-required entitlement. If a process runs an executable that claims a validation-required entitlement and that claim is not authorised by a profile, the system allows the process to continue running but clears its entitlements-validated flag. Some subsystems gate functionality on the entitlements-validated flag. For example, the data protection keychain uses entitlements as part of its access control model, but refuses to honour those entitlements if the entitlement-validated flag has been cleared. Note If you’re curious about this flag, use the procinfo subcommand of launchctl to view it. For example: % sudo launchctl procinfo `pgrep Test20230126` … code signing info = valid … entitlements validated … If the flag has been cleared, this line will be missing from the code signing info section. Historically this was a serious problem because it prevented you from creating an app that uses both app groups and the data protection keychain [2] (r. 104859788). Fortunately that’s no longer an issue because the Developer website now lets you include the App Groups entitlement in macOS provisioning profiles. [1] From the perspective of macOS checking entitlements at runtime. There are other checks: The App Sandbox is mandatory for Mac App Store apps, but that’s checked when you upload the app to App Store Connect. Directly distributed apps must be notarised to pass Gatekeeper, and the notary service requires that all executables enable the hardened runtime. [2] See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain a historical oddity associated with keychain access. The Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps article says: Application groups When you collect related apps into an application group using the App Groups entitlement, they share access to a group container, and gain the ability to message each other in certain ways. You can use app group names as keychain access group names, without adding them to the Keychain Access Groups entitlement. On iOS this makes a lot of sense: The App Groups entitlement is a restricted entitlement on iOS. The Developer website assigns each iOS-style app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. The required group. prefix means that these keychain access groups can’t collide with other keychain access groups, which all start with an App ID prefix (there’s also Apple-only keychain access groups that start with other prefixes, like apple). However, this didn’t work on macOS [1] because the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted there. However, with the Feb 2025 changes it should now be possible to use an iOS-style app group ID as a keychain access group on macOS. Note I say “should” because I’ve not actually tried it (-: Keep in mind that standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on all platforms, using the restricted Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for Mac Catalyst apps and iOS Apps on Mac. Not Entirely Unsatisfied When you launch a Mac app that uses app groups you might see this log entry: type: error time: 10:41:35.858009+0000 process: taskgated-helper subsystem: com.apple.ManagedClient category: ProvisioningProfiles message: com.example.apple-samplecode.Test92322409: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups Note The exact format of that log entry, and the circumstances under which it’s generated, varies by platform. On macOS 13.0.1 I was able to generate it by running a sandboxed app that claims a macOS-style app group ID in the App Groups entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. It means that the App Groups entitlement claims an entitlement that’s not authorised by a provisioning profile. On iOS this would trap, but on macOS the system allows the process to continue running. It does, however, clear the entitlements-validate flag. See Entitlements-Validated Flag for an in-depth discussion of this. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to authorise your app group ID claims with a provisioning profile. If there’s some reason you can’t do that, watch out for potential problems with: The data protection keychain — See the discussion of that in the Entitlements-Validated Flag and App Groups and the Keychain sections, both above. App group container protection — See App Group Container Protection, below. App Group Container Protection macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. To access an app group container without user intervention: Claim access to the app group by listing its ID in the App Groups entitlement. Locate the container by calling the containerURL(forSecurityApplicationGroupIdentifier:) method. Ensure that at least one of the following criteria are met: Your app is deployed via the Mac App Store (A). Or via TestFlight when running on macOS 15.1 or later (B). Or the app group ID starts with your app’s Team ID (C). Or your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D) [1]. If your app doesn’t follow these rules, the system prompts the user to approve its access to the container. If granted, that consent applies only for the duration of that app instance. For more on this, see: The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15 Release Notes The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15.1 Release Notes WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy, starting at 12:23 The above criteria mean that you rarely run into the app group authorisation prompt. If you encounter a case where that happens, feel free to start a thread here on DevForums. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Note Prior to the Feb 2025 change, things generally worked out fine when you app was deployed but you might’ve run into problems during development. That’s no longer the case. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Revision History 2025-08-12 Added a reference to the Register App Groups build setting. 2025-07-28 Updated the Crossing the Streams section for the Jun 2025 change. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-04-16 Rewrote the document now that iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on the Mac. Changed the title from App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight! to App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony 2025-02-25 Fixed the Xcode version number mentioned in yesterday’s update. 2025-02-24 Added a quick update about the iOS-style app group IDs on macOS issue. 2024-11-05 Further clarified app group container protection. Reworked some other sections to account for this new reality. 2024-10-29 Clarified the points in App Group Container Protection. 2024-10-23 Fleshed out the discussion of app group container protection on macOS 15. 2024-09-04 Added information about app group container protection on macOS 15. 2023-01-31 Renamed the Not Entirely Unsatisfactory section to Not Entirely Unsatisfied. Updated it to describe the real impact of that log message. 2022-12-12 First posted.

Context We are experiencing inconsistent behaviour with "Sign in with Apple" across different environments (we have an app for "A" and "B" regions) on our web client in browsers. Specifically, we have observed two key issues: Missing email and email_verified Claims in ID Token In some cases, the ID token received after successful authentication does not contain the email and email_verified claims. Here the docs state that "Alternatively, if the managed Apple ID is in Apple School Manager, the email claim may be empty. Students, for example, often don’t have an email that the school issues.", but this was experienced with a non-student Apple ID. This issue was observed for certain users in the "A" environment, while the same users had no issues in the "B" environment. For one affected user, removing and re-enabling the "Sign in with Apple" integration resolved the issue (https://account.apple.com/account/manage/section/security). However, for another user, the integration could not be removed, preventing this workaround (button was active, but did nothing). In contrast, for some users, authentication works correctly in both environments without missing claims. Inconsistent Display of App Icon and App Name The app icon and app name do not always appear on the Apple login interface. One user observed that the app icon and name were displayed in "A" but not in "B". Another user had the opposite experience, with the app icon and name appearing in "B" but not in "A". A third user did not see the app icon or name in either environment. Questions Why does the app icon and name not always appear on the "Sign in with Apple" login screen? How is it possible that the ID token sometimes lacks email and email_verified claims when using the same Apple ID in different environments?

Hello. I have issue with implementing "Sign in with Apple" on my website. As folow, I have created: App ID identifier: com.livnobus.app (G2F5N5UHYZ) Service ID identifier: com.livnobus.client (B25ZN8P84U) with option enabled "Sign in with Apple" and configuration (Primary App ID and Webiste URLs) Key ID: 43N8XKUW7S with option enabled "Sign in with Apple" and configuration (Primary App ID and Grouped App Ids) When I click "Sign in with Apple" on my website (https://dev.livnobus.com/auth/login), system redirect me to https://appleid.apple.com/ and error show "invalid_client". Redirect URL on my web site is: https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?client_id=com.livnobus.client&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fdev.livnobus.com%2Fauth%2Fapple%2Fcallback&scope=name%20email&response_type=code&response_mode=form_post&state=eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO&nonce=e7c7a242-1977-47ea-9013-98820c24bfba.eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO There was old Service ID identifier com.livnobus.app-client, for which I lost private KEY, so I have created new one: com.livnobus.client With old Service ID com.livnobus.app-client, https://appleid.apple.com/ shows me Apple form for sign in, but with new Service ID com.livnobus.client there is error "invalid_client" https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?client_id=com.livnobus.app-client&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fdev.livnobus.com%2Fauth%2Fapple%2Fcallback&scope=name%20email&response_type=code&response_mode=form_post&state=eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO&nonce=e7c7a242-1977-47ea-9013-98820c24bfba.eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO These changes I have made last Friday, and since then I can't use "Sign in with Apple" on my website. Thanks!

I was wondering if anyone had experience with Managed Device Profiles on iPad to be able to answer a quick question regarding passcode reset. We are using Microsoft Intune to manage our fleet of iPads that our store employees will use on an Ad-Hoc basis. When a user logs into an iPad for the day, we are issuing a resetPasscode command to the MicrosoftGraph specifying that device ID. We are getting a successful response to the iPad itself. But the device is allowing the user 1 hour of free time to dismiss the reset passcode dialogue. Which enables them to use the iPad unprotected for up to an hour, which is not what we want. Does anyone know of any way to force the user to select a passcode immediately? I know this is a device side restriction. But is there anything apple can do to help us in this instance, since our MDM profile can't close this time window on the Intune side?

Recently, we received an user enquiry regarding the inability to perform bookings for the app. After investigation, we found that the issue appears to be caused by the failure of the Apple DeviceCheck service. Based on our checks, approximately 0.01% of requests fail each day (e.g., on 26 June: 6 failures out of 44,544 requests) when using Apple DeviceCheck. Could you please assist in raising the following enquiries with Apple Support? What is the typical failure rate of Apple DeviceCheck? Are there any reliability metrics or benchmarks for its performance? How can the failures be prevented, or is there a recommended retry mechanism to handle such failures? Does the iOS version affect the performance or reliability of Apple DeviceCheck? Are there known issues or limitations with specific iOS versions? How long does the token remain valid, and when should a new one be retrieved? Does using a jailbroken device affect the functionality of Apple DeviceCheck?

Hi, We use the iOS Keychain in our mobile app to securely store and retrieve data, which is tightly coupled with the initialization of some app features within the application. This issue is encountered during app launch We retrieve during Splash Screen UI controller at viewDidApper() The logic we use to access the Keychain is as follows: NSDate *NSDate_CD; NSString *account = [NSString stringWithUTF8String:@"SOME_KEY_ACCOUNT"]; NSString *attrgen = [NSString stringWithUTF8String:@"SOME_KEY"]; NSMutableDictionary *query = [[NSMutableDictionary alloc] init]; [query setObject:(__bridge id)(kSecClassGenericPassword) forKey:(__bridge id<NSCopying>)(kSecClass)]; [query setObject:attrgen forKey:(__bridge id<NSCopying>)(kSecAttrGeneric)]; [query setObject:(__bridge id)(kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly) forKey:(__bridge id<NSCopying>)(kSecAttrAccessible)]; [query setObject: [NSBundle mainBundle].bundleIdentifier forKey:(__bridge id<NSCopying>)(kSecAttrService)]; [query setObject:account forKey:(__bridge id<NSCopying>)(kSecAttrAccount)]; [query setObject:@YES forKey:(__bridge id<NSCopying>)(kSecReturnAttributes)]; [query setObject:@YES forKey:(__bridge id<NSCopying>)(kSecReturnData)]; CFDictionaryRef valueAttributes = NULL; OSStatus status = SecItemCopyMatching((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)query, (CFTypeRef *)&valueAttributes); NSDictionary *attributes = (__bridge_transfer NSDictionary *)valueAttributes; if(status==errSecSuccess) { NSDate_CD = [attributes objectForKey:(__bridge id)kSecAttrCreationDate]; } else { NSLog(@"Key chain query failed"); } However, some users have reported intermittent failures during app launch. Upon investigation, we discovered that these failures are caused by exceptions thrown by the iOS Keychain, which the app is currently not handling. Unfortunately, we do not log the exception or the Keychain error code in the app logs at the moment, but we plan to implement this logging feature in the near future. For now, we are trying to better understand the nature of these errors. Could you help clarify the following Keychain errors, which might be encountered from the code above? errSecServiceNotAvailable (-25307) errSecAllocate (-108) errSecNotAvailable (-25291) If these errors are encountered, are they typically persistent or are they temporary states that could resolve on their own? Your insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I have a launch daemon that's using the Endpoint Security framework which also is causing high memory usage (in Activity Monitor memory column shows for example 2GB and Real Memory 11MB) when building a big project in Xcode. Is it some kind of memory caching by the system? leaks -forkCorpse seems to not show any leaks. How can I attach with heap or Instruments without the process being killed with "ENDPOINTSECURITY, Code 2 EndpointSecurity client terminated because it failed to respond to a message before its deadline"?

can i get transferid by /auth/usermigrationinfo api before transfered app? https://developer.apple.com/documentation/sign_in_with_apple/transferring-your-apps-and-users-to-another-team#Generate-the-transfer-identifier

I am developing a sample authorization plugin to sync the user’s local password to the network password. During the process, I prompt the user to enter both their old and new passwords in custom plugin. After the user enters the information, I use the following code to sync the passwords: try record.changePassword(oldPssword, toPassword: newPassword) However, I have noticed that this is clearing all saved keychain information, such as web passwords and certificates. Is it expected behavior for record.changePassword to clear previously stored keychain data? If so, how can I overcome this issue and ensure the keychain information is preserved while syncing the password? Thank you for your help!

Hi Team, How can we fetch the macOS password requirement(for setting a new password) that are inforce during login for users? Is there a way to get this info in swift programming?

Hello, I have now been looking for a while of a way to get the number of MAU of my appstore app through the apple connect API. I ended up thinking i might actually be able to compute it with https://developer.apple.com/documentation/analytics-reports/app-sessions this App Sessions report. My question is thus the following : Does the Sessions number actually gives me the number of all sessions, or only those from opt-in users ? It says that it is based on users who have agreed to share their data with Apple and developers, so I was wondering whether or not through the use of the methods described on this page https://developer.apple.com/documentation/analytics-reports/privacy, it meant that the data was anonymized/encoded such that it would be close to the actual Sessions number, or if it meant it only counted opt-in users to compute the Sessions numer. Thank you for your time, I hope I made myself as clear as possible. Ask me if you want more precisions or if you don't understand my question.

First, I do not publish my application to the AppStore, but I need to customize a sandbox environment. It seems that sandbox-exec cannot configure entitlements, so I have used some other APIs, such as sandbox_compile_entitlements and sandbox_apply_container. When encountering the entitlement "com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-only", I am unsure how to correctly write sandbox profile to implement this. Can anyone help me?

Step1. Update system.login.screensaver authorizationdb rule to use “authenticate-session-owner-or-admin”( to get old SFAutorizationPluginView at Lock Screen ). Here I will use my custom authorization plugin. Step 2. Once the rule is in place, logout and login, now click on Apple icon and select “Lock Screen”. Is there a way programmatically to update the Lock Icon and the test getting displayed on the first Unlock screen? When I write a custom authorisation plug-in, I am getting control of the text fields and any consecutive screen I add from there on. But all I want is to update the lock icon and text fields on 1st unlock display itself. Can you please suggest how I can achieve this? Here is the screenshot with marked areas I am looking control for.

I am working on a SDK which helps identify the device authenticity. I am in need of something which can confirm the firmware/Hardware/OS is signed by Apple and is authentic. There will be no tempering to device?

Hi, I am creating a custom login window, so I am using SFAuthorizationpluginView, here I want to hide Submit Arrow botton which gets displayed beside username and password text feild , is there a way to hide this, please suggest.

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