I'm building a macOS app that registers itself for HTTP(S) url handling and would like it to participate in the ASWebAuthenticationSession fow. I did: update the plist to register as a handler for URL shemes (http, https, file) use NSWorkspace setDefaultApplication API to set this app as a default handler for urls in question wrote custom ASWebAuthenticationSessionWebBrowserSessionHandling implementation and set it as SessionManager's sessionHandler I launched this app from Xcode, then I triggered authentication flow from a third-party app. When the sign in flow is initiated, I can see that my app is activeated (willBecomeActive and didBecomeActive callbacks are both called), but there is no call for sessionHandler's begin() method. With some additional debugging I see that my app receives an apple event when the flow is started: {sfri,auth target=SafariLaunchAgent {qntp=90/$627......},aapd=TRUE If I switch system default browser back to Safari and then start the login flow, it correctly displays a sign in web page. What do I miss? PS. I'm on Tahoe 26.2

We currently have an app that uses Sign in with Apple (SIWA), and we are planning to discontinue the SIWA feature. Specifically, we intend to disable SIWA from the app's Capabilities in the Apple Developer Center. My question is, if we disable SIWA, can we continue to use the private email addresses of users who registered using SIWA? Or will disabling SIWA also invalidate the users' private email addresses? We are considering asking users to change to a different, valid email address in our app. However, if the private email addresses are invalidated, we will not be able to disable SIWA until all users have completed the email address change. If anyone has knowledge about these behaviors, please let us know.

Hi I'm developing an app that autofills Passkeys. The app allows the user to authenticate to their IdP to obtain an access token. Using the token the app fetches from <server>/attestation/options. The app will generate a Passkey credential using a home-grown module - the extension has no involvement, neither does ASAuthorizationSecurityKeyPublicKeyCredentialProvider. I can confirm the passkey does get created. Next the credential is posted to <server>/attestation/results with the response JSON being parsed and used to create a ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity - a sample of the response JSON is attached. Here is my save function: static func save(authenticator: AuthenticatorInfo) async throws { guard let credentialID = Data(base64URLEncoded: authenticator.attributes.credentialId) else { throw AuthenticatorError.invalidEncoding("Credential ID is not a valid Base64URL string.") } guard let userHandle = authenticator.userId.data(using: .utf8) else { throw AuthenticatorError.invalidEncoding("User handle is not a valid UTF-8 string.") } let identity = ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity( relyingPartyIdentifier: authenticator.attributes.rpId, userName: authenticator.userId, // This is what the user sees in the UI credentialID: credentialID, userHandle: userHandle, recordIdentifier: authenticator.id ) try await ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.saveCredentialIdentities([identity]) } Although no error occurs, I don't get any identities returned when I call this method: let identities = await ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.credentialIdentities( forService: nil, credentialIdentityTypes: [.passkey] ) Here is the Info.plist in the Extension: <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>NSExtension</key> <dict> <key>NSExtensionAttributes</key> <dict> <key>ASCredentialProviderExtensionCapabilities</key> <dict> <key>ProvidesPasskeys</key> <true/> </dict> <key>ASCredentialProviderExtensionShowsConfigurationUI</key> <true/> </dict> <key>NSExtensionPointIdentifier</key> <string>com.apple.authentication-services-credential-provider-ui</string> <key>NSExtensionPrincipalClass</key> <string>$(PRODUCT_MODULE_NAME).CredentialProviderViewController</string> </dict> </dict> </plist> The entitlements are valid and the app and extension both support the same group. I'm stumped as to why the identity is not getting saved. Any ideas and not getting retrieved. attestationResult.json

I’ve explained this point many times on the forums, so I figured I’d write it up properly once and for all. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread in Privacy & Security > General and add the App Sandbox tag. That way I’ll be sure to see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" The Case for Sandboxing a Directly Distributed App Many folks consider the App Sandbox to be a binary choice: “My app ships in the Mac App Store, so I must sandbox it.” “I directly distribute my app, so I’ll ignore the App Sandbox.” However, those are not your only options. In many cases it makes sense to sandbox a directly distributed app. Sandboxing your app has at least three benefits: It enables app container protection. See Trusted Execution Resources for a link to more info on that. If your app includes any app extensions, it simplifies your development experience because your app and its extensions run in a similar environment. It improves your app’s security (although the actual benefits vary based on the specifics of your app). Sandboxing some apps can be tricky because of the additional security limits applied by the sandbox. However, in a directly distributed app you have access to two techniques that are not available to Mac App Store apps: Temporary exception entitlements Non-sandboxed XPC services Temporary exception entitlements Use temporary exception entitlements to selectively disable specific sandbox security limits. Imagine, for example, that you’re creating a simple document-based app that’s generally compatible with the sandbox. However, that app needs to send an Apple event to Music to create a playlist. That Apple event is blocked by the sandbox. You don’t need to disable the entire App Sandbox just to get around this security limit. Instead, use the com.apple.security.temporary-exception.apple-events entitlement to open a small hole in the sandbox. There are temporary exception entitlements to disable most sandbox security limits. For more information about them, follow the link in App Sandbox Resources. IMPORTANT Don’t be alarmed by the temporary in temporary exception entitlements. That word makes sense when you view this from the Mac App Store perspective. Back in the early days of the Mac App Store, some apps were allowed to use temporary exception entitlements because of limitations in the App Sandbox. Once App Sandbox was sufficiently enhanced, these temporary exception entitlements were no longer allowed in the Mac App Store. However, there’s nothing temporary about the implementation of these entitlements. They work today and are expected to continue working in the future. Using them in a directly distributed app is not a problem. Non-sandboxed XPC services Not all sandbox security limits have a corresponding temporary exception entitlement. For example, the sandbox prevents you from sending a Unix signal to other processes, and there’s no temporary exception entitlement to allow that. If you run into such a limit, move that code to a non-sandboxed XPC service, then have the main app request that the XPC service perform the operation on its behalf. An XPC service can be useful even when there is a temporary exception entitlement to disable a specific sandbox security limit. Continuing the Apple event example from above, if you put the code that sends the Apple event into an XPC service, you only need to apply the temporary exception entitlement to that service, not to your app as a whole. Conclusion If you directly distribute your app, consider enabling the App Sandbox. It has some important benefits, and it might be more feasible than you think.

I have an Autofill Passkey Provider working for Safari and Chrome via WebAuthn protocol. Unfortunately, Chrome will not offer my extension as a logon credential provider unless I add the credential to the ASCredentialIdentityStore. I wonder what is the best way to access the ASCredentialIdentityStore from an AutoFill extension? I understand I cannot access it directly from the extension context, so what is the best way to trigger my container app to run, based on a new WebAuthn registration? The best I can think of so far is for the www site to provide an App Link to launch my container app as part of the registration ceremony. Safari will offer my extension even without adding it to the ASCredentialIdentityStore, so I guess I should file a request with Chrome to work this way too, given difficulty of syncing ASCredentialIdentityStore with WebAuthn registration.

Dear Apple Developer Support Team, We are experiencing a recurring issue with the DeviceCheck API where the following error is being returned: com.apple.devicecheck.error 0 Upon analyzing our logs, we have noticed that this error occurs significantly more often when users are connected to Wi-Fi networks, compared to mobile networks. This leads us to suspect that there might be a relationship between Wi-Fi configuration and the DeviceCheck service’s ability to generate or validate tokens. We would like to know: Is this error code (0) known to be caused by specific types of network behavior or misconfigurations on Wi-Fi networks (e.g., DNS filtering, firewall restrictions, proxy servers)? Are there any recommended best practices for ensuring reliable DeviceCheck API communication over Wi-Fi networks? Additionally, could you please clarify what general conditions could trigger this com.apple.devicecheck.error 0? The lack of specific documentation makes debugging this issue difficult from our side. Any guidance or internal documentation on this error code and its potential causes would be greatly appreciated. IDE: Xcode 16.3 Looking forward to your support. Best regards,

Hi team, if I log into my app on Safari and try to enroll/challenge MFA security key option, I will be able to see this pop-up that gives me the option to pick either passkeys or external security keys However, my team member who's using the same version of safari, can only see the external security key option Why is this?

Developers of our e-shop are preparing to enable Apple Sign In for account login. Apple ID verification is conducted via the domain appleid.apple.com, and the responses should be coming back from the following two Apple IP addresses: IPv4 Address: 17.32.194.6 IPv4 Address: 17.32.194.37 Question is whether these addresses are correct and if they remain unchanged over time. Alternatively, it is existing an official list of IP addresses that may be used for Apple Sign In verification response? This is necessary to ensure precise network communication settings and protection by F5 security solution. Thanks a lot for answers.

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'm trying to use ASWebAuthenticationSession on macOS but there is a weird crash and I have no idea what to do. It looks like there is a main thread check in a framework code that I have no control over. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. The stack of crashed thread has no symbols, even for supposedly my code in OAuthClient.authenticate. macOS 15.4.1 (24E263) Xcode Version 16.3 (16E140) Thread 11: EXC_BREAKPOINT (code=1, subcode=0x10039bb04) Thread 12 Queue : com.apple.NSXPCConnection.m-user.com.apple.SafariLaunchAgent (serial) #0 0x0000000100b17b04 in _dispatch_assert_queue_fail () #1 0x0000000100b52834 in dispatch_assert_queue$V2.cold.1 () #2 0x0000000100b17a88 in dispatch_assert_queue () #3 0x000000027db5f3e8 in swift_task_isCurrentExecutorWithFlagsImpl () #4 0x00000001022c7754 in closure #1 in closure #1 in OAuthClient.authenticate() () #5 0x00000001022d0c98 in thunk for @escaping @callee_guaranteed (@in_guaranteed URL?, @guaranteed Error?) -&gt; () () #6 0x00000001c7215a34 in __102-[ASWebAuthenticationSession initWithURL:callback:usingEphemeralSession:jitEnabled:completionHandler:]_block_invoke () #7 0x00000001c72163d0 in -[ASWebAuthenticationSession _endSessionWithCallbackURL:error:] () #8 0x00000001c7215fc0 in __43-[ASWebAuthenticationSession _startDryRun:]_block_invoke_2 () #9 0x0000000194e315f4 in __invoking___ () #10 0x0000000194e31484 in -[NSInvocation invoke] () #11 0x00000001960fd644 in __NSXPCCONNECTION_IS_CALLING_OUT_TO_REPLY_BLOCK__ () #12 0x00000001960fbe40 in -[NSXPCConnection _decodeAndInvokeReplyBlockWithEvent:sequence:replyInfo:] () #13 0x00000001960fb798 in __88-[NSXPCConnection _sendInvocation:orArguments:count:methodSignature:selector:withProxy:]_block_invoke_3 () #14 0x0000000194a6ef18 in _xpc_connection_reply_callout () #15 0x0000000194a6ee08 in _xpc_connection_call_reply_async () #16 0x0000000100b3130c in _dispatch_client_callout3_a () #17 0x0000000100b362f8 in _dispatch_mach_msg_async_reply_invoke () #18 0x0000000100b1d3a8 in _dispatch_lane_serial_drain () #19 0x0000000100b1e46c in _dispatch_lane_invoke () #20 0x0000000100b2bfbc in _dispatch_root_queue_drain_deferred_wlh () #21 0x0000000100b2b414 in _dispatch_workloop_worker_thread () #22 0x0000000100c0379c in _pthread_wqthread () My code: @MainActor func authenticate() async throws { let authURL = api.authorizationURL( scopes: scopes, state: state, redirectURI: redirectURI ) let authorizationCodeURL: URL = try await withUnsafeThrowingContinuation { c in let session = ASWebAuthenticationSession(url: authURL, callback: .customScheme(redirectScheme)) { url, error in guard let url = url else { c.resume(throwing: error ?? Error.unknownError("Failed to get authorization code")) return } c.resume(returning: url) } session.presentationContextProvider = presentationContextProvider session.start() } let authorizationCode = try codeFromAuthorizationURL(authorizationCodeURL) (storedAccessToken, storedRefreshToken) = try await getTokens(authorizationCode: authorizationCode) } Here is disassembly of the crashed function. libdispatch.dylib`_dispatch_assert_queue_fail: 0x10067fa8c &lt;+0&gt;: pacibsp 0x10067fa90 &lt;+4&gt;: sub sp, sp, #0x50 0x10067fa94 &lt;+8&gt;: stp x20, x19, [sp, #0x30] 0x10067fa98 &lt;+12&gt;: stp x29, x30, [sp, #0x40] 0x10067fa9c &lt;+16&gt;: add x29, sp, #0x40 0x10067faa0 &lt;+20&gt;: adrp x8, 71 0x10067faa4 &lt;+24&gt;: add x8, x8, #0x951 ; "not " 0x10067faa8 &lt;+28&gt;: adrp x9, 70 0x10067faac &lt;+32&gt;: add x9, x9, #0x16b ; "" 0x10067fab0 &lt;+36&gt;: stur xzr, [x29, #-0x18] 0x10067fab4 &lt;+40&gt;: cmp w1, #0x0 0x10067fab8 &lt;+44&gt;: csel x8, x9, x8, ne 0x10067fabc &lt;+48&gt;: ldr x10, [x0, #0x48] 0x10067fac0 &lt;+52&gt;: cmp x10, #0x0 0x10067fac4 &lt;+56&gt;: csel x9, x9, x10, eq 0x10067fac8 &lt;+60&gt;: stp x9, x0, [sp, #0x10] 0x10067facc &lt;+64&gt;: adrp x9, 71 0x10067fad0 &lt;+68&gt;: add x9, x9, #0x920 ; "BUG IN CLIENT OF LIBDISPATCH: Assertion failed: " 0x10067fad4 &lt;+72&gt;: stp x9, x8, [sp] 0x10067fad8 &lt;+76&gt;: adrp x1, 71 0x10067fadc &lt;+80&gt;: add x1, x1, #0x8eb ; "%sBlock was %sexpected to execute on queue [%s (%p)]" 0x10067fae0 &lt;+84&gt;: sub x0, x29, #0x18 0x10067fae4 &lt;+88&gt;: bl 0x1006c258c ; symbol stub for: asprintf 0x10067fae8 &lt;+92&gt;: ldur x19, [x29, #-0x18] 0x10067faec &lt;+96&gt;: str x19, [sp] 0x10067faf0 &lt;+100&gt;: adrp x0, 71 0x10067faf4 &lt;+104&gt;: add x0, x0, #0x956 ; "%s" 0x10067faf8 &lt;+108&gt;: bl 0x1006b7b64 ; _dispatch_log 0x10067fafc &lt;+112&gt;: adrp x8, 108 0x10067fb00 &lt;+116&gt;: str x19, [x8, #0x2a8] -&gt; 0x10067fb04 &lt;+120&gt;: brk #0x1

Hi, I’m currently implementing App Attest attestation validation on the development server. However, I’m receiving a 403 Forbidden response when I POST a CBOR-encoded payload to the following endpoint: curl -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/cbor" --data-binary @payload.cbor 'https://data-development.appattest.apple.com' Here’s how I’m generating the CBOR payload in Java: Map&lt;String, Object&gt; payload = new HashMap&lt;&gt;(); payload.put("attestation", attestationBytes); // byte[] from DCAppAttestService payload.put("clientDataHash", clientDataHash); // SHA-256 hash of the challenge (byte[]) payload.put("keyId", keyIdBytes); // Base64-decoded keyId (byte[]) payload.put("appId", TEAM_ID + "." + BUNDLE_ID); // e.g., "ABCDE12345.com.example.app" ObjectMapper cborMapper = new ObjectMapper(new CBORFactory()); byte[] cborBody = cborMapper.writeValueAsBytes(payload); I’m unsure whether the endpoint is rejecting the payload format or if the endpoint itself is incorrect for this stage. I’d appreciate clarification on the following: 1. Is https://data-development.appattest.apple.com the correct endpoint for key attestation in a development environment? 2. Should this endpoint accept CBOR-encoded payloads, or is it only for JSON-based assertion validation? 3. Is there a current official Apple documentation that lists: • the correct URLs for key attestation and assertion validation (production and development), • or any server-side example code (e.g., Java, Python) for handling attestation/validation on the backend? So far, I couldn’t find an official document that explicitly describes the expected HTTP endpoints for these operations. If there’s a newer guide or updated API reference, I’d appreciate a link. Thanks in advance for your help.

Hello, I'm receiving an unknown error instead of the excluded credentials error when using the "Save on another device" option for Passkey creation. When creating the ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider request to pass to the ASAuthorizationController. The excludedCredentials property is used to add a list of credentials to exclude in the registration process. This is to prevent duplicate passkeys from being created if one already exists for the user. When trying to create a duplicate passkey using the same device, the ASAuthorizationControllerDelegate method authorizationController(controller, didCompleteWithError:) is called. The error received has localized description “At least one credential matches an entry of the excludeCredentials list in the platform attached authenticator." When trying to create a duplicate passkey using the “Save on another device” option. The delegate method is called, but the error received has code 1000 ("com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError" - code: 1000). Which maps to the unknown error case in ASAuthorization error type.

I am developing a background program that is included in the app as an extension. I would like to include logic to check the teamID and code signature validity of the program I created to ensure that it has not been tampered with. Is this possible?

Hello, We are working on integrating app integrity verification into our service application, following Apple's App Attest and DeviceCheck guide. Our server issues a challenge to the client, which then sends the challenge, attestation, and keyId in CBOR format to Apple's App Attest server for verification. However, we are unable to reach both https://attest.apple.com and https://attest.development.apple.com due to network issues. These attempts have been made from both our internal corporate network and mobile hotspot environments. Despite adjusting DNS settings and other configurations, the issue persists. Are there alternative methods or solutions to address this problem? Any recommended network configurations or guidelines to successfully connect to Apple's App Attest servers would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I regularly help developers with keychain problems, both here on DevForums and for my Day Job™ in DTS. Over the years I’ve learnt a lot about the API, including many pitfalls and best practices. This post is my attempt to collect that experience in one place. If you have questions or comments about any of this, put them in a new thread and apply the Security tag so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices It’s just four functions, how hard can it be? The SecItem API seems very simple. After all, it only has four function calls, how hard can it be? In reality, things are not that easy. Various factors contribute to making this API much trickier than it might seem at first glance. This post explains some of the keychain’s pitfalls and then goes on to explain various best practices. Before reading this, make sure you understand the fundamentals by reading its companion post, SecItem: Fundamentals. Pitfalls Lets start with some common pitfalls. Queries and Uniqueness Constraints The relationship between query dictionaries and uniqueness constraints is a major source of problems with the keychain API. Consider code like this: var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecAttrGeneric: Data("SecItemHints".utf8), ] as NSMutableDictionary let err = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { query[kSecValueData] = Data("opendoor".utf8) let err2 = SecItemAdd(query, nil) if err2 == errSecDuplicateItem { fatalError("… can you get here? …") } } Can you get to the fatal error? At first glance this might not seem possible because you’ve run your query and it’s returned errSecItemNotFound. However, the fatal error is possible because the query contains an attribute, kSecAttrGeneric, that does not contribute to the uniqueness. If the keychain contains a generic password whose service (kSecAttrService) and account (kSecAttrAccount) attributes match those supplied but whose generic (kSecAttrGeneric) attribute does not, the SecItemCopyMatching calls will return errSecItemNotFound. However, for a generic password item, of the attributes shown here, only the service and account attributes are included in the uniqueness constraint. If you try to add an item where those attributes match an existing item, the add will fail with errSecDuplicateItem even though the value of the generic attribute is different. The take-home point is that that you should study the attributes that contribute to uniqueness and use them in a way that’s aligned with your view of uniqueness. See the Uniqueness section of SecItem: Fundamentals for a link to the relevant documentation. Erroneous Attributes Each keychain item class supports its own specific set of attributes. For information about the attributes supported by a given class, see SecItem: Fundamentals. I regularly see folks use attributes that aren’t supported by the class they’re working with. For example, the kSecAttrApplicationTag attribute is only supported for key items (kSecClassKey). Using it with a certificate item (kSecClassCertificate) will cause, at best, a runtime error and, at worst, mysterious bugs. This is an easy mistake to make because: The ‘parameter block’ nature of the SecItem API means that the compiler won’t complain if you use an erroneous attribute. On macOS, the shim that connects to the file-based keychain ignores unsupported attributes. Imagine you want to store a certificate for a particular user. You might write code like this: let err = SecItemAdd([ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecAttrApplicationTag: Data(name.utf8), kSecValueRef: cert, ] as NSDictionary, nil) The goal is to store the user’s name in the kSecAttrApplicationTag attribute so that you can get back their certificate with code like this: let err = SecItemCopyMatching([ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecAttrApplicationTag: Data(name.utf8), kSecReturnRef: true, ] as NSDictionary, &copyResult) On iOS, and with the data protection keychain on macOS, both calls will fail with errSecNoSuchAttr. That makes sense, because the kSecAttrApplicationTag attribute is not supported for certificate items. Unfortunately, the macOS shim that connects the SecItem API to the file-based keychain ignores extraneous attributes. This results in some very bad behaviour: SecItemAdd works, ignoring kSecAttrApplicationTag. SecItemCopyMatching ignores kSecAttrApplicationTag, returning the first certificate that it finds. If you only test with a single user, everything seems to work. But, later on, when you try your code with multiple users, you might get back the wrong result depending on the which certificate the SecItemCopyMatching call happens to discover first. Ouch! Context Matters Some properties change behaviour based on the context. The value type properties are the biggest offender here, as discussed in the Value Type Subtleties section of SecItem: Fundamentals. However, there are others. The one that’s bitten me is kSecMatchLimit: In a query and return dictionary its default value is kSecMatchLimitOne. If you don’t supply a value for kSecMatchLimit, SecItemCopyMatching returns at most one item that matches your query. In a pure query dictionary its default value is kSecMatchLimitAll. For example, if you don’t supply a value for kSecMatchLimit, SecItemDelete will delete all items that match your query. This is a lesson that, once learnt, is never forgotten! Note Although this only applies to the data protection keychain. If you’re on macOS and targeting the file-based keychain, kSecMatchLimit always defaults to kSecMatchLimitOne (r. 105800863). Fun times! Digital Identities Aren’t Real A digital identity is the combination of a certificate and the private key that matches the public key within that certificate. The SecItem API has a digital identity keychain item class, namely kSecClassIdentity. However, the keychain does not store digital identities. When you add a digital identity to the keychain, the system stores its components, the certificate and the private key, separately, using kSecClassCertificate and kSecClassKey respectively. This has a number of non-obvious effects: Adding a certificate can ‘add’ a digital identity. If the new certificate happens to match a private key that’s already in the keychain, the keychain treats that pair as a digital identity. Likewise when you add a private key. Similarly, removing a certificate or private key can ‘remove’ a digital identity. Adding a digital identity will either add a private key, or a certificate, or both, depending on what’s already in the keychain. Removing a digital identity removes its certificate. It might also remove the private key, depending on whether that private key is used by a different digital identity. The system forms a digital identity by matching the kSecAttrApplicationLabel (klbl) attribute of the private key with the kSecAttrPublicKeyHash (pkhh) attribute of the certificate. If you add both items to the keychain and the system doesn’t form an identity, check the value of these attributes. For more information the key attributes, see SecItem attributes for keys. Keys Aren’t Stored in the Secure Enclave Apple platforms let you protect a key with the Secure Enclave (SE). The key is then hardware bound. It can only be used by that specific SE [1]. Earlier versions of the Protecting keys with the Secure Enclave article implied that SE-protected keys were stored in the SE itself. This is not true, and it’s caused a lot of confusion. For example, I once asked the keychain team “How much space does the SE have available to store keys?”, a question that’s complete nonsense once you understand how this works. In reality, SE-protected keys are stored in the standard keychain database alongside all your other keychain items. The difference is that the key is wrapped in such a way that only the SE can use it. So, the key is protected by the SE, not stored in the SE. A while back we updated the docs to clarify this point but the confusion persists. [1] Technically it’s that specific iteration of that specific SE. If you erase the device then the key material needed to use the key is erased and so the key becomes permanently useless. This is the sort of thing you’ll find explained in Apple Platform Security. Careful With that Shim, Mac Developer As explained in TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations, macOS has a shim that connects the SecItem API to either the data protection keychain or the file-based keychain depending on the nature of the request. That shim has limitations. Some of those are architectural but others are simply bugs in the shim. For some great examples, see the Investigating Complex Attributes section below. The best way to avoid problems like this is to target the data protection keychain. If you can’t do that, try to avoid exploring the outer reaches of the SecItem API. If you encounter a case that doesn’t make sense, try that same case with the data protection keychain. If it works there but fails with the file-based keychain, please do file a bug against the shim. It’ll be in good company. Here’s some known issues with the shim: It ignores unsupported attributes. See Erroneous Attributes, above, for more background on that. The shim can fan out to both the data protection and the file-based keychain. In that case it has to make a policy decision about how to handle errors. This results in some unexpected behaviour (r. 143405965). For example, if you call SecItemCopyMatching while the keychain is locked, the data protection keychain will fail with errSecInteractionNotAllowed (-25308). OTOH, it’s possible to query for the presence of items in the file-based keychain even when it’s locked. If you do that and there’s no matching item, the file-based keychain fails with errSecItemNotFound (-25300). When the shim gets these conflicting errors, it chooses to return the latter. Whether this is right or wrong depends on your perspective, but it’s certainly confusing, especially if you’re coming at this from the iOS side. If you call SecItemDelete without specifying a match limit (kSecMatchLimit), the data protection keychain deletes all matching items, whereas the file-based keychain just deletes a single match (r. 105800863). While these issue have all have bug numbers, there’s no guarantee that any of them will be fixed. Fixing bugs like this is tricky because of binary compatibility concerns. Add-only Attributes Some attributes can only be set when you add an item. These attributes are usually associated with the scope of the item. For example, to protect an item with the Secure Enclave, supply the kSecAttrAccessControl attribute to the SecItemAdd call. Once you do that, however, you can’t change the attribute. Calling SecItemUpdate with a new kSecAttrAccessControl won’t work. Lost Keychain Items A common complaint from developers is that a seemingly minor update to their app has caused it to lose all of its keychain items. Usually this is caused by one of two problems: Entitlement changes Query dictionary confusion Access to keychain items is mediated by various entitlements, as described in Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps. If the two versions of your app have different entitlements, one version may not be able to ‘see’ items created by the other. Imagine you have an app with an App ID of SKMME9E2Y8.com.example.waffle-varnisher. Version 1 of your app is signed with the keychain-access-groups entitlement set to [ SKMME9E2Y8.groupA, SKMME9E2Y8.groupB ]. That makes its keychain access group list [ SKMME9E2Y8.groupA, SKMME9E2Y8.groupB, SKMME9E2Y8.com.example.waffle-varnisher ]. If this app creates a new keychain item without specifying kSecAttrAccessGroup, the system places the item into SKMME9E2Y8.groupA. If version 2 of your app removes SKMME9E2Y8.groupA from the keychain-access-groups, it’ll no longer be able to see the keychain items created by version 1. You’ll also see this problem if you change your App ID prefix, as described in App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access. IMPORTANT When checking for this problem, don’t rely on your .entitlements file. There are many steps between it and your app’s actual entitlements. Rather, run codesign to dump the entitlements of your built app: % codesign -d --entitlements - /path/to/your.app Lost Keychain Items, Redux Another common cause of lost keychain items is confusion about query dictionaries, something discussed in detail in this post and SecItem: Fundamentals. If SecItemCopyMatching isn’t returning the expected item, add some test code to get all the items and their attributes. For example, to dump all the generic password items, run code like this: func dumpGenericPasswords() throws { let itemDicts = try secCall { SecItemCopyMatching([ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecMatchLimit: kSecMatchLimitAll, kSecReturnAttributes: true, ] as NSDictionary, $0) } as! [[String: Any]] print(itemDicts) } Then compare each item’s attributes against the attributes you’re looking for to see why there was no match. Data Protection and Background Execution Keychain items are subject to data protection. Specifically, an item may or may not be accessible depending on whether specific key material is available. For an in-depth discussion of how this works, see Apple Platform Security. Note This section focuses on iOS but you’ll see similar effects on all Apple platforms. On macOS specifically, the contents of this section only apply to the data protection keychain. The keychain supports three data protection levels: kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock kSecAttrAccessibleAlways Note There are additional data protection levels, all with the ThisDeviceOnly suffix. Understanding those is not necessary to understanding this pitfall. Each data protection level describes the lifetime of the key material needed to work with items protected in that way. Specifically: The key material needed to work with a kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked item comes and goes as the user locks and unlocks their device. The key material needed to work with a kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock item becomes available when the device is first unlocked and remains available until the device restarts. The default data protection level is kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked. If you add an item to the keychain and don’t specify a data protection level, this is what you get [1]. To specify a data protection level when you add an item to the keychain, apply the kSecAttrAccessible attribute. Alternatively, embed the access level within a SecAccessControl object and apply that using the kSecAttrAccessControl attribute. IMPORTANT It’s best practice to set these attributes when you add the item and then never update them. See Add-only Attributes, above, for more on that. If you perform an operation whose data protection is incompatible with the currently available key material, that operation fails with errSecInteractionNotAllowed [2]. There are four fundamental keychain operations, discussed in the SecItem: Fundamentals, and each interacts with data protection in a different way: Copy — If you attempt to access a keychain item whose key material is unavailable, SecItemCopyMatching fails with errSecInteractionNotAllowed. This is an obvious result; the whole point of data protection is to enforce this security policy. Add — If you attempt to add a keychain item whose key material is unavailable, SecItemAdd fails with errSecInteractionNotAllowed. This is less obvious. The reason why this fails is that the system needs the key material to protect (by encryption) the keychain item, and it can’t do that if if that key material isn’t available. Update — If you attempt to update a keychain item whose key material is unavailable, SecItemUpdate fails with errSecInteractionNotAllowed. This result is an obvious consequence of the previous result. Delete — Deleting a keychain item, using SecItemDelete, doesn’t require its key material, and thus a delete will succeed when the item is otherwise unavailable. That last point is a significant pitfall. I regularly see keychain code like this: Read an item holding a critical user credential. If that works, use that credential. If it fails, delete the item and start from a ‘factory reset’ state. The problem is that, if your code ends up running in the background unexpectedly, step 1 fails with errSecInteractionNotAllowed and you turn around and delete the user’s credential. Ouch! Note Even if you didn’t write this code, you might have inherited it from a keychain wrapper library. See *Think Before Wrapping, below. There are two paths forward here: If you don’t expect this code to work in the background, check for the errSecInteractionNotAllowed error and non-destructively cancel the operation in that case. If you expect this code to be running in the background, switch to a different data protection level. WARNING For the second path, the most obvious fix is to move from kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked to kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock. However, this is not a panacea. It’s possible that your app might end up running before first unlock [3]. So, if you choose the second path, you must also make sure to follow the advice for the first path. You can determine whether the device is unlocked using the isProtectedDataAvailable property and its associated notifications. However, it’s best not to use this property as part of your core code, because such preflighting is fundamentally racy. Rather, perform the operation and handle the error gracefully. It might make sense to use isProtectedDataAvailable property as part of debugging, logging, and diagnostic code. [1] For file data protection there’s an entitlement (com.apple.developer.default-data-protection) that controls the default data protection level. There’s no such entitlement for the keychain. That’s actually a good thing! In my experience the file data protection entitlement is an ongoing source of grief. See this thread if you’re curious. [2] This might seem like an odd error but it’s actually pretty reasonable: The operation needs some key material that’s currently unavailable. Only a user action can provide that key material. But the data protection keychain will never prompt the user to unlock their device. Thus you get an error instead. [3] iOS generally avoids running third-party code before first unlock, but there are circumstances where that can happen. The obvious legitimate example of this is a VoIP app, where the user expects their phone to ring even if they haven’t unlocked it since the last restart. There are also other less legitimate examples of this, including historical bugs that caused apps to launch in the background before first unlock. Best Practices With the pitfalls out of the way, let’s talk about best practices. Less Painful Dictionaries I look at a lot of keychain code and it’s amazing how much of it is way more painful than it needs to be. The biggest offender here is the dictionaries. Here are two tips to minimise the pain. First, don’t use CFDictionary. It’s seriously ugly. While the SecItem API is defined in terms of CFDictionary, you don’t have to work with CFDictionary directly. Rather, use NSDictionary and take advantage of the toll-free bridge. For example, consider this CFDictionary code: CFTypeRef keys[4] = { kSecClass, kSecAttrService, kSecMatchLimit, kSecReturnAttributes, }; static const int kTen = 10; CFNumberRef ten = CFNumberCreate(NULL, kCFNumberIntType, &kTen); CFAutorelease(ten); CFTypeRef values[4] = { kSecClassGenericPassword, CFSTR("AYS"), ten, kCFBooleanTrue, }; CFDictionaryRef query = CFDictionaryCreate( NULL, keys, values, 4, &kCFTypeDictionaryKeyCallBacks, &kCFTypeDictionaryValueCallBacks ); Note This might seem rather extreme but I’ve literally seen code like this, and worse, while helping developers. Contrast this to the equivalent NSDictionary code: NSDictionary * query = @{ (__bridge NSString *) kSecClass: (__bridge NSString *) kSecClassGenericPassword, (__bridge NSString *) kSecAttrService: @"AYS", (__bridge NSString *) kSecMatchLimit: @10, (__bridge NSString *) kSecReturnAttributes: @YES, }; Wow, that’s so much better. Second, if you’re working in Swift, take advantage of its awesome ability to create NSDictionary values from Swift dictionary literals. Here’s the equivalent code in Swift: let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecMatchLimit: 10, kSecReturnAttributes: true, ] as NSDictionary Nice! Avoid Reusing Dictionaries I regularly see folks reuse dictionaries for different SecItem calls. For example, they might have code like this: var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let dict = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecReturnData: true, ] as NSMutableDictionary var err = SecItemCopyMatching(dict, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { dict[kSecValueData] = Data("opendoor".utf8) err = SecItemAdd(dict, nil) } This specific example will work, but it’s easy to spot the logic error. kSecReturnData is a return type property and it makes no sense to pass it to a SecItemAdd call whose second parameter is nil. I’m not sure why folks do this. I think it’s because they think that constructing dictionaries is expensive. Regardless, this pattern can lead to all sorts of weird problems. For example, it’s the leading cause of the issue described in the Queries and the Uniqueness Constraints section, above. My advice is that you use a new dictionary for each call. That prevents state from one call accidentally leaking into a subsequent call. For example, I’d rewrite the above as: var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecReturnData: true, ] as NSMutableDictionary var err = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { let add = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecValueData: Data("opendoor".utf8), ] as NSMutableDictionary err = SecItemAdd(add, nil) } It’s a bit longer, but it’s much easier to track the flow. And if you want to eliminate the repetition, use a helper function: func makeDict() -> NSMutableDictionary { [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", ] as NSMutableDictionary } var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let query = makeDict() query[kSecReturnData] = true var err = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { let add = makeDict() query[kSecValueData] = Data("opendoor".utf8) err = SecItemAdd(add, nil) } Think Before Wrapping A lot of folks look at the SecItem API and immediately reach for a wrapper library. A keychain wrapper library might seem like a good idea but there are some serious downsides: It adds another dependency to your project. Different subsystems within your project may use different wrappers. The wrapper can obscure the underlying API. Indeed, its entire raison d’être is to obscure the underlying API. This is problematic if things go wrong. I regularly talk to folks with hard-to-debug keychain problems and the conversation goes something like this: Quinn: What attributes do you use in the query dictionary? J R Developer: What’s a query dictionary? Quinn: OK, so what error are you getting back? J R Developer: It throws WrapperKeychainFailedError. That’s not helpful )-: If you do use a wrapper, make sure it has diagnostic support that includes the values passed to and from the SecItem API. Also make sure that, when it fails, it returns an error that includes the underlying keychain error code. These benefits will be particularly useful if you encounter a keychain problem that only shows up in the field. Wrappers must choose whether to be general or specific. A general wrapper may be harder to understand than the equivalent SecItem calls, and it’ll certainly contain a lot of complex code. On the other hand, a specific wrapper may have a model of the keychain that doesn’t align with your requirements. I recommend that you think twice before using a keychain wrapper. Personally I find the SecItem API relatively easy to call, assuming that: I use the techniques shown in Less Painful Dictionaries, above, to avoid having to deal with CFDictionary. I use my secCall(…) helpers to simplify error handling. For the code, see Calling Security Framework from Swift. If you’re not prepared to take the SecItem API neat, consider writing your own wrapper, one that’s tightly focused on the requirements of your project. For example, in my VPN apps I use the wrapper from this post, which does exactly what I need in about 100 lines of code. Prefer to Update Of the four SecItem functions, SecItemUpdate is the most neglected. Rather than calling SecItemUpdate I regularly see folks delete and then re-add the item. This is a shame because SecItemUpdate has some important benefits: It preserves persistent references. If you delete and then re-add the item, you get a new item with a new persistent reference. It’s well aligned with the fundamental database nature of the keychain. It forces you to think about which attributes uniquely identify your item and which items can be updated without changing the item’s identity. Understand These Key Attributes Key items have a number of attributes that are similarly named, and it’s important to keep them straight. I created a cheat sheet for this, namely, SecItem attributes for keys. You wouldn’t believe how often I consult this! Investigating Complex Attributes Some attributes have values where the format is not obvious. For example, the kSecAttrIssuer attributed is documented as: The corresponding value is of type CFData and contains the X.500 issuer name of a certificate. What exactly does that mean? If I want to search the keychain for all certificates issued by a specific certificate authority, what value should I supply? One way to figure this out is to add a certificate to the keychain, read the attributes back, and then dump the kSecAttrIssuer value. For example: let cert: SecCertificate = … let attrs = try secCall { SecItemAdd([ kSecValueRef: cert, kSecReturnAttributes: true, ] as NSDictionary, $0) } as! [String: Any] let issuer = attrs[kSecAttrIssuer as String] as! NSData print((issuer as NSData).debugDescription) // prints: <3110300e 06035504 030c074d 6f757365 4341310b 30090603 55040613 024742> Those bytes represent the contents of a X.509 Name ASN.1 structure with DER encoding. This is without the outer SEQUENCE element, so if you dump it as ASN.1 you’ll get a nice dump of the first SET and then a warning about extra stuff at the end of the file: % xxd issuer.asn1 00000000: 3110 300e 0603 5504 030c 074d 6f75 7365 1.0...U....Mouse 00000010: 4341 310b 3009 0603 5504 0613 0247 42 CA1.0...U....GB % dumpasn1 -p issuer.asn1 SET { SEQUENCE { OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) UTF8String 'MouseCA' } } Warning: Further data follows ASN.1 data at position 18. Note For details on the Name structure, see section 4.1.2.4 of RFC 5280. Amusingly, if you run the same test against the file-based keychain you’ll… crash. OK, that’s not amusing. It turns out that the code above doesn’t work when targeting the file-based keychain because SecItemAdd doesn’t return a dictionary but rather an array of dictionaries (r. 21111543). Once you get past that, however, you’ll see it print: <301f3110 300e0603 5504030c 074d6f75 73654341 310b3009 06035504 06130247 42> Which is different! Dumping it as ASN.1 shows that it’s the full Name structure, including the outer SEQUENCE element: % xxd issuer-file-based.asn1 00000000: 301f 3110 300e 0603 5504 030c 074d 6f75 0.1.0...U....Mou 00000010: 7365 4341 310b 3009 0603 5504 0613 0247 seCA1.0...U....G 00000020: 42 B % dumpasn1 -p issuer-file-based.asn1 SEQUENCE { SET { SEQUENCE { OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) UTF8String 'MouseCA' } } SET { SEQUENCE { OBJECT IDENTIFIER countryName (2 5 4 6) PrintableString 'GB' } } } This difference in behaviour between the data protection and file-based keychains is a known bug (r. 26391756) but in this case it’s handy because the file-based keychain behaviour makes it easier to understand the data protection keychain behaviour. Import, Then Add It’s possible to import data directly into the keychain. For example, you might use this code to add a certificate: let certData: Data = … try secCall { SecItemAdd([ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecValueData: certData, ] as NSDictionary, nil) } However, it’s better to import the data and then add the resulting credential reference. For example: let certData: Data = … let cert = try secCall { SecCertificateCreateWithData(nil, certData as NSData) } try secCall { SecItemAdd([ kSecValueRef: cert, ] as NSDictionary, nil) } There are two advantages to this: If you get an error, you know whether the problem was with the import step or the add step. It ensures that the resulting keychain item has the correct attributes. This is especially important for keys. These can be packaged in a wide range of formats, so it’s vital to know whether you’re interpreting the key data correctly. I see a lot of code that adds key data directly to the keychain. That’s understandable because, back in the day, this was the only way to import a key on iOS. Fortunately, that’s not been the case since the introduction of SecKeyCreateWithData in iOS 10 and aligned releases. For more information about importing keys, see Importing Cryptographic Keys. App Groups on the Mac Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps explains that three entitlements determine your keychain access: keychain-access-groups application-identifier (com.apple.application-identifier on macOS) com.apple.security.application-groups In the discussion of com.apple.security.application-groups it says: Starting in iOS 8, the array of strings given by this entitlement also extends the list of keychain access groups. That’s true, but it’s also potentially misleading. This affordance only works on iOS and its child platforms. It doesn’t work on macOS. That’s because app groups work very differently on macOS than they do on iOS. For all the details, see App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony. However, the take-home point is that, when you use the data protection keychain on macOS, your keychain access group list is built from keychain-access-groups and com.apple.application-identifier. Revision History 2025-06-29 Added the Data Protection and Background Execution section. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-02-03 Added another specific example to the Careful With that Shim, Mac Developer section. 2025-01-29 Added somes specific examples to the Careful With that Shim, Mac Developer section. 2025-01-23 Added the Import, Then Add section. 2024-08-29 Added a discussion of identity formation to the Digital Identities Aren’t Real section. 2024-04-11 Added the App Groups on the Mac section. 2023-10-25 Added the Lost Keychain Items and Lost Keychain Items, Redux sections. 2023-09-22 Made minor editorial changes. 2023-09-12 Fixed various bugs in the revision history. Added the Erroneous Attributes section. 2023-02-22 Fixed the link to the VPNKeychain post. Corrected the name of the Context Matters section. Added the Investigating Complex Attributes section. 2023-01-28 First posted.

Using personal physical iPhone for simulations. Can't get Keychain to read or store AppleID name/email. I want to avoid hard reseting physical phone. Logs confirm Keychain is working, but userIdentifier and savedEmail are not being stored correctly. 🔄 Initializing UserManager... ✅ Saved testKeychain to Keychain: Test Value ✅ Retrieved testKeychain from Keychain: Test Value 🔍 Keychain Test - Retrieved Value: Test Value ⚠️ Keychain Retrieve Warning: No stored value found for userIdentifier ⚠️ Keychain Retrieve Warning: No stored value found for savedEmail 🔍 Debug - Retrieved from Keychain: userIdentifier=nil, savedEmail=nil ⚠️ No stored userIdentifier in Keychain. User needs to sign in. 📦 Converting User to CKRecord: Unknown, No Email ✅ User saved locally: Unknown, No Email ✅ User saved to CloudKit: Unknown, No Email Below UserManager.swift if someone can help troubleshoot. Or step by step tutorial to configure a project and build a User Login &amp; User Account creation for Apple Only app. import Foundation import CloudKit import AuthenticationServices import SwiftData @MainActor class UserManager: ObservableObject { @Published var user: User? @Published var isLoggedIn = false @Published var errorMessage: String? private let database = CKContainer.default().publicCloudDatabase init() { print("🔄 Initializing UserManager...") // 🔍 Keychain Debug Test let testKey = "testKeychain" KeychainHelper.shared.save("Test Value", forKey: testKey) let retrievedValue = KeychainHelper.shared.retrieve(forKey: testKey) print("🔍 Keychain Test - Retrieved Value: \(retrievedValue ?? "nil")") fetchUser() // Continue normal initialization } // ✅ Sign in &amp; Save User func handleSignIn(_ authResults: ASAuthorization) { guard let appleIDCredential = authResults.credential as? ASAuthorizationAppleIDCredential else { errorMessage = "Error retrieving Apple credentials" print("❌ ASAuthorization Error: Invalid credentials received") return } let userIdentifier = appleIDCredential.user let fullName = appleIDCredential.fullName?.givenName ?? retrieveSavedName() var email = appleIDCredential.email ?? retrieveSavedEmail() print("🔍 Apple Sign-In Data: userIdentifier=\(userIdentifier), fullName=\(fullName), email=\(email)") // 🔄 If Apple doesn't return an email, check if it exists in Keychain if appleIDCredential.email == nil { print("⚠️ Apple Sign-In didn't return an email. Retrieving saved email from Keychain.") } // ✅ Store userIdentifier &amp; email in Keychain KeychainHelper.shared.save(userIdentifier, forKey: "userIdentifier") KeychainHelper.shared.save(email, forKey: "savedEmail") let newUser = User(fullName: fullName, email: email, userIdentifier: userIdentifier) saveUserToCloudKit(newUser) } func saveUserToCloudKit(_ user: User) { let record = user.toRecord() Task { do { try await database.save(record) DispatchQueue.main.async { self.user = user self.isLoggedIn = true self.saveUserLocally(user) print("✅ User saved to CloudKit: \(user.fullName), \(user.email)") } } catch { DispatchQueue.main.async { self.errorMessage = "Error saving user: \(error.localizedDescription)" print("❌ CloudKit Save Error: \(error.localizedDescription)") } } } } // ✅ Fetch User from CloudKit func fetchUser() { let userIdentifier = KeychainHelper.shared.retrieve(forKey: "userIdentifier") let savedEmail = KeychainHelper.shared.retrieve(forKey: "savedEmail") print("🔍 Debug - Retrieved from Keychain: userIdentifier=\(userIdentifier ?? "nil"), savedEmail=\(savedEmail ?? "nil")") guard let userIdentifier = userIdentifier else { print("⚠️ No stored userIdentifier in Keychain. User needs to sign in.") return } let predicate = NSPredicate(format: "userIdentifier == %@", userIdentifier) let query = CKQuery(recordType: "User", predicate: predicate) Task { [weak self] in guard let self = self else { return } do { let results = try await self.database.records(matching: query, resultsLimit: 1).matchResults if let (_, result) = results.first { switch result { case .success(let record): DispatchQueue.main.async { let fetchedUser = User(record: record) self.user = User( fullName: fetchedUser.fullName, email: savedEmail ?? fetchedUser.email, userIdentifier: userIdentifier ) self.isLoggedIn = true self.saveUserLocally(self.user!) print("✅ User loaded from CloudKit: \(fetchedUser.fullName), \(fetchedUser.email)") } case .failure(let error): DispatchQueue.main.async { print("❌ Error fetching user from CloudKit: \(error.localizedDescription)") } } } } catch { DispatchQueue.main.async { print("❌ CloudKit fetch error: \(error.localizedDescription)") } } } } // ✅ Save User Locally private func saveUserLocally(_ user: User) { if let encoded = try? JSONEncoder().encode(user) { UserDefaults.standard.set(encoded, forKey: "savedUser") UserDefaults.standard.set(user.fullName, forKey: "savedFullName") UserDefaults.standard.set(user.email, forKey: "savedEmail") print("✅ User saved locally: \(user.fullName), \(user.email)") } else { print("❌ Local Save Error: Failed to encode user data") } } // ✅ Retrieve Previously Saved Name private func retrieveSavedName() -&gt; String { return UserDefaults.standard.string(forKey: "savedFullName") ?? "Unknown" } // ✅ Retrieve Previously Saved Email private func retrieveSavedEmail() -&gt; String { return KeychainHelper.shared.retrieve(forKey: "savedEmail") ?? UserDefaults.standard.string(forKey: "savedEmail") ?? "No Email" } // ✅ Sign Out func signOut() { isLoggedIn = false user = nil UserDefaults.standard.removeObject(forKey: "savedUser") print("🚪 Signed Out") } }

Hey, there are plans to design a government app. When a citizen will login they will see their passport, driving license etc... What is the solution of avoiding mandatory in-app user data deletion?

My application is supporting hybrid transport on FIDO2 webAuthn specs to create credential and assertion. And it support legacy passkeys which only mean to save to 1 device and not eligible to backup. However In my case, if i set the Backup Eligibility and Backup State flag to false, it fails on the completion of the registrationRequest to save the passkey credential within credential extension, the status is false instead of true. self.extension.completeRegistrationRequest(using: passkeyRegistrationCredential) The attestation and assertion flow only works when both flags set to true. Can advice why its must have to set both to true in this case?

While I was submitting a new feedback today for an iPhone/iPad storage issue, I saw a new log called “iOS storage log”. I could find no reference to this when I searched online. It made me wonder if it was new and if it contained personal data? Most of us only have one device, with all our personal data. Therefore, I’d appreciate any input on what personal data these logs contain.

Hi, my app is receiving all keyboard events through Input Monitoring preference. It completely stopped to work on macOS 15 Sequoia and I have no idea why. Where can I read what has been changed in Input Monitoring? Thanks!