Hi,is there an option to mark the file or folder or item stored in user defaults ... not to be backed up when doing unencrypted backup in iTunes?We are developing iOS app that contains sensitive data. But even if we enable Data Protection for the iOS app it can be backed up on mac unencrypted using iTunes. Is there a way to allow backing up content only if the backup is encrypted?

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?

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?

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.

Our application uses device check api to validate the device token in staging server. We are using "https://api.development.devicecheck.apple.com/v1/validate_device_token"for this.But the response is 500 internal server error. Our production build is working fine.We pointed the build to "https://api.devicecheck.apple.com/v1/validate_device_token" url.We are using the same device check key for both development and production server. Device check was working fine in development server also.Suddenly it started to failed with out making any changes in our code.

Hi. We're writing Authorization Plugin and started with NullAuthPlugin compilation. When tried to run it on VM (Sonoma 14.6, SIP enabled), we're going into the following issue: `2025-03-08 13:38:20.699503-0800 0xdcb0 Error 0x0 0 0 kernel: (AppleMobileFileIntegrity) [com.apple.MobileFileIntegrity:library_validation_failure] Library Validation failed: Rejecting '/Library/Security/SecurityAgentPlugins/NullAuthPlugin.bundle/Contents/MacOS/NullAuthPlugin' (Team ID: ABCD12EF34, platform: no) for process 'SecurityAgentHel(2094)' (Team ID: N/A, platform: yes), reason: mapping process is a platform binary, but mapped file is not' As I understand, the platform binary is the one signed with Apple signature, which indeed is unavailable for us. How can we avoid this issue and run the plugin? Perhaps we're missing some build setting requirement?

Due to business requirements, we need to transfer our app Gem Space for iOS from our current Apple Developer account to a new account. We have a major concern regarding our users and the data associated with the app. The user data is currently stored using an App Group with the identifier, for example: "group.com.app.sharedData" According to some information we’ve found, it might be possible to complete the transfer by removing the App Group from the old account and creating a new one with the same identifier in the new account. However, other sources suggest that App Group containers are owned by the specific team, and data stored in the container may become inaccessible after the app is transferred to a different team. This raises concerns about the possibility of users losing access to their data after updating the app from the new account. Could you please clarify the expected behavior of App Groups in this case? Do we need to perform any kind of data migration, and if so, could you please provide detailed guidance on how to do it safely and without impacting user data access?

My app Mocawave is a music player distributed through the Mac App Store. It declares specific audio document types (public.mp3, com.microsoft.waveform-audio, public.mpeg-4-audio, public.aac-audio) in its CFBundleDocumentTypes with a Viewer role. When a user sets Mocawave as the default app for audio files and double-clicks an MP3 downloaded from the internet (which has the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute), macOS displays the alert: "Apple could not verify [filename] is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy." This does not happen when: Opening the same file via NSOpenPanel from within the app Opening the same file with Apple's Music.app or QuickTime Player The app is: Distributed through the Mac App Store Sandboxed (com.apple.security.app-sandbox) Uses com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write entitlement The file being opened is a regular audio file (MP3), not an executable. Since the app is sandboxed and distributed through the App Store, I expected it to have sufficient trust to open quarantined data files without triggering Gatekeeper warnings — similar to how Music.app and QuickTime handle them. Questions: Is there a specific entitlement or Info.plist configuration that allows a sandboxed Mac App Store app to open quarantined audio files without this alert? Is this expected behavior for third-party App Store apps, or could this indicate a misconfiguration on my end? Environment: macOS 15 (Sequoia), app built with Swift/SwiftUI, targeting macOS 13+.

Hi all, I’m building a macOS-native C++ trading bot, compiled via Xcode. It sends REST API requests to a crypto exchange (Bitvavo) that require HMAC-SHA256 signatures using a pre-sign string (timestamp + method + path + body) and an API secret. Here’s the issue: • The exact same pre-sign string and API secret produce valid responses when signed using Python (hmac.new(secret, msg, hashlib.sha256)), • But when I generate the HMAC signature using C++ (HMAC(EVP_sha256, ...) via OpenSSL), the exchange returns an invalid signature error. Environment: • Xcode 15.3 / macOS 14.x • OpenSSL installed via Homebrew • HMAC test vectors match Python’s output for basic strings (so HMAC lib seems correct) Yet when using the real API keys and dynamic timestamped messages, something differs enough to break verification — possibly due to UTF-8 encoding, memory alignment, or newline handling differences in the Xcode C++ runtime? Has anyone experienced subtle differences between Python and C++ HMAC-SHA256 behavior when compiled in Xcode? I’ve published a GitHub repo for reproducibility: 🔗 https://github.com/vanBaardewijk/bitvavo-cpp-signature-test Thanks in advance for any suggestions or insights. Sascha

Hi team, We are experiencing an issue where some users in China are unable to create passkeys due to authentication errors. This is the UI flows The method we use to prompt users is passkey creation. Technically, this is implemented using Apple’s AuthenticationServices framework. We create an instance of ASAuthorizationController and conform to ASAuthorizationControllerDelegate to handle the results of the authentication attempt. In failure cases, we receive ASAuthorizationError.failed (code 1004), along with some additional details describing the nature of the failure. However, we are currently unable to determine the exact root cause of this issue or how to resolve it. At this point, we can only make assumptions based on the limited error information provided. Our current hypothesis is that due to network restrictions, Apple may be unable to reach the .well-known endpoint where we host the associated domain file. Alternatively, even if the file is successfully loaded and cached to Apple’s CDN, the system in China may not be able to reach the CDN itself. We would greatly appreciate it if you could help us understand what might be causing this problem and guide us on how we can resolve it effectively. Thanks, Hung

For context, my company develops a data loss prevention (DLP) product. Part of our functionality is the ability to detect sensitive data being pasted into a web browser or cloud-based app. The AppKit release notes for April 2025 document an upcoming “macOS pasteboard privacy” feature, which will presumably ship in macOS 26. Using the user default setting “EnablePasteboardPrivacyDeveloperPreview” documented in the release notes, I tested our agent under macOS 15.5, and encountered a modal alert reading " is trying to access the pasteboard" almost immediately, when the program reads the General pasteboard to scan its contents. Since our product is aimed at enterprise customers (and not individual Mac users), I believed Apple would implement a privacy control setting for this new feature. This would allow our customers to push a configuration profile via MDM, with the “Paste from Other Apps” setting for our application preset to “Allow”, so that they can install our product on their endpoints without manual intervention. Unfortunately, as of macOS 26 beta 4 (25A5316i), there does not seem to be any such setting documented under Device Management — for example in PrivacyPreferencesPolicyControl.Services, which lists a number of similar settings. Without such a setting available, a valuable function of our product will be effectively crippled when macOS 26 is released. Is there such a setting (that I've overlooked)? If not, allow me to urge Apple to find the resources to implement one, so that our customers can preset “Paste from Other Apps” to “Allow” for our application.

Since release of 18.4. prepareInterfaceToProvideCredential .oneTimeCode case is not called and instead prepareInterfaceForUserChoosingTextToInsert() is called. That is the wrong delegate for this case and it causes confusion for the users. Also, some TOTP fields are recognised however, the key icon button is not presented above the keyboard next to TOTP suggestions. I've also tested 18.5 and it has the same issue. provideOneTimeCodeWithoutUserInteraction works just fine.

We are using ASWebAuthenticationSession with apps on IoS to achieve SSO between apps. The IdP for authentication (OIDC) is an on-premise and trusted enterprise IdP based on one of the leading products in the market. Our problem is that the user is prompted for every login (and logouts) with a consent dialogue box: “AppName” wants to use “internal domain-name” to Sign In This allows the app and website to share information about you. Cancel Continue” I have read in various places that Apple has a concept of “Trusted domains” where you can put an “Apple certified” static web-page on the IdP. This page needs to contain specific metadata that iOS can verify. Once a user logs in successfully a few times, and if the IdP is verified as trusted, subsequent logins would not prompt the consent screen. Question: I struggle to find Apple documentation on how to go about a process that ends with this “Apple certified web-page” on our IdP”. Anyone who has experience with this process, or who can point me in some direction to find related documentation?

I have been implementing an sdk for authenticating a user. I have noticed that on iOS 18.5, whether using SFSafariViewController, or the sdk (built on ASWebAuthenticationSession), password autofill does not work. I have confirmed it works on a different device running iOS 18.0.1. Are there any work arounds for this at this time? Specifically for ASWebAuthenticationSession?

In one of my apps I would like to find out if users have their device set up to authenticate with their Apple Watch. According to the documentation (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/localauthentication/lapolicy/deviceownerauthenticationwithcompanion) this would be done by evaluating the LAPolicy like this: var error: NSError? var canEvaluateCompanion = false if #available(iOS 18.0, *) { canEvaluateCompanion = context.canEvaluatePolicy(.deviceOwnerAuthenticationWithCompanion, error: &error) } But when I run this on my iPhone 16 Pro (iOS 18.5) with a paired Apple Watch SE 2nd Gen (watchOS 11.5) it always returns false and the error is -1000 "No companion device available". But authentication with my watch is definitely enabled, because I regularly unlock my phone with the watch. Other evaluations of using biometrics just works as expected. Anything that I am missing?

Hello, we are using DeviceCheck – App Attest in a production iOS app. The integration has been live for some time and works correctly for most users, but a small subset of users encounter non-deterministic failures that we are unable to reproduce internally. Environment iOS 14+ Real devices only (no simulator) App Attest capability enabled Correct App ID, Team ID and App Attest entitlement Production environment Relevant code let service = DCAppAttestService.shared service.generateKey { keyId, error in // key generation } service.attestKey(keyId, clientDataHash: hash) { attestation, error in // ERROR: com.apple.devicecheck.error 3 / 4 } service.generateAssertion(keyId, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) { assertion, error in // ERROR: com.apple.devicecheck.error 3 / 4 } For some users we intermittently receive: com.apple.devicecheck.error error 3 com.apple.devicecheck.error error 4 Characteristics: appears random affects only some users/devices sometimes resolves after time or reinstall not reproducible on our test devices NSError contains no additional diagnostic info Some questions: What is the official meaning of App Attest errors 3 and 4? Are these errors related to key state, device conditions, throttling, or transient App Attest service issues? Is there any recommended way to debug or gain more insight when this happens in production? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated, as this impacts real users and is difficult to diagnose. Thank you.

Hi community, I'm wondering how can I request the permission of "System Audio Recording Only" under the Privacy & Security -> Screen & System Audio Recording via swift? Did a bunch of search but didn't find good documentation on it. Tried another approach here https://github.com/insidegui/AudioCap/blob/main/AudioCap/ProcessTap/AudioRecordingPermission.swift which doesn't work very reliably.

[Q] When is the kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient set by macOS and in which conditions? From what I'm gathering, the kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient can not be set by a configuration profile and the end user can only grant full disk access. I searched for documentation on Apple's develop website (with the "kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient" search) and did not get any useful result. Using a more complete search engine, or the forum search engine, only points to the old annoying big bug in macOS Ventura. The problem I'm investigating is showing a process being listed as getting granted kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient permissions in the TCC database when: it's not an Endpoint Security client. it does not have the ES Client entitlement. the bundle of the process includes another process that is an ES Client and is spawn-ed by this process but I don't see why this should have an impact. This process is supposed to have been granted kTCCServiceSystemPolicyAllFiles via end user interaction or configuration profile. AFAIK, the kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient permission can only be set by macOS itself. So this looks like to be either a bug in macOS, an undocumented behavior or I'm missing something. Hence the initial question. macOS 15.7.3 / Apple Silicon

Hi there, I'm trying to use SFAuthorizationPluginView in order to show some fields in the login screen, have the user click the arrow, then continue to show more fields as a second step of authentication. How can I accomplish this? Register multiple SecurityAgentPlugins each with their own mechanism and nib? Some how get MacOS to call my SFAuthorizationPluginView::view() and return a new view? Manually remove text boxes and put in new ones when button is pressed I don't believe 1 works, for the second mechanism ended up calling the first mechanism's view's view() Cheers, -Ken

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