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?

Hello, When using ASWebAuthenticationSession with an HTTPS callback URL (Universal Link), I receive the following error: Authorization error: The operation couldn't be completed. Application with identifier jp.xxxx.yyyy.dev is not associated with domain xxxx-example.go.link. Using HTTPS callbacks requires Associated Domains using the webcredentials service type for xxxx-example.go.link. I checked Apple’s official documentation but couldn’t find any clear statement that webcredentials is required when using HTTPS callbacks in ASWebAuthenticationSession. What I’d like to confirm: Is webcredentials officially required when using HTTPS as a callback URL with ASWebAuthenticationSession? If so, is there any official documentation or technical note that states this requirement? Environment iOS 18.6.2 Xcode 16.4 Any clarification or official references would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Has anybody else experienced something similar? This is on the login screen. I call update() and it doesn't call me back with view() 2025-08-21 17:04:38.669 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[1134:2df1] [***:LoginView] calling update() Then silence...

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.

Title: Sporadical - Permissions Not Cleared After App Uninstallation on iOS18 I install and launch my private MAUI App I ask for example Bluetooth permissions (can be any other permission) I tap Allow button on native settings (or Don't Allow) I unistall app from real phone (we can wait for a while) I install and launch My Private MAUI App I ask for example Bluetooth permissions <- here is an issue. Bluetooth is already granted, so I cannot ask for it again. Occurrence: This issue occurs inconsistently: On iOS 18.5: approximately 5 out of 10 times On iOS 17: approximately 1 out of 50 times Tested using my automated system using Appium latest. After each scenario I unistall app using: "mobile: removeApp" with bundleId

Our business model is to identify Frauds using our advanced AI/ML model. However, in order to do so we need to collect many device information which seems to be ok according to https://developer.apple.com/app-store/user-privacy-and-data-use/ But it's also prohibited to generate a fingerprint, so I need more clarification here. Does it mean I can only use the data to identify that a user if either fraud or not but I cannot generate a fingerprint to identify the device? If so, I can see many SKD in the market that generates Fingerprints like https://fingerprint.com/blog/local-device-fingerprint-ios/ and https://shield.com/?

Hello everyone, We recently transferred our iOS app from one Apple Developer account to another, and after the transfer, we encountered a serious issue where all previously stored Keychain data and the local database became inaccessible. As a result, all users are automatically logged out and lose access to their locally stored data (such as chat history) once they update to the new version signed with the new Team ID. We understand that Keychain items are tied to the App ID prefix (Team ID), which changes during an app transfer. However, we’re looking for possible workarounds or best practices to avoid user data loss. Questions: Is there any reliable method to maintain or migrate access to old Keychain data after an app transfer? Would reverting the app back to the original developer account and releasing an update from there (to persist or migrate data) before transferring it again be a viable solution? Has anyone faced a similar issue and found a practical way to handle data persistence during an app transfer? Any guidance, technical suggestions, or shared experiences would be highly appreciated. This issue is causing major impact for our users, so we’re hoping to find a safe and supported approach. Thank you, Mohammed Hassan

In the hopes of saving others time, the updated demo project (i.e. the new Shiny) can be found from the video 'Resources' section under 'Performing fast account creation with passkeys'. The beta documentation can also be found from there. All of the new functionality is available only on *OS 26 at this time.

Hi everyone, I'm developing a C++ plugin (.bundle) for a third-party host application (Autodesk Maya) on macOS, and I'm finalizing the design for our licensing system. The plugin is distributed outside the Mac App Store. My goal is to securely store a license key in the user's Keychain. After some research, my proposed implementation is as follows: On activation, store the license data in the user's login keychain as a Generic Password (kSecClassGenericPassword) using the SecItem APIs. To ensure the plugin can access the item when loaded by Maya, I will use a specific Keychain Access Group (e.g., MY_TEAM_ID.com.mywebsite). The final .bundle will be code-signed with our company's Developer ID certificate. The signature will include an entitlements file (.entitlements) that specifies the matching keychain-access-groups permission. My understanding is that this combination of a unique Keychain Access Group and a properly signed/entitled bundle is the key to getting reliable Keychain access. This should also correctly trigger the one-time user permission prompt on first use. Does this sound like the correct and most robust approach for this scenario? Are there any common pitfalls with a plugin's Keychain access from within a host app that I should be aware of? Thanks for any feedback!

We are using Apple's PSSO to federate device login to out own IdP. We have developed our own extension app and deployed it using MDM. Things works fine but there are 2 issues that we are trying to get to the root cause - On some devices after restarting we see an error message on the logic screen saying "The registration for this device is invalid and must be repaired" And other error message is "SmartCard configuration is invalid for this account" For the 1st we have figured out that this happens when the registration doesn't happen fully and the key is not tied to the user so when the disk needs to be decrypted at the FileVault screen the issue is raised. For the "SmartCard configuration is invalid for this account" issue also one aspect is invalid registration but there has been other instances as well where the devices were registered completely but then also the the above error was raised. We verified the registration being completed by checking if the SmartCard is visible in the System Report containing the key. Has anyone seen the above issues and any possible resolution around it?

We have a macOS app that has a Photos Extension, which shares documents with the app via an app group container. Historically we used to have an iOS-style group identifier (group.${TeamIdentifier}${groupName}), because we were lead by the web interface in the developer portal to believe this to be the right way to name groups. Later with the first macOS 15 betas last year there was a bug with the operating system warning users, our app would access data from different apps, but it was our own app group container directory. Therefore we added a macOS-style group identifier (${TeamIdentifier}${groupName}) and wrote a migration of documents to the new group container directory. So basically we need to have access to these two app group containers for the foreseeable future. Now with the introduction of iOS-style group identifiers for macOS, Xcode Cloud no longer archives our app for TestFlight or AppStore, because it complains: ITMS-90286: Invalid code signing entitlements - Your application bundle’s signature contains code signing entitlements that aren’t supported on macOS. Specifically, the “[group.${TeamIdentifier}${groupName}, ${TeamIdentifier}${groupName}]” value for the com.apple.security.application-groups key in isn’t supported. This value should be a string or an array of strings, where each string is the “group” value or your Team ID, followed by a dot (“.”), followed by the group name. If you're using the “group” prefix, verify that the provisioning profile used to sign the app contains the com.apple.security.application-groups entitlement and its associated value(s). We have included the iOS-style group identifier in the provisioning profile, generated automatically, but can't do the same for the macOS-style group identifier, because the web interface only accepts identifiers starting with "group". How can we get Xcode Cloud to archive our app again using both group identifiers? Thanks in advance

I modified the system.login.screensaver rule in the authorization database to use "authenticate" instead of "use-login-window-ui" to display a custom authentication plugin view when the screensaver starts or the screen locks. However, I noticed an issue when the "Require Password after Display is Turned Off" setting is set to 5 minutes in lock screen settings: If I close my Mac’s lid and reopen it within 5 minutes, my authentication plugin view is displayed as expected. However, the screen is not in a locked state—the desktop remains accessible, and the black background that typically appears behind the lock screen is missing. This behavior differs from the default lock screen behavior, where the screen remains fully locked, and the desktop is hidden. Has anyone encountered this issue before? Is there a way to ensure the screen properly locks when using authenticate in the screensaver rule?

I need to open p12 file from other iOS applications to import private key to my application. My app is set up to be able to open nay file with following plist <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>CFBundleDocumentTypes</key> <array> <dict> <key>CFBundleTypeName</key> <string>Files</string> <key>LSHandlerRank</key> <string>Default</string> <key>LSItemContentTypes</key> <array> <string>public.item</string> <string>public.data</string> <string>public.content</string> </array> </dict> </array> </dict> </plist> But my don't appear in share dialog from Files or Mail app for example. There are however other third party apps that can accept this file. Some of them use Share extension which I don't have, but some of them don't have it as far as I can understand. At least they don't present any UI and open apps directly. Also I've tried to specify com.rsa.pkcs-12 UTI directly but it didn't help. Also noticed that *.crt files have similar behaviour. Am I missing something about this specific file type?

The header documentation for the (deprecated) LAContext.evaluatedPolicyDomainState property contains the following: @warning Please note that the value returned by this property can change exceptionally between major OS versions even if the state of biometry has not changed. I noticed that the documentation for the new LAContext.domainState property does not contain a similar warning. I also found this related thread from 2016/17. Is the domainState property not susceptible to changes between major OS versions? Or is this generally not an issue anymore?

I have a project with a single app target that serves two environments, and two schemes, one for each env, using xcconfig files for defining environment-specific stuff. I'm trying to figure this out for months, so I've tried multiple approaches throughout this period: Have a single domain in "Associated domains" in Xcode, defined as webcredentials:X where X gets replaced using a value from xcconfig. Have two domain entries in "Associated domains" webcredentials:PROD_DOMAIN and webcredentials:STAGING_DOMAIN. Have a different order of domains Results are very interesting: whatever I do, whatever approach I take, password autofill works on staging, but doesn't work on production. I'm aware that we need to test production on Test Flight and AppStore builds. That's how we're testing it, and it's not working. Tested on multiple devices, on multiple networks (wifi + mobile data), in multiple countries.. you name it. The server side team has checked their implementation a dozen times; it's all configured properly, in the exact same way across environments (except bundle ID, ofc). We tried a couple websites for validating the apple-app-site-association file, and while all of those are focused on testing universal links, they all reported that the file is configured properly. Still, password autofill doesn't work. I prefer not to share my app's domains publicly here. Ideally I would contact Apple Developer Support directly, but they now require a test project for that, and since 'a test project' is not applicable to my issue, I'm posting here instead.

Hello Experts, I am in need of your help with this feedback from the App Reviewer. Issue Description: One or more purpose strings in the app do not sufficiently explain the use of protected resources. Purpose strings must clearly and completely describe the app's use of data and, in most cases, provide an example of how the data will be used. Next Steps: Update the location purpose string to explain how the app will use the requested information and provide a specific example of how the data will be used. See the attached screenshot. Resources: Purpose strings must clearly describe how an app uses the ability, data, or resource. The following are hypothetical examples of unclear purpose strings that would not pass review: "App would like to access your Contacts" "App needs microphone access" Feedback #2 "Regarding 5.1.1, we understand why your app needs access to location. However, the permission request alert does not sufficiently explain this to your users before accessing the location. To resolve this issue, it would be appropriate to revise the location permission request, specify why your app needs access, and provide an example of how your app will use the user's data. To learn more about purpose string requirements, watch a video from App Review with tips for writing clear purpose strings. We look forward to reviewing your app once the appropriate changes have been made." May I know how can I update my purpose string? I appealed on the first feedback by explaining what is the purpose of it but got the Feedback #2. TYIA!!

Hello everyone, I'm working on a project where I intend to use Secure Enclave-based, device-bound private keys within a Webauthn flow. I have the following question: Is it possible to generate private keys in the Secure Enclave with integrated attestation in order to reliably prove to a relying party the authenticity and uncompromised state of the key? If so, I would appreciate details on the implementation—specifically, any prerequisites, limitations, or particular API calls and configuration options that need to be considered. I look forward to any advice, best practices, or pointers to further documentation on this topic. Thank you in advance for your support! Best regards, Alex

I'm working on integrating Passkey functionality into my iOS app (targeting iOS 16.0+), and I'm facing an issue where the system dialog still shows the "Save to another device" option during Passkey registration. I want to hide this option to force users to create Passkeys only on the current device. 1. My Current Registration Implementation Here’s the code I’m using to create a Passkey registration request. I’ve tried to use ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider (which is supposed to target platform authenticators like Face ID/Touch ID), but the "Save to another device" option still appears: `// Initialize provider for platform authenticators let provider = ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider(relyingPartyIdentifier: domain) // Create registration request let registrationRequest = provider.createCredentialRegistrationRequest( challenge: challenge, name: username, userID: userId ) // Optional configurations (tried these but no effect on "another device" option) registrationRequest.displayName = "Test Device" registrationRequest.userVerificationPreference = .required registrationRequest.attestationPreference = .none // Set up authorization controller let authController = ASAuthorizationController(authorizationRequests: [registrationRequest]) let delegate = PasskeyRegistrationDelegate(completion: completion) authController.delegate = delegate // Trigger the registration flow authController.performRequests(options: .preferImmediatelyAvailableCredentials)` 2. Observation from Authentication Flow (Working as Expected) During the Passkey authentication flow (not registration), I can successfully hide the "Use another device" option by specifying allowedCredentials in the ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialAssertionRequest. Here’s a simplified example of that working code: let assertionRequest = provider.createCredentialAssertionRequest(challenge: challenge) assertionRequest.allowedCredentials = allowedCredentials After adding allowedCredentials, the system dialog no longer shows cross-device options—this is exactly the behavior I want for registration. 3. My Questions Is there a similar parameter to allowedCredentials (from authentication) that I can use during registration to hide the "Save to another device" option? Did I miss any configuration in the registration request (e.g., authenticatorAttachment or other properties) that forces the flow to use only the current device’s platform authenticator? Are there any system-level constraints or WebAuthn standards I’m overlooking that cause the "Save to another device" option to persist during registration? Any insights or code examples would be greatly appreciated!

I'm trying to setup device attestation. I believe I have everything setup correctly but the final step of signature validation never succeeds. I've added validation on the client side for debugging and it doesn't validate using CryptoKit. After the assertion is created, I try to validate it: assertion = try await DCAppAttestService.shared.generateAssertion(keyId, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) await validateAssertionLocallyForDebugging(keyId: keyId, assertionObject: assertion, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) In the validateAssertionLocallyForDebugging method, I extract all the data from the CBOR assertionObject and then setup the parameters to validate the signature, using the key that was created from the original attestation flow, but it fails every time. I'm getting the public key from the server using a temporary debugging API. let publicKeyData = Data(base64Encoded: publicKeyB64)! let p256PublicKey = try P256.Signing.PublicKey(derRepresentation: publicKeyData) let ecdsaSignature = try P256.Signing.ECDSASignature(derRepresentation: signature) let digestToVerify = SHA256.hash(data: authenticatorData + clientDataHash) print(" - Recreated Digest to Verify: \(Data(digestToVerify).hexDescription)") if p256PublicKey.isValidSignature(ecdsaSignature, for: digestToVerify) { print("[DEBUG] SUCCESS: Local signature validation passed!") } else { print("[DEBUG] FAILED: Local signature validation failed.") } I have checked my .entitlements file and it is set to development. I have checked the keyId and verified the public key. I have verified the public key X,Y, the RP ID Hash, COSE data, and pretty much anything else I could think of. I've also tried using Gemini and Claude to debug this and that just sends me in circles of trying hashed, unhashed, and double hashed clientData. I'm doing this from Xcode on an M3 macbook air to an iPhone 16 Pro Max. Do you have any ideas on why the signature is not validating with everything else appears to be working? Thanks

Like many/most developers, I gave Connect the info required to comply with the DSA. Perhaps unlike most, I always give unique email addresses so that I can easily track the source of abuse. Yesterday I finally had a phish come in to my DSA address claiming "Message blocked" and doing the standard click-to-login-for-details FOMO bait. So, yep, DSA just becomes yet another public database that malicious actors can use to target you. It would be really nice if Apple provided a way to supply our contact info only for legitimate business purposes. Mail Privacy Protection (or similar) for this would be a start.