I would like to make an app that uses Sign in with Apple to provide the users with a very convenient way of authenticating their (anonymous) identity. I'm using the identityToken that the SignInWithAppleButton provides to the onCompletion closure to build an AWS Identity Resolver that will be used to access AWS resources for that user. At the moment, everything works fine, except that the identityToken eventually stops working (I think after 24 hours) and is no longer usable for AWS identity resolvers. Is there a way to refresh the identityToken, or to generate a new one, without user interaction? I don't mind at all, if in some situations (eg logout from another device, deletion of account, etc), it cannot refresh the token, and it directs me to take further action by giving an error. Most importantly, I don't want the user to be forced to deal with the SignInWithAppleButton every time that they interact with web services. From the user's point of view, I would like the experience to be that they simply confirm that they agree to use SignInWithApple on first use (maybe once per device), and are never inconvenienced by it again. P.S. Sorry for posting this here. I tried to set the topic to "Privacy & Security" and ran into form validation errors.

Recently I am trying to implement apple oauth in expo web version, I created the service id and other related info, i have issue @PostMapping("/callback") public ResponseEntity handleAppleCallback(@RequestParam Map<String, String> body) { String code = body.get("code"); String idToken = body.get("id_token"); if (code == null) { return ResponseEntity.badRequest().build(); } // Redirect to your Expo Web app with the code in query String frontendUrl = "https://mobile-dot-dev-epicportal.uc.r.appspot.com/apple-callback?code=" + code; return ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.FOUND) .header("Location", frontendUrl) .build(); } when i pass the code recived from apple to this route i am getting invalid_grant i am not sure what is wrong here

Can someone please guide me on the entire process of integrating ads in an IOS application using google's admob sdk? Not related to code but things related to Apple's privacy policy. Which options do need to select or specify in my app profile's privacy policy (identifier) section?

Hi everyone, I have followed all the Apple procedures, read the forums, and looked at various experiences of other users who had my problem, but I haven’t found a solution. On my site, I have added login with all the “big” providers, and Apple is the only one missing. I’ve tried everything, but when the user logs in and is authenticated, I get an error. In order, here’s what I receive: Received Apple code: cfbf091dd6... JWT generated correctly HTTP Error (400): {"error":"invalid_client"} I’ve read all sorts of things, including that you have to wait up to 48 hours for the Key to be enabled. Any ideas? I’ve read that this is a common problem, but I haven’t found a valid solution. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me.

Hi, I'm trying to implement web-browser SignIn with Apple with my new app. I'm trying to "Associate your website to your app" like described in this doc: https://developer.apple.com/help/account/capabilities/configure-sign-in-with-apple-for-the-web So I created a Service ID for this specific login. I want this login page to display my app icon and name when presented to users. My issue: When I associate my new app the the service, the link is somehow not working. The login page show the "service" login (with a generic apple logo and the Service ID's name) instead of the actual App name. I'v been able to link my new service to older apps succesfully !!! (the login page correctly shows the old apps icons and names) Why is my new app not associated with the service ? I am missing something here ? is there an additionnal step that I need to take in order to link the service to my newest app ? Thanks !

Our company has a micro service which sends a notification email to an iCloud account/email and the email is going to the junk folder. As we tested, the email generated from user-field.company.com goes to the Inbox, while the email from user-dev.company.com goes to the Junk folder. Is there a way to avoid sending the emails to client's Junk folder when the email is sent from a specific company domain?

Estou compartilhando algumas observações técnicas sobre Crash Detection / Emergency SOS no ecossistema Apple, com base em eventos amplamente observados em 2022 e 2024, quando houve chamadas automáticas em massa para serviços de emergência. A ideia aqui não é discutir UX superficial ou “edge cases isolados”, mas sim comportamento sistêmico em escala, algo que acredito ser relevante para qualquer time que trabalhe com sistemas críticos orientados a eventos físicos. Contexto resumido A partir do iPhone 14, a Detecção de Acidente passou a correlacionar múltiplos sensores (acelerômetros de alta faixa, giroscópio, GPS, microfones) para inferir eventos de impacto severo e acionar automaticamente chamadas de emergência. Em 2022, isso resultou em um volume significativo de falsos positivos, especialmente em atividades com alta aceleração (esqui, snowboard, parques de diversão). Em 2024, apesar de ajustes, houve recorrência localizada do mesmo padrão. Ponto técnico central O problema não parece ser hardware, nem um “bug pontual”, mas sim o estado intermediário de decisão: Aceleração ≠ acidente Ruído ≠ impacto real Movimento extremo ≠ incapacidade humana Quando o classificador entra em estado ambíguo, o sistema depende de uma janela curta de confirmação humana (toque/voz). Em ambientes ruidosos, com o usuário em movimento ou fisicamente ativo, essa confirmação frequentemente falha. O sistema então assume incapacidade e executa a ação fail-safe: chamada automática. Do ponto de vista de engenharia de segurança, isso é compreensível. Do ponto de vista de escala, é explosivo. Papel da Siri A Siri não “decide” o acidente, mas é um elo sensível na cadeia humano–máquina. Falhas de compreensão por ruído, idioma, respiração ofegante ou ausência de resposta acabam sendo interpretadas como sinal de emergência real. Isso é funcionalmente equivalente ao que vemos em sistemas automotivos como o eCall europeu, quando a confirmação humana é inexistente ou degradada. O dilema estrutural Há um trade-off claro e inevitável: Reduzir falsos negativos (não perder um acidente real) Aumentar falsos positivos (chamadas indevidas) Para o usuário individual, errar “para mais” faz sentido. Para serviços públicos de emergência, milhões de dispositivos errando “para mais” criam ruído operacional real. Por que isso importa para developers A Apple hoje opera, na prática, um dos maiores sistemas privados de segurança pessoal automatizada do mundo, interagindo diretamente com infraestrutura pública crítica. Isso coloca Crash Detection / SOS na mesma categoria de sistemas safety-critical, onde: UX é parte da segurança Algoritmos precisam ser auditáveis “Human-in-the-loop” não pode ser apenas nominal Reflexões abertas Alguns pontos que, como developer, acho que merecem discussão: Janelas de confirmação humana adaptativas ao contexto (atividade física, ruído). Cancelamento visual mais agressivo em cenários de alto movimento. Perfis de sensibilidade por tipo de atividade, claramente comunicados. Critérios adicionais antes da chamada automática quando o risco de falso positivo é estatisticamente alto. Não é um problema simples, nem exclusivo da Apple. É um problema de software crítico em contato direto com o mundo físico, operando em escala planetária. Justamente por isso, acho que vale uma discussão técnica aberta, sem ruído emocional. Curioso para ouvir perspectivas de quem trabalha com sistemas similares (automotivo, wearables, safety-critical, ML embarcado). — Rafa

I'm experiencing a strange issue where ASWebAuthenticationSession works perfectly when running from Xcode (both Debug and Release), but fails on TestFlight builds. The setup: iOS app using ASWebAuthenticationSession for OIDC login (Keycloak) Custom URL scheme callback (myapp://) prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = false The issue: When using iOS Keychain autofill (with Face ID/Touch ID or normal iphone pw, that auto-submits the form) -> works perfectly When manually typing credentials and clicking the login button -> fails with white screen When it fails, the form POST from Keycloak back to my server (/signin-oidc) never reaches the server at all. The authentication session just shows a white screen. Reproduced on: Multiple devices (iPhone 15 Pro, etc.) iOS 18.x Xcode 16.x Multiple TestFlight testers confirmed same behavior What I've tried: Clearing Safari cookies/data prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = true and false Different SameSite cookie policies on server Verified custom URL scheme is registered and works (testing myapp://test in Safari opens the app) Why custom URL scheme instead of Universal Links: We couldn't get Universal Links to trigger from a js redirect (window.location.href) within ASWebAuthenticationSession. Only custom URL schemes seemed to be intercepted. If there's a way to make Universal Links work in this context, without a manual user-interaction we'd be happy to try. iOS Keychain autofill works The only working path is iOS Keychain autofill that requires iphone-authentication and auto-submits the form. Any manual form submission fails, but only on TestFlight - not Xcode builds. Has anyone encountered this or know a workaround?

We're experiencing crashes in our production iOS app related to Apple's DeviceCheck framework. The crash occurs in DCAnalytics internal performance tracking, affecting some specific versions of iOS 18 (18.4.1, 18.5.0). Crash Signature CoreFoundation: -[__NSDictionaryM setObject:forKeyedSubscript:] + 460 DeviceCheck: -[DCAnalytics sendPerformanceForCategory:eventType:] + 236 Observed Patterns Scenario 1 - Token Generation: Crashed: com.appQueue EXC_BAD_ACCESS KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS 0x0000000000000010 DeviceCheck: -[DCDevice generateTokenWithCompletionHandler:] Thread: Background dispatch queue Scenario 2 - Support Check: Crashed: com.apple.main-thread EXC_BAD_ACCESS KERN_INVALID_ADDRESS 0x0000000000000008 DeviceCheck: -[DCDevice _isSupportedReturningError:] DeviceCheck: -[DCDevice isSupported] Thread: Main thread Root Cause Analysis The DCAnalytics component within DeviceCheck attempts to insert a nil value into an NSMutableDictionary when recording performance metrics, indicating missing nil validation before dictionary operations. Reproduction Context Crashes occur during standard DeviceCheck API usage: Calling DCDevice.isSupported property Calling DCDevice.generateToken(completionHandler:) (triggered by Firebase App Check SDK) Both operations invoke internal analytics that fail with nil insertion attempts. Concurrency Considerations We've implemented sequential access guards around DeviceCheck token generation to prevent race conditions, yet crashes persist. This suggests the issue likely originates within the DeviceCheck framework's internal implementation rather than concurrent access from our application code. Note: Scenario 2 occurs through Firebase SDK's App Check integration, which internally uses DeviceCheck for attestation. Request Can Apple engineering confirm if this is a known issue with DeviceCheck's analytics subsystem? Is there a recommended workaround to disable DCAnalytics or ensure thread-safe DeviceCheck API usage? Any guidance on preventing these crashes would be appreciated.

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

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apptrackingtransparency/attrackingmanager/authorizationstatus/notdetermined Note: Discussion If you call ATTrackingManager.trackingAuthorizationStatus in macOS, the result is always ATTrackingManager.AuthorizationStatus.notDetermined. So, does macOS support getting ATT?

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 &lt;- 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

Please correct the following issues and upload a new binary to App Store Connect. ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest - Your app includes “Frameworks/FirebaseCoreDiagnostics.framework/FirebaseCoreDiagnostics”, which includes FirebaseCoreDiagnostics, an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a commonly used third-party SDK. If a new app includes a commonly used third-party SDK, or an app update adds a new commonly used third-party SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest - Your app includes “Frameworks/FBLPromises.framework/FBLPromises”, which includes FBLPromises, an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a commonly used third-party SDK. If a new app includes a commonly used third-party SDK, or an app update adds a new commonly used third-party SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest - Your app includes “Frameworks/GoogleDataTransport.framework/GoogleDataTransport”, which includes GoogleDataTransport, an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a commonly used third-party SDK. If a new app includes a commonly used third-party SDK, or an app update adds a new commonly used third-party SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. our app is .NET MAUI app so we already addressed this by adding privacyinfo.xcprivacy privacy manifest under platform/ios/resources but still get flagged for this <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyTracking</key> <false/> <key>NSPrivacyTrackingDomains</key> <array/> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypes</key> <array> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryFileTimestamp</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>C617.1</string> </array> </dict> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategorySystemBootTime</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>35F9.1</string> </array> </dict> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryDiskSpace</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>E174.1</string> </array> </dict> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryUserDefaults</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>CA92.1</string> </array> </dict> </array> <key>NSPrivacyCollectedDataTypes</key> <array/> </dict> </plist>

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!

Hello everyone! We are from Russia, and we no longer have an official Apple store. All phones are imported through parallel imports. Yesterday, my wife logged out of her Apple ID and logged in to someone else's account, and as a result, her phone was in lost and locked mode. We have a sales receipt confirming the purchase, but it is from a Russian store. Can you please tell me if there is a way to unlock the phone or if it is already a brick? Scammers are asking for money to unlock the phone. Thank you in advance for your reply!

Hello Apple Team We are integrating App Attest with our backend and seeing a 400 Bad Request response when calling the attestation endpoint. The issue is that the response does not include an X-Request-ID or JSON error payload with id and code, which makes it hard to diagnose. Instead, it only returns a receipt blob. Request Details URL: https://data-development.appattest.apple.com/v1/attestationData Request Headers: Authorization: eyJraWQiOiI0RjVLSzRGV1JaIiwidHlwIjoiSldUIiwiYWxnIjoiRVMyNTYifQ.eyJpc3MiOiJOOVNVR1pNNjdRIiwiZXhwIjoxNzU3MDUxNTYwLCJpYXQiOjE3NTcwNDc5NjB9.MEQCIF236MqPCl6Vexg7RcPUMK8XQeACXogldnpuiNnGQnzgAiBQqASdbJ64g58xfWGpbzY3iohvxBSO5U5ZE3l87JjfmQ Content-Type: application/octet-stream Request Body: (Binary data, logged as [B@59fd7d35) Response Status: 400 Bad Request Response Headers: Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2025 04:52:40 GMT x-b3-traceid: 4c42e18094022424 x-b3-spanid: 4c42e18094022424 Response Body (truncated): "receipt": h'308006092A864886F70D01070... Problem The response does not include X-Request-ID. The response does not include JSON with id or code. Only a receipt blob is returned. Questions Can the x-b3-traceid be used by Apple to trace this failed request internally? Is it expected for some failures to return only a receipt blob without X-Request-ID? How should we interpret this error so we can handle it properly in production? Thanks in advance for your guidance.

Hi! We're having issues with the sign in flow, starting today. As per the documentation, the issuer of the tokens should be https://appleid.apple.com sign in docs. But in the published configuration, it is now stated as https://account.apple.com metadata endpoint. Once the token is received through the sign in flow, the issuer is however still appleid.apple.com. This is causing problems for us where we expect the issuer in the metadata endpoint to be the same as the actual token issuer. What is correct here?

I’m considering storing some sensitive information in the userID field of a passkey, as described in the createCredentialRegistrationRequest method.(link to method). I'm aware of the largeBlob extension introduced in iOS 17+, but it doesn't meet my needs since I want to create a cross-platform passkey that can be used across various devices — and currently, not many devices support the largeBlob extension. According to W3C documentation, the userID field is not considered private information and can be displayed to the user without requiring a verification process. Based on my understanding, it's also not encrypted, which means it might be accessible with physical access to the device. So here are my questions: How do Apple devices (especially iPhones) handle the userID field in their authenticators? Is it possible to access the userID without user verification, as permitted by the W3C specification? Are there any alternative methods to access the userID value stored in a passkey on Apple devices?

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.

I’m having an issue with my Credential Provider Extension for passkey registration. On the browser I click on registration, in IOS i can select my App for passkey registration with a continue button. Wenn I click the continue button the prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration:) function is called but the MainInterface is not shown —it only appears when I click the continue button a second time. Here’s a simplified version of my prepareInterface method: override func prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration registrationRequest: ASCredentialRequest) { guard let request = registrationRequest as? ASPasskeyCredentialRequest, let identity = request.credentialIdentity as? ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity else { extensionContext.cancelRequest(withError: ASExtensionError(.failed)) return } self.identity = identity self.request = request log.info("prepareInterface called successfully") } In viewDidAppear, I trigger FaceID authentication and complete the registration process if register is true. However, the UI only shows after a second “Continue” tap. Has anyone encountered this behavior or have suggestions on how to ensure the UI appears immediately after prepareInterface is called? Could it be a timing or lifecycle issue with the extension context? Thanks for any insights!