I took notes during the "What's new in managing Apple Devices" session. If interested, please see the attached "Notes from session": Session Notes For the session video, please see the following link: https://developer.apple.com/wwdc22/10045

I am developing an iOS application with a Location Push Service Extension and am trying to provide managed app configuration to the extension using Apple's ManagedAppConfigurationProvider and Declarative Device Management (DDM). The same managed configuration works correctly in the containing application, but the exact same API fails when called from the Location Push Service Extension. Environment: iOS: 26.2.1 Xcode: 16.4 Extension type: Location Push Service Extension The extension has the following entitlement in both the signed extension and provisioning profile: com.apple.developer.location.push The extension is configured through DDM using ExtensionConfigs: "ExtensionConfigs": { "bundleid (teamid)": { "DataAssetReference": "xxxxxxx" } } The Data Asset is successfully compiled by the MDM server and contains the managed configuration values. The device reports the following DDM status: "config-state": { "app-config-state": { "state": "valid" }, "extension-config-state": { "bundleidofextension": { "state": "unknown" } } } The main application can successfully retrieve the configuration using: let provider = ManagedAppConfigurationProvider() Task { for await configuration in await provider.configurations( ModelManagedAppConfiguration.self ) { print("APP CONFIG = (String(describing: configuration))") } } The same code and the same configuration type are used inside the Location Push Service Extension. Inside the extension, the provider is created successfully: LOCATION EXTENSION: creating ManagedAppConfigurationProvider LOCATION EXTENSION: provider created LOCATION EXTENSION: requesting configurations However, the request fails with: Failed to connect to managedappsd with error Error Domain=NSCocoaErrorDomain Code=4099 "The connection to service named com.apple.devicemanagementclient.managedappsd was invalidated from this process." Failed to fetch managed app configuration. Returning nil. Error: XPC connection failed with error Optional("Couldn’t communicate with a helper application.") Failed to determine managed app configuration changed notification name. Unable to register for notifications. Failed to report configuration error state. Error: XPC connection failed with error Optional("Couldn’t communicate with a helper application.") LOCATION EXTENSION: CONFIG = nil The important observation is that the configuration works from the containing application but fails from the Location Push Service Extension before the configuration reaches the Decodable configuration type. I have also verified: The extension Bundle ID matches the ExtensionConfigs entry. The Team ID matches. com.apple.developer.location.push is present in the signed extension. com.apple.developer.location.push is also present in the provisioning profile. The DDM Data Asset is successfully compiled. The containing application's managed configuration state is valid. The same ManagedAppConfigurationProvider code works in the containing application. According to Apple's documentation, ManagedAppConfigurationProvider provides configurations for a managed app or extension, and ExtensionConfigs is the DDM mechanism for configuring extensions. My question is: Is ManagedAppConfigurationProvider fully supported from a Location Push Service Extension? If it is supported, what could cause managedappsd to reject/invalidate the XPC connection specifically when the request originates from a Location Push Service Extension? Could there be an additional entitlement, extension-specific configuration, or system restriction required for ManagedAppConfigurationProvider to communicate with managedappsd from this type of extension? Any guidance on how to further diagnose the NSCocoaErrorDomain Code=4099 / "Couldn’t communicate with a helper application" error would be appreciated.

Hi Apple Team, We are using the Accounts MDM payload with: PayloadType: com.apple.MCX DisableGuestAccount: true On macOS 26, even after the MDM profile is successfully applied, a local Administrator can still toggle the Guest User setting in System Settings. Expected: The setting should be enforced by MDM and should not be modifiable by an Administrator. Interestingly, the same configuration works as expected on macOS 27 beta, where the Guest User setting is shown as “This setting has been configured by a profile” and cannot be modified. Could you please confirm whether this is a known issue/regression in macOS 26 and whether there is a workaround or any permanent solution in later patches ? Environment: macOS 26.x Payload: com.apple.MCX DisableGuestAccount = true macOS 27 beta: Works as expected

We develop an endpoint security agent that customer IT deploys and manages via MDM on supervised, ADE-enrolled Macs. The agent requires Accessibility permissions to perform core security functions. Historically, IT provisioned this via the PPPC payload which granted Accessibility as a managed control without end-user interaction. In macOS 27 this path for Accessibility has been removed. The documented replacement — the Privacy key in com.apple.configuration.app.settings — is consent-based: on a supervised device it presents the user a consolidated prompt with "Allow" preselected, which the user may decline. We are seeking guidance on the supported approach for macOS 27 GA: On a supervised macOS 27 device, is there a supported mechanism for an MDM-managed, code-signature-verified application to be provisioned with Accessibility as a managed security control, without depending on individual end-user consent? (i.e. an equivalent to what PPPC provided for enterprise-managed endpoints.) If the consent-based com.apple.configuration.app.settings Privacy declaration is the only path, what is Apple's recommended approach for enterprise-mandated security agents that must have Accessibility to function — including handling the case where a user declines or dismisses the prompt? We have also filed this as an enhancement request via Feedback Assistant (FB23531820). Environment for context: macOS 27 supervised via Automated Device Enrollment, managed by Jamf Pro.

Hi all, Posting here because I've exhausted the Developer Support channel and I'm hoping someone in the community has seen this before, or can point me toward a path that actually leads somewhere. What happened I tried to enroll in the Apple Developer Program through the Developer app on my iPhone 16 Pro Max. I uploaded my passport as prompted and entered my address in Latin characters. I then got an error screen saying there may be an issue with my account that needs to be resolved before I can continue, and to contact Support. The enrollment button now reads "ID Verification Rejected." I have since also attempted enrollment through the web at developer.apple.com. Same result. This appears to rule out the Developer app's device check as the cause, and suggests the block sits on the account itself. What Support told me After several weeks and multiple exchanges, the answer I keep receiving is that my device is listed as a trusted device on other Apple Accounts, and that I need to contact whoever controls those accounts and have my device removed. They've also told me they can't disclose which accounts those are. So the instruction is: fix a problem by contacting people whose identity Apple won't reveal. I've also tried reaching Developer Support by phone. I've sat on hold for up to three hours on multiple attempts and never reached anyone. Email replies come back every few days and repeat the same instruction. What I've already checked I own the device, the phone number, and both of my Apple Accounts. My two accounts use different trusted phone numbers and different devices. Nothing is shared between them. I've checked every account belonging to people in my household. Nothing is shared or borrowed. Enrollment fails identically through the web and through the app. Where that leaves me Either Apple's records are wrong and my device or number is flagged in error, or an account I don't control genuinely has my device listed as trusted, which would be a security concern that I can't investigate without information only Apple has. Either way, I don't see how the resolution is on my end. What's stopping me from just throwing money at this is that I don't know what's actually flagged. If it's the device, a new iPhone fixes it. If it's my phone number or my Apple Account, I could buy a new phone, a new number, and a new email and still land on the same screen, out well over a thousand dollars with nothing to show. Nobody at Apple will tell me which it is, so any purchase is a guess. That's the part I find hardest to accept. What I'm asking the community Has anyone hit "ID Verification Rejected" during enrollment and gotten past it? What actually worked? Given that web and app enrollment both fail the same way, has anyone seen an account-level verification flag like this get cleared, and what triggered the clearing? Is there any way to see or reset which accounts list a device as trusted, from the device owner's side? Is there an escalation route that actually connects to a human? Three-hour phone holds with no answer and repeating email replies have gotten me nowhere. Does Feedback Assistant work for this, or is there a specific team that handles enrollment identity issues? Any pointers appreciated. I've been stuck on this for weeks, and I'd rather find the right door than keep knocking on the same one. Thanks.

We are testing the new Declarative Device Management (DDM) App Settings configuration on macOS 27 Golden Gate to manage Accessibility permission for our applications as suggested by the apple team in https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/839536. We created a Jamf Blueprint with a custom com.apple.configuration.app.settings declaration and configured the required Accessibility settings. After applying the Blueprint to the User channel, we now receive the consent prompt shown in the attached screenshot. However, the permission flow does not appear to work as expected. Our understanding is that, after the user clicks Allow in this consent prompt, the configured Accessibility permission should be applied to the application without requiring an additional Accessibility authorization prompt. Instead, after selecting Allow, we still receive the subsequent prompt, which asks the user to choose either Open System Settings or Deny. The DDM declaration appears to have been successfully deployed and is shown as active on the system. Could you please clarify the following? Expected consent behavior: After the user selects Allow in the DDM App Settings consent prompt, should the configured Accessibility permission become effective without any additional Accessibility prompts? Consent scope: We are observing an Allow / Not Allow consent prompt for each DDM App Settings declaration. Is user consent expected to be requested separately for each declaration, or should macOS consolidate the Accessibility settings from multiple declarations into a single consent request? Additional Accessibility prompt: Why does the application continue to receive the Accessibility permission alert with Open System Settings / Deny even after the user has selected Allow for the DDM declaration? User interaction: Is there any supported way for an organization to manage or suppress these additional prompts so that no further user interaction is required after the initial DDM consent? Our goal is to understand the expected macOS 27 behavior and determine the supported management configuration for applications that previously received Accessibility permission through the PPPC payload.

Hello Team, We have a System Extension with Provider Type "DNS Proxy". We have embedded the System Extension in GUI target which registered as LaunchAgent. We found NEDNSProxyManager saves the proxy configuration in the caller's preferences. Due to that we see a prompt for Network Extension when switching users. On allowing that we see multiple DNS filter in the System Settings->Network->Filters even though one DNS Filter can enabled which is annoying. Question 1: Is this expected for non MDM users? Are the users expected to authorise Network extension when switching users. Question 2: Is there a way to prevent the multiple DNS filter for both MDM and non MDM users? To prevent multiple filters, we identified a solution to embed the System Extension in our LaunchDaemon target. So the proxy configuration will be save in the root preference. But with this approach we ended up with an error [OSSystemExtensionErrorDomain error 13] during OSSystemExtensionRequest.deactivationRequest. Question 3: Is there a way to avoid OSSystemExtensionErrorDomain 13 when deactivating System extension from our LaunchDaemon process? Question 4: What is the best practice in terms of embedding and deploying DNS Proxy System Extension for managed and non managed environment. Also if user expected to see multiple DNS filter. I suggest to show the filter that saved for that user's preference. Thank you.

Ever since tvOS 26.4, we've had some difficulties in discovering, pairing, and supervising Apple TV 4K devices using Apple Configurator 2.20. We submitted a feedback report about this issue (FB22525540). The issue has improved somewhat for me when using the latest tvOS 26.6, if the Apple TV is connected via Ethernet during the initial paring step. Sometimes the pairing still fails, but eventually I can get it to work. However, some others on our dev / QA teams haven't had the same luck in even seeing the device as available to pair (even when the Apple TV is at the welcome screen or Remote and Devices screen, nearby, and on Ethernet along with the Mac). I've seen other cases where the pairing seems to work, but then the device doesn't appear in the Apple Configurator devices list, and therefore it’s not possible to supervise and install profiles onto it. Are they any workarounds or other steps we can try?

We are experiencing an issue with Privacy Preferences Policy Control (PPPC) profiles deployed through Jamf Pro on the Golden Gate beta. We use the following Jamf configuration profiles to pre-approve Digital Guardian Accessibility permissions: DG – Grant Accessibility Access to DgSessionSvc.app DG – RME These profiles are intended to grant Accessibility permissions automatically for Digital Guardian under: System Settings → Privacy & Security → Accessibility On macOS Tahoe and macOS Sequoia, these PPPC profiles work as expected. After deployment, the required Accessibility permissions are granted automatically and users are not prompted. However, on the Golden Gate beta, the same configuration profiles are installed successfully, but the required Accessibility permissions are not granted. As a result, users continue to receive the Accessibility permission prompts. We also observed a difference when inspecting the installed profile under: System Settings → General → Device Management → Profile On macOS Tahoe, the installed profile contains the following entry: Control the Computer — com.verdasys.DgSessionSvc — Allowed On the Golden Gate beta, this entry is missing, even though the identical Jamf PPPC profile has been installed successfully. For reference, we have attached: The Jamf PPPC configuration profiles (.mobileconfig) DGSessionSvc MobileConfig RME MobileConfig Comparison screenshots from macOS Tahoe and the Golden Gate beta Could you please confirm whether this is: a known issue in the Golden Gate beta, an intentional change in PPPC behavior, or an issue with our PPPC configuration profile? If this is an operating system issue, we would appreciate it if it could be investigated and addressed in a future Golden Gate beta release. Environment Affected OS: Golden Gate 27.0 Beta (26A5388g) Working OS versions: macOS Tahoe and macOS Sequoia MDM Solution: Jamf Pro 11.30.1 Affected Application: Fortra Digital Guardian Required Permission: Accessibility (Control the Computer) Architecture: Apple silicon We would also appreciate it if you could review the attached .mobileconfig files and let us know whether any modifications are required to make the PPPC profiles compatible with the Golden Gate beta, or if any additional information would be helpful for your investigation.

Hi, we are currently investigating an issue with Kerberos support in one of our apps. The apps are deployed as managed apps via MDM, together with the new extensible SSO Kerberos profile. In this scenario, Ivanti EPMM is used as MDM, and the extensible SSO configuration has placeholders for the actual user principal name that get filled with the users actual information from our directory. In general, the setup works fine, the Kerberos tickets are requested and supplied to the device, and the SSO extension is providing them to the service. However, in our test MDM environment we enroll i.e. iPad test devices with different test users from our directory and change those users during testing to switch between defined personas. We observed that the credentials acquired by the Kerberos SSO extension dialogue persist even after MDM unenrollment, and even after a device reset. Even if we enroll back to MDM with another user, the previous principal name shows in the SSO extension dialogue and cannot be changed. To us, this seems like a design issue. We use same Apple ID when running these tests, so I suspect that the credential caching could be at Keychain level. Regardless of where they are cached, since the configuration was a managed one, I would expect it to clear the credentials after unenrollment and at least after a device reset. We found some article regarding macOS on the internet, which seems to go into a similar direction however the author states that the credentials could be removed with MDM removal. https://automatica.com.au/2026/01/remove-additional-platform-single-sign-on-credentials-saved-in-macos-when-using-psso-with-microsoft-365-entra-and-company-portal/ Question: How are we supposed to get Kerberos SSO credentials cleared on iOS devices? Is this a known issue, or something that does not work as designed?

We're working on an iOS app distributed through the App Store and installed on an MDM-enrolled device. Our MDM server uses InstallApplication to take management of the already-installed and running app. On iOS 27 betas 3 and 4, processing this command causes iOS to terminate the app and its extensions with SIGKILL. The same flow and MDM payload work without terminating the app on earlier iOS versions (iOS <=26). Environment OS: iOS 27 betas 3 and 4 Does not happen: iOS 26 or iOS 16.7.15 Device: iPhone SE 2nd Gen Enrollment: MDM-enrolled device Distribution: App Store app App state: Already installed and running when management is requested MDM command: InstallApplication Minimal MDM command The MDM server sends an InstallApplication command for the already-installed app: Attributes = { Removable = false; }; ChangeManagementState = Managed; Identifier = "APP_BUNDLE_ID"; InstallAsManaged = true; ManagementFlags = 1; RequestType = InstallApplication; We also tested the equivalent command using iTunesStoreID = APP_STORE_ID instead of Identifier, and removing InstallAsManaged. The targeted running app was terminated in the same way. Steps to reproduce Install and launch the App Store app as an unmanaged app. Enroll the iPhone in MDM. While the app is running, send the MDM InstallApplication command to take management of the existing installation. Observe the unified logs for mdmd, appstored, manageddeviced, installcoordinationd, and runningboardd. The issue can also be reproduced by initiating the same server-side flow while the app is already in the background. iOS 27 log sequence The command is accepted and appstored starts the managed-app tasks. manageddeviced then attempts to mark the app as managed using a null persona (this differs from iOS <26): The running app has a valid persona. After the failed mapping, installcoordinationd explicitly asks RunningBoard to terminate the app to disassociate that persona: After termination, removing the valid persona also fails. The managed-app task later reports success despite the mapping failures and termination. Earlier iOS comparison As an example, on iOS 16.7.15, using the same MDM command, **iOS routes the request through dmd with persona: default. The app remains alive and receives managed-app change notifications. Expected The existing installation becomes managed without terminating the running app, consistent with the behavior on earlier iOS versions. Actual manageddeviced tries to associate the app with persona (null) and fails with MIInstallerErrorDomain Code 191. That failure causes installcoordinationd to request termination of the app and its extensions to disassociate their valid persona. runningboardd terminates them with SIGKILL (isUserKill=0). The subsequent removal of the only valid persona fails with Code 242, although the managed-app task later reports success. Documentation checked The payload follows the documented InstallApplication flow for taking management of an existing app: Apple Docs WWDC26 app MDM updates We have not found a malformed field that explains the iOS 27-only failure. More info Detailed logs and additional info can be found on the Feedback report.

I'm the IT Admin in my company. We use Microsoft Intune, which is a Mobile Device Management tool, to manage our devices and apps. I created an app protection policy, restricting the data can only be shared between the allowed apps. For example, if our user want to copy the content in Outlook for iOS to WeChat or personal memo, the action will be blocked. However, may be it's too strict, here is the scenario that we need to hadle: A user selected the content in the Outlook for iOS mail, and wanted to use the "translate" function to do translation. Before the app protection policy was deployed, he can do the translation successfully. And now, it's blocked. Therefore, we need to find a way to exempt the app "Translate" so that users can do the translation successfully. We put the value "com.apple.Translate"(this is a package ID listed in the official document of Apple) to the exemption, but it's not working. May I know what is the correct "value" for the iOS native Translate APP? I need to put this value to our app protection policy to exempt Translate app. Thank you so much.

I'm trying to enable Autonomous Single App Mode (ASAM) for my own app on a supervised iPhone, but UIAccessibility.requestGuidedAccessSession(enabled:) always returns false, even though the com.apple.asam profile installs without error. Environment Device: iPhone 16 (iPhone18,5), iOS 26.5.1 Supervised: yes (verified via DeviceInformation query → IsSupervised = true) MDM: self-hosted NanoMDM. Other payloads (com.apple.webcontent-filter, com.apple.applicationaccess) install and work correctly. App: development-signed, Bundle ID net.self-control-mdm.SessionLock, Team ID 9VH4G6KS29 Profile I'm sending (matches the AutonomousSingleAppMode documentation exactly): What happens InstallProfile is Acknowledged with no ErrorChain. A ProfileList query shows the profile IS installed, but its payload type is reported as com.apple.unknown (display name is preserved). In Settings → General → VPN & Device Management, the profile shows the payload as "Unknown Payload". In the app, requestGuidedAccessSession(enabled: true) completion returns success = false. Rebooting the device does not change anything. Questions Is the legacy com.apple.asam profile payload still honored on iOS 26, or has ASAM authorization moved to Declarative Device Management? If DDM is now required, which declaration/configuration should I use to allow-list an app for ASAM? Does com.apple.unknown in the ProfileList response indicate the payload was genuinely not recognized, or is that expected for this payload type? Are there additional requirements on iOS 26 (e.g., the app must be an MDM-managed app, or a non-development signature) for requestGuidedAccessSession to succeed? Thanks in advance.

Hi everyone, We are currently developing an on-premises enterprise MDM (Mobile Device Management) server. We are implementing the Software Update feature and need to support a wide range of devices, ranging from legacy versions (iOS 15 and below) to modern versions (iOS 16, 17, and later). As we know, iOS 16+ supports Declarative Device Management (DDM) for software updates (using configurations like com.apple.configuration.softwareupdate.enforcement.specific), which is now the recommended best practice. However, we still have enterprise clients running iOS 15 and below, which do not support DDM. These legacy devices require traditional MDM command payloads (such as ScheduleOSUpdate, OSUpdateStatus, and AvailableOSUpdates). We noticed that Apple has recently deprecated and removed the documentation for these legacy commands (e.g., the "Schedule an OS Update" endpoint documentation has been deleted from the Apple Developer Documentation portal). We would appreciate advice on the following: Is a "Dual-Pathway" approach still the recommended architecture for modern MDM servers to handle this transition (i.e., detecting OS version, sending traditional ScheduleOSUpdate plist commands for iOS 15 and below, and sending DDM Declarative configurations for iOS 16+)? Since the official documentation for legacy ScheduleOSUpdate and related commands has been deleted, where can we officially find the archived technical specifications and plist schemas for these commands to ensure proper backward-compatible implementation? Thank you so much in advance for your guidance!

Summary: When applying a configuration profile that uses allowListedAppBundleIDs to permit a defined set of apps, essential Apple Watch apps are unexpectedly removed from the paired Watch — even though their associated iPhone bundle IDs are explicitly included. This issue occurs with a minimal profile, and has been consistently reproducible on the latest versions of iOS and watchOS. Impact: This behavior severely limits the use of Apple Watch in managed environments (e.g., education, family management, accessibility contexts), where allowlisting is a key control mechanism. It also suggests either: Undocumented internal dependencies between iOS and watchOS apps, or A possible regression in how allowlists interact with Watch integration. Steps to Reproduce: Create a configuration profile with a Restrictions payload containing only the allowListedAppBundleIDs key. Allow a broad list of essential system apps, including all known Apple Watch-related bundle IDs: com.apple.NanoAlarm com.apple.NanoNowPlaying com.apple.NanoOxygenSaturation com.apple.NanoRegistry com.apple.NanoRemote com.apple.NanoSleep com.apple.NanoStopwatch com.apple.NanoWorldClock (All the bundles can be seen in the Attached profile) Install the profile on a supervised or non-supervised iPhone paired with an Apple Watch. Restart both devices. Observe that several core Watch apps (e.g. Heart Rate, Activity, Workout) are missing from the Watch. Expected Behavior: All apps explicitly included in the allowlist should function normally. System apps — especially those tied to hardware like Apple Watch — should remain accessible unless explicitly excluded. Actual Behavior: Multiple Apple Watch system apps are removed or hidden, despite their iPhone bundle IDs being listed in the allowlist. Test Environment: iPhone running iOS 18 Apple Watch running watchOS 11 Profile includes only the allowListedAppBundleIDs key Issue confirmed on fresh devices with no third-party apps Request for Apple Engineering: Please confirm whether additional internal or undocumented bundle IDs are required to preserve Apple Watch functionality when allowlisting apps. If this behavior is unintended, please treat this as a regression or bug affecting key system components. If intentional, please provide formal documentation listing all required bundle IDs for preserving Watch support with allowlisting enabled. Attachment: .mobileconfig profile demonstrating the issue (clean, minimal, reproducible) Attached test profile = https://drive.google.com/file/d/12YknGWuo1bDG-bmzPi0T41H6uHrhDmdR/view?usp=sharing

I'm a third-party MDM developer using the Automated Device Enrollment (DEP) cloud service API. My flow is the standard token exchange: I upload my public key to Apple Business Manager, download the encrypted server token, and store the resulting OAuth credentials (consumer_key, consumer_secret, access_token, access_secret) to authenticate and fetch device information. Recently I've started seeing authentication failures on tokens whose access_token_expiry still has 6+ months of validity remaining. The credentials were working fine and then began getting rejected, with no change on my side. My questions for anyone who has seen this: Has anyone else observed DEP/ADE server tokens being rejected well before their stated access_token_expiry? What are the known triggers for early invalidation? (e.g., the ABM user who created the MDM server being deactivated or having a role change, the token being re-downloaded/regenerated, edits to the MDM server record, or Apple-side session invalidation.) Is there a supported way to detect that a still-unexpired token has been invalidated, other than catching the auth failure at request time? I want to confirm whether this is expected behavior tied to the ABM account/server lifecycle rather than the token's expiry date, so I can handle it correctly (i.e., prompt for a token re-download) instead of treating it as a bug. Any confirmation, similar reports, or official guidance would be appreciated. Thanks.

On a supervised device running iOS 18 without any AirDrop restrictions applied, when a profile with allowListedAppBundleIDs restriction key is installed, the AirDrop sound plays. But still the accept prompt does not appear, making it impossible to accept files. The prompt works as expected on iOS 18 devices to which the allowListedAppBundleIDs restriction is not installed. This issue occurs only on supervised iOS 18 devices to which the allowListedAppBundleIDs restriction is being applied. Device must be in iOS 18 version > Install the (allowListedAppBundleIDs restriction) profile with the device > Try to AirDrop files to the managed device. The expected result is that the accept prompt must pop up but it does not appear. This issue is occurring irrespective of any Whitelisted bundle ID being added to the allowListedAppBundleIDs restriction profile. Have attached a few Whitelisted bundle ID here com.talentlms.talentlms.ios.beta, com.maxaccel.safetrack, com.manageengine.mdm.iosagent, com.apple.weather, com.apple.mobilenotes, gov.dot.phmsa.erg2, com.apple.calculator, com.manageengine.mdm.iosagent, com.apple.webapp, com.apple.CoreCDPUI.localSecretPrompt etc. Have raised a Feedback request (FB15709399) with sysdiagnose logs and a short video on the issue.

So my iPad 10 is on iPadOS 27 and if you go to Settings and click General, it says “View and manage settings for Device“ instead of saying what you are using.

We are building a NETransparentProxyProvider system extension on macOS. The extension needs a certificate identity provisioned by MDM for cryptographic operations at runtime (signing and/or mTLS). We have hit a wall where a PKCS#12-delivered identity resolves correctly inside the extension but an ACME-delivered identity does not, and we want to understand whether this is a known limitation, a gap, or whether there is a supported path we are missing. We understand the implications of the data protection keychain on macOS but wonder if there is a carveout here that may not be documented well. We deploy the extension via MDM (profile traditionally but could be via DDM on macOS27). A VPN profile delivers an identity reference to the extension at runtime via PayloadCertificateUUID which surfaces an identity reference within protocolConfiguration.identityReference. When referencing a PKCS#12 identity (com.apple.security.pkcs12 payload): the identityReference is 196 bytes, beginning with the 4-byte prefix 73737569 (ASCII "ssui"). The reference is self-describing — it embeds the keychain path (/Library/Keychains/System.keychain), the certificate subject (in our case, "Delegate Test CA"), the team ID, and a 20-byte SHA-1 hash at the tail. This format carries everything the Security framework needs to locate the item. Full reference (our test, redacted to structure): 73737569 00000020 <uuid-bytes> 00000000000000000000000000000006 64626e6d 00000023 2f4c696272…53797374656d2e6b6579636861696e00 ← /Library/Keychains/System.keychain 6974656d 00000069 80001000… ← item data incl. DER subject … 00000014 48b494ae47d1b7b07ed8c77a681337a3af8e92a8 ← 20-byte SHA-1 hash When referencing a ACME identity (com.apple.security.acme payload, ECSECPrimeRandom P-384, SE-backed): the identityReference is 20 bytes, beginning with the 4-byte prefix 63657274 (ASCII "cert"). The remaining 16 bytes are opaque — they do not embed a keychain path, certificate subject, or any other locator. Full reference (our test): 63657274 a4c7e569737944b1 ad464dc3bb398f14 Searching for the SecIdentity The PKCS#12 reference resolves using SecItemCopyMatching with kSecValuePersistentRef set to the 196-byte reference and kSecMatchSearchList pointing at System.keychain succeeds immediately, returning a SecIdentity with both SecIdentityCopyCertificate and SecIdentityCopyPrivateKey succeeding - this is obviously expected for an exportable software key type. The ACME reference fails using every path that we tried to search/load it as a SecIdentity. Primarily: kSecValuePersistentRef with kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain: true (no explicit keychain): -25291 (errSecNoDefaultKeychain) kSecValuePersistentRef with an explicit kSecMatchSearchList pointing at System.keychain: -50 (errSecParam) — combining kSecValuePersistentRef with an explicit keychain search list is an invalid parameter combination for the compact cert-format reference. kSecMatchItemList with an explicit kSecMatchSearchList: -25300 (errSecItemNotFound) SecKeychainItemCopyFromPersistentReference (legacy API): -25300 (errSecItemNotFound) kSecValuePersistentRef with no keychain qualifier at all: -25291 (errSecNoDefaultKeychain) com.apple.managed.vpn.shared access group (which i know has had entitled use on iOS): -34018 (errSecMissingEntitlement) Next steps The cert-format kSecValuePersistentRef produced by an ACME identity cannot be resolved in a root daemon context using any API path we can find. The ssui-format reference from a PKCS#12 identity works. With macOS 27, com.apple.configuration.network.vpn.vpn-plugin DDM declarations accept an Authentication.IdentityAssetReference which can point at an ACME identity asset. Traditional VPN profiles also support PayloadCertificateUUID referencing an ACME payload. Both paths result in the extension receiving a cert-format reference that it cannot resolve. Is there a supported API to resolve a cert-format kSecValuePersistentRef in a daemon context without a default keychain? Or is this just the reality of the DPK on macOS where ACME/SE-backed identities are not usable from system extensions, and the IdentityAssetReference and PayloadCertificateUUID fields only work for PKCS#12 or SCEP identity types in this context? For completeness: we have also explored ManagedApp.framework and ManagedAppIdentitiesProvider as an alternative delivery path, and believe this is the better method, but that hits a separate issue where managedappsd fails to verify the code signature of a system extension caller (filed separately as feedback FB23484530). Similar to this, we need to understand if the ExtensionConfigs in ManagedApp.framework are for appex user space app extensions only, and don't extend to System Extensions.

Hello, We have an assessment application that placing the device into Education Assessment Mode (also referred to as Single App Mode) to provide a secure exam environment. On our test devices, Education Assessment Mode behaves as expected. While an assessment session is active, we have verified that third-party notifications (such as WhatsApp and Snapchat) do not appear. However, one of our customers recently reported that during an active exam, a Snapchat notification was displayed while the device was still in Education Assessment Mode. We have been unable to reproduce this behavior on any of our test devices, even after repeated testing with the same application. Has anyone experienced similar behavior with education assessment mode? Specifically: Can there be any scenario where third-party notification banners are shown while an assessment session is active? Are there any known edge cases or system conditions that could allow notifications to appear during Education Assessment Mode? Is there any way to verify from the application that the assessment session is still fully enforced by the system? We're also interested in knowing whether Apple is aware of any issues related to notification suppression while an education assessment mode is active. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Anyone aware of a work around for the followiing? Using an unsupervised device. iOS 26.5, MacOS 26.5.1, cfgutil 2.20 (1001.5), App Configurator 2.20 (11B11), on an iMac 2024 and an iPhone 16 Pro cfgutil get-icon-layout works as expected, returning the app layout list. Add an app to any page from the App Library. Rerun the command and a crash is the result. *** Terminating app due to uncaught exception 'NSInvalidArgumentException', reason: '*** -[__NSArrayM insertObject:atIndex:]: object cannot be nil' *** First throw call stack: ( 0 CoreFoundation 0x00000001854a91c0 __exceptionPreprocess + 176 1 libobjc.A.dylib 0x0000000184f3291c objc_exception_throw + 88 2 CoreFoundation 0x00000001853db9dc -[__NSArrayM insertObject:atIndex:] + 1864 3 cfgutil 0x0000000104cc2df4 cfgutil + 44532 4 cfgutil 0x0000000104cc2ce4 cfgutil + 44260 5 cfgutil 0x0000000104cc2ce4 cfgutil + 44260 6 cfgutil 0x0000000104cc3104 cfgutil + 45316 7 cfgutil 0x0000000104cd3d14 cfgutil + 113940 8 cfgutil 0x0000000104ccee68 cfgutil + 93800 9 dyld 0x0000000184fbfe00 start + 6992 ) libc++abi: terminating due to uncaught exception of type NSException