An ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest rejection email looks as follows: ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest- Your app includes "<path/to/SDK>", which includes , an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a privacy-impacting third-party SDK. Starting February 12, 2025, if a new app includes a privacy-impacting SDK, or an app update adds a new privacy-impacting 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. Glossary ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest: An email that includes the name and path of privacy-impacting SDK(s) with no privacy manifest files in your app bundle. For more information, see https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. : The specified privacy-impacting SDK that doesn't include a privacy manifest file. If you are the developer of the rejected app, gather the name of the SDK from the email you received from Apple, then contact the SDK's provider for an updated version that includes a valid privacy manifest. After receiving an updated version of the SDK, verify the SDK includes a valid privacy manifest file at the expected location. For more information, see Adding a privacy manifest to your app or third-party SDK. If your app includes a privacy manifest file, make sure the file only describes the privacy practices of your app. Do not add the privacy practices of the SDK to your app's privacy manifest. If the email lists multiple SDKs, repeat the above process for all of them. If you are the developer of an SDK listed in the email, publish an updated version of your SDK that includes a privacy manifest file with valid keys and values. Every privacy-impacting SDK must contain a privacy manifest file that only describes its privacy practices. To learn how to add a valid privacy manifest to your SDK, see the Additional resources section below. Additional resources Privacy manifest files Describing data use in privacy manifests Describing use of required reason API Adding a privacy manifest to your app or third-party SDK TN3182: Adding privacy tracking keys to your privacy manifest TN3183: Adding required reason API entries to your privacy manifest TN3184: Adding data collection details to your privacy manifest TN3181: Debugging an invalid privacy manifest

General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Forums tag: Privacy Developer > Security — This also covers privacy topics. App privacy details on the App Store UIKit > Protecting the User’s Privacy documentation Bundle Resources > Privacy manifest files documentation TN3181 Debugging an invalid privacy manifest technote TN3182 Adding privacy tracking keys to your privacy manifest technote TN3183 Adding required reason API entries to your privacy manifest technote TN3184 Adding data collection details to your privacy manifest technote TN3179 Understanding local network privacy technote Handling ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest forums post Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

My app used 3rd party API to provide some services, but there's a possibility that those API use some other third party service and to approve my app for App Privacy Guidelines 5.1.1(i) - Legal - Privacy - Data Collection and 5.1.2(i) - Legal - Privacy - Data Use, developers must include third party API service name.

I'm getting the following error on every submission (Build 1 through 8), even after multiple clean rebuilds and manual verification of the raw manifest content: ITMS-91064: Invalid tracking information - A PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy file contains invalid tracking information at the following path: "PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy" and also "PlugIns/[WidgetName].appex/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy" NSPrivacyTracking must be true if NSPrivacyTrackingDomains isn't empty. What I've verified locally (via plutil -p and raw cat on both the .xcarchive and the exported .ipa): Main app PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy: NSPrivacyTracking=false, NSPrivacyTrackingDomains=[] (empty) Widget PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy: same, false + empty No duplicate keys found in either file Generated an official "Privacy Report" from Xcode Organizer - no obvious conflict at the app or widget level was shown Updated GoogleMobileAds/UserMessagingPlatform SDKs to the latest version - issue persists Bundle version increments correctly with each build (confirmed via Info.plist inside the actual uploaded archive) Is there a known caching issue on the App Store Connect validation side, or something else I might be missing? Happy to share the Privacy Report PDF and archive details if helpful.

We are having an issue with the Local Network permission pop-up not getting triggered for our apps that need to communicate with devices via local network interfaces/addresses. As we understand, apps using UDP should trigger this, causing macOS to prompt for access, or, if denied, fail to connect. However, we are facing issues with macOS not prompting this popup at all. Here are important and related points: Our application is packaged as a .app package and distributed independently (not on the App Store). The application controls hardware that we manufacture. In order to find the hardware on the network, we send a UDP broadcast with a message for our hardware on the local network, and the hardware responds with a message back. However, the popup (to ask for permission) never shows up. The application is not able to find the hardware device. It is interesting to note that data is still sent out to the network (without the popup) but we receive back the wrong data. The behaviour is consistent macOS Sequoia (and above) with both Apple And Intel silicon. Workarounds that have been tried: Manual Authorization: One solution suggested in various blogs was to go to "Settings → Privacy and Security-> Local network", find your application and grant access. However, the application never shows up in the list here. Firewall: No difference is seen in behaviour with firewall being ON OR OFF. Setting NSLocalNetworkUsageDescription: We have also tried setting the Info.plist adding the NSLocalNetworkUsageDescription with a meaningful string and updating the NSBonjourServices. Running Via terminal (WORKS): Running the application via terminal sees no issues. The application runs correctly and is able to send UDP and receive correct data (and find the devices on the network). But this is not an appropriate solution. How can we get this bug/issue fixed in macOS Sequoia (and above)? Are there any other solutions/workarounds that we can try on our end?

My app is using RemoteMediaSessionExtension to control speakers over the local network via the new Now Playing framework. Starting with Beta 6, local network calls from the extension fail with 'Path was denied by NECP policy' error. Is it a bug or an intentional change in the latest beta?

Our macOS app makes an URLRequest (via URLSession) to an HTTP(S) server on the local network (a device at a private IP address, e.g. 192.168.x.x). The request fails with NSURLErrorNotConnectedToInternet (-1009) whose underlying error resolves to ENETDOWN (POSIX errno 50) at the socket/connection level — i.e. the failure happens before any TLS/HTTP exchange, at connect() time. This only reproduces on macOS 27 "Golden Gate" Public Beta. The exact same build/binary works correctly on: macOS 26 "Tahoe" (shipping release) macOS 27 "Golden Gate" Developer Beta Based on our diagnosis, we believe the Local Network permission prompt itself is never firing for direct-IP (non-Bonjour) connections on this Public Beta build, leaving the app's Local Network TCC grant permanently stuck in an "undetermined" state — which then surfaces as ENETDOWN. This is consistent with the app not appearing at all in System Settings → Privacy & Security → Local Network, and with tccutil reset LocalNetwork failing both per-app and system-wide (there's no grant to reset in the first place). We'd like a sanity check / to know if others are seeing this, and whether there's a known workaround. Environment App: com.example.Client, non-sandboxed Target: https://:/api/... macOS versions tested: macOS 26 Tahoe — OK; macOS 27 Golden Gate Developer Beta — OK; macOS 27 Golden Gate Public Beta (build: 26A5388g) — fails Mac model: Mac mini Xcode version used to build: 27 beta 2 Error details URLSession completion error: Error Domain=NSURLErrorDomain Code=-1009 "..." UserInfo={ _kCFStreamErrorCodeKey=50, NSUnderlyingError=0x... { Error Domain=kCFErrorDomainCFNetwork Code=-1009 UserInfo={ _NSURLErrorNWPathKey=..., _kCFStreamErrorCodeKey=50, _kCFStreamErrorDomainKey=1 } }, ... } _kCFStreamErrorDomainKey=1 is kCFStreamErrorDomainPOSIX, and code 50 is ENETDOWN. Console log for the same request shows the failure at the connection layer, before any TLS/HTTP activity: Connection 1: received failure notification Connection 1: failed to connect 1:50, reason -1 Connection 1: encountered error(1:50) Task <...>.<1> HTTP load failed, 0/0 bytes (error code: -1009 [1:50]) What we've ruled out / tried Added NSLocalNetworkUsageDescription to Info.plist — no change in behavior. Confirmed via codesign -d --entitlements - and plutil -p Info.plist that the built/signed app bundle actually contains the key. Checked System Settings → Privacy & Security → Local Network — the app itself does not even appear in the list. Tried resetting the Local Network TCC grant: sudo tccutil reset LocalNetwork com.example.Client → tccutil: Failed to reset LocalNetwork approval status for com.example.Client Also tried a full reset for the service (no bundle id): sudo tccutil reset LocalNetwork → tccutil: Failed to reset LocalNetwork Confirmed tccutil itself is functioning normally on this machine — resetting other services succeeds, e.g.: sudo tccutil reset Camera → Successfully reset Camera So tccutil works in general, but the LocalNetwork service specifically cannot be reset, on this Public Beta build, either per-app or system-wide. Question for the forum Is there a known change/regression on the Golden Gate Public Beta where the Local Network permission prompt doesn't fire for direct-IP connections that don't go through Bonjour/NWBrowser? (The same code works fine on the Developer Beta.) Has anyone else seen tccutil reset LocalNetwork fail (while other services reset fine) specifically on the macOS 27 Golden Gate Public Beta? Any known workaround short of downgrading — e.g. restructuring the connection to use Bonjour/NWBrowser instead of a direct IP connection, or some way to explicitly trigger the permission prompt? We're also planning to file this via Feedback Assistant with a full sysdiagnose, but wanted to check here first in case this is already a known/tracked issue or someone has a workaround. Thanks in advance.

iOS 27 adds a second stage to HealthKit read authorization. After picking data types, the user chooses "Past 30 Days and Future Data" or "All Recorded Data and Future Data", with Allow disabled until one is selected. Every user of every health app now makes this call, in the first seconds of onboarding, with no real context about what the app needs. I don't think the scale of this has landed yet. A meaningful share of users will pick 30 days. multi-year health trends, month to month comparisons, all-time records: with 30 days these features don't get worse, they stop existing. And it breaks silently. The user sees empty charts and a app that doesn't do what the screenshots promised. They won't connect that to a sheet they tapped through on day one — they'll connect it to the app. That's the reckoning: a wave of one-star reviews and support mail for a decision the developer never saw and can't inspect. Because we can't inspect it .authorizationStatus(for:) deliberately hides read authorization and getRequestStatusForAuthorization only says whether prompting would show UI, so a 30-day grant and a genuinely new Apple Watch user look identical from the query layer. A callback when Health permissions change for a type — even without disclosing the new state — would go a long way here. And we can't route users to the fix. UIApplication.openSettingsURLString opens the app's own Settings page, which has no Health section. The real control sits at Settings › Privacy & Security › Health › — four levels deep, unreachable from any public API. My suggestion is a URL constant scoped to the calling app, the way openNotificationSettingsURLString (iOS 15.4+) and openDefaultApplicationsSettingsURLString (iOS 18.3+) already work. But that's just my idea; if there's a better mitigation, or something already planned, I'd like to hear it. Worth saying the privacy gain looks thin either way: the app keeps all future data indefinitely, so a 30-day grant becomes a full-history grant in thirty days for anyone who keeps the app. The window limits what's readable today, not what accumulates. iOS 27 release is approaching... I think this will cause problems 😞 Filed as FB24398048 and FB24398031

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, We've implemented age assurance logic in our app using the DeclaredAgeRange framework to comply with regulations in Brazil (Digital ECA, effective March 17, 2026) and Utah (App Store Accountability Act, effective May 6, 2026). Our implementation calls AgeRangeService.shared.isEligibleForAgeFeatures on app launch to determine whether the current user is subject to age assurance requirements, and proceeds to call requestAgeRange(ageGates:) accordingly. However, after monitoring in production since the Brazil enforcement date, we've consistently observed isEligibleForAgeFeatures returning false for users in regulated regions, with no age range data being returned. What we'd like to clarify: Is isEligibleForAgeFeatures currently returning true for users in Brazil in production (not sandbox)? For Utah — given that HB 498 pushed the developer compliance deadline to May 6, 2027, will isEligibleForAgeFeatures reflect the original May 6, 2026 activation date or the revised 2027 date? Is there a known rollout schedule or gradual activation plan for these regions that would explain why the flag remains false even after the legal enforcement dates have passed? We've seen similar reports from other developers on these forums, so it seems this may be a widespread issue rather than an implementation problem on our end. Any official guidance on the current status of the API in regulated regions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Hi Apple Developer Community, I’m preparing an iOS app called Titech for App Review. The app is intended for clinic/business users and provides preliminary AI-generated cosmetic analysis and preview guidance based on user-submitted face photos. The app is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment decisions, and users are told to consult qualified experts before acting on any recommendation. We have received multiple App Review rejections and I would appreciate guidance on whether our current approach is aligned with Apple’s expectations. Current issues raised by App Review: Guideline 2.1 - Information Needed Apple asked for more information about how the app uses face data, including: What face data is collected How it is used, stored, retained, deleted, and shared Whether it is shared with third parties Where this is explained in the privacy policy Exact privacy policy text about face data We updated the app and privacy policy to explain that: Users voluntarily upload front, left-side, and right-side face photos Photos may be sent to our backend and processed by OpenAI through the OpenAI API Face ID/fingerprint data is not collected Uploaded face photos and generated preview images are deleted after the active session ends The app does not sell face data or share it with advertisers/data brokers Guideline 2.1(b) - Information Needed Apple asked about the business model and whether users access paid content. Our app does not currently include paid digital content, subscriptions, credits, or in-app purchases. Access is controlled by a registration code for clinic/business users and App Review only. Guideline 2.3.3 - Accurate Metadata Apple said the screenshots did not show the current version of the app in use. We replaced the screenshots with updated iPhone and iPad screenshots showing: Clinic access Consent and face-data disclosure Photo capture AI-generated analysis Recommendations Side effects page Generated preview flow My questions: For apps using user-submitted face photos with a third-party AI API, is it enough to clearly disclose OpenAI processing in the consent screen and privacy policy, or should this also be repeated elsewhere in the app flow? For face photos that are deleted after the active session ends, what wording does Apple generally expect around retention and deletion? Since the app is clinic/business access only and does not sell digital content, is a registration code acceptable if we clearly explain that it is not a paid digital unlock? Are there any additional App Review notes or privacy policy sections that developers usually include for apps involving face photos and AI-generated preliminary recommendations? For metadata, should the screenshots avoid login/consent screens entirely, or is it acceptable to include them as long as most screenshots show core app functionality? Any advice from developers who have passed review with apps involving user-uploaded face photos, AI analysis, or cosmetic/health-adjacent recommendations would be very helpful. Thank you.

Let's say my app is a password or other type of secret manager, which means it can display highly sensitive data to the user. If Siri summarize whats on screen, it would then be able to "see" that sensitive data and transmit it off device in a way the user might not expect nor want. Is there a way that I can prevent this by marking specific views in an app as sensitive, or detect if Siri is analyzing the contents of the apps screen? The .privacySensitive() modifier and @Environment(\.isSceneCaptured) environment variable do not seem to apply in this case.

Hi everyone! We recently integrated "Sign in with Apple" into our application using standard social login flows. For the vast majority of our users, the integration works perfectly—we receive the user's email during sign-in and sign-up. However, we are noticing an edge case where a small subset of users are returning an ID token that is completely missing the email. We can't seem to reproduce this error ourselves during testing. Every time we test a sign-up or sign-in, the email payload is included exactly as expected. My Questions: Is there a specific reason why Apple would omit the email claim from the ID token? Any insights or guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

I am currently using macOS 27 beta 4, but this issue also existed on macOS 26.5 before I updated to macOS 27. I am not sure whether earlier system versions had the same problem, as I had never encountered a similar issue before. I am developing through the local network, including using VSCode Remote SSH to connect to a local server, and using a Swift app to establish a WebSocket connection with the local server. Recently, I have encountered multiple cases where the local server connection suddenly failed. Checking the logs showed messages such as Permission denied or similar errors. AI assistants explained that this usually means the target app does not have Local Network permission enabled in Privacy & Security settings. However, I checked the settings page and confirmed that the target apps already have Local Network permission enabled. Previously, when VSCode Remote SSH failed, I observed the following behavior: after updating VSCode, if the local server was not running, VSCode Remote SSH immediately reported that the target server could not be found. After starting the local server, it immediately reported that there was no route to the host (I do not remember the exact English error message, but it was a common network error). Checking the logs showed Permission denied. I even noticed two VSCode entries in the Local Network permission list that could be enabled or disabled independently. Just now, my Swift app failed in a similar way. I verified that the server was running and listening because websocat could successfully connect to the local server. The app uses Starscream, and client.connect() was executed but the connection could not be established. Checking log stream --predicate 'process == "name"' --level debug showed: 2026-08-08 14:48:38.620396 ... nw_endpoint_handler_path_change [C1 ... waiting parent-flow (unsatisfied (Local network prohibited), interface: bridge100, ipv4)] However, after successfully applying the workaround described below, I saw the backend server print related output, proving that the server received the app's ping frame. At the same time, the Local Network permission page did not show this app as an entry, and no permission prompt appeared asking me to authorize Local Network access. Therefore, I am no longer certain that this issue is strictly related to Local Network permission. All of the above cases involve third-party components: VSCode Remote SSH, UTM providing a server at 192.168.64.3, and Starscream instead of the WebSocket implementation provided by Foundation. I am not an expert in networking, so I cannot completely rule out issues caused by third-party software. However, I found that running the following commands in macOS Recovery Mode: #!/bin/bash cd "/Volumes/Data/Library/Preferences/" rm -f com.apple.networkextension.plist rm -f com.apple.networkextension.uuidcache.plist rm -f com.apple.networkextension.control.plist rm -f com.apple.networkextension.necp.plist and then rebooting can resolve the situation where one specific app suddenly cannot access the local network while other apps continue to work normally. Running tccutil reset All com.bundle.id did not solve the problem. This command was suggested by Claude Sonnet 5. I am not even sure whether Local Network permission is managed by TCC, but I am including this information because the five commands above appear to modify NetworkExtension-related files rather than the TCC database. This issue cannot currently be reproduced reliably. I do not know when it will happen. After it occurs, I have not found a normal-system-environment solution. The only workaround I have found is booting into Recovery Mode and clearing the local network authorization-related files.

Subject: Clarification Request – Private Relay and Silent Network Verification (SNV) Hello, Context: our app uses Silent Network Verification (SNV), the standard carrier method where the network recognizes a subscriber's connection to verify their identity without needing an SMS code. When a user has iCloud Private Relay enabled, the request path changes in a way that breaks this recognition, and the user falls back to OTP instead. We're evaluating an approach where the app would handle DNS resolution itself for this specific verification request, so the request stays on a path our network can recognize — without the user having to turn Private Relay off. Before we go further with this, we'd like clarity on two things: Would this kind of app-level DNS handling, used only for this verification step, be acceptable under the App Store Review Guidelines — or would it likely be treated as working around a user's privacy setting (for example under 2.5.1, 2.5.9, or 5.1.1)? If we added an explicit, transparent consent step in the app — telling the user we're bypassing Private Relay for this one request so they can be verified without an SMS code — would that change how this is viewed? We'd rather get this in writing from Apple than build against an assumption, and we'll need to share your response with our internal IT and compliance team, so a written reply would be genuinely helpful. Happy to provide more technical detail if useful. Thank you,

We develop a third-party endpoint security agent (DLP / device control). It needs kTCCServiceBluetoothAlways to enumerate paired Bluetooth devices and disconnect them selectively based on policy — without user interaction, since this runs unattended on managed fleets. Until recently we granted this silently via a com.apple.TCC.configuration-profile-policy (PPPC) profile pushed by MDM, or by writing directly to the TCC database — the latter no longer possible starting with macOS 27 (Golden Gate). As of macOS 27, tccd also ignores the PPPC profile approach: Override: skipping kTCCServiceBluetoothAlways ... as it is defined in deprecated PPPC profile As a result, end users now hit the standard Bluetooth access consent popup, which we have no way to suppress or pre-answer with Allow. ** Questions: ** Is there any currently supported MDM mechanism — profile-based, DDM, or otherwise — to pre-approve kTCCServiceBluetoothAlways for a specific managed app, so the popup never appears? If direct pre-approval is gone for good, is there any supported way to auto-answer the popup on the user’s behalf via policy (as exists for some other TCC services)? Is this now permanently interactive by design, or is a replacement mechanism planned for MDM-managed Bluetooth access?

in iOS26.4, after installing the app for the first time, opening the app and clicking on the UITextField input box will trigger the system to pop up the network permission application interface. This issue did not exist before iOS 26.3, only in iOS 26.4. This is a fatal bug where the network permission request box should not pop up when the developer has not called the network related API.

Hi everyone, I am working on an iOS application that utilizes a Broadcast Upload Extension (ReplayKit) to perform local, on-device screen analysis. Currently, we are using RPSystemBroadcastPickerView to allow the user to initiate the broadcast session. However, for our specific tracking use case, requiring the user to manually tap the "Start Broadcast" button every time creates a significant friction point in the user experience. My questions are: Is there any private API, entitlement, or MDM (Mobile Device Management) configuration that allows an app to programmatically start a ReplayKit screen recording session completely in the background without explicit human intervention (e.g., without tapping a button in the UI)? If this is strictly prohibited for consumer apps on the App Store due to privacy guidelines, are there any exceptions or enterprise-level profiles available for supervised devices that bypass the mandatory RPSystemBroadcastPickerView user interaction? My understanding is that Apple enforces this manual trigger and the red status bar indicator for strict security and privacy reasons, but I am looking for an official confirmation on whether any programmatic workaround exists for this in modern iOS versions (iOS 15+). Thank you in advance for your time and clarification!

I've a iOT companion app, in which I'll connect to iOT's Wi-Fi and then communicate the device with APIs, for the above functionality we needed local network permission So we enabled neccessary keys in info.plist and at the time of App Launch we trigger local network permission using the following code info.plist <string>This app needs local network access permission to connect with your iOT device and customize its settings</string> <key>NSBonjourServices</key> <array> <string>_network-perm._tcp</string> <string>_network-perm._udp</string> </array> Network Permission Trigger Methods import Foundation import MultipeerConnectivity class NetworkPermissionManager: NSObject { static let shared = NetworkPermissionManager() private var session: MCSession? private var advertiser: MCNearbyServiceAdvertiser? private var browser: MCNearbyServiceBrowser? private var permissionCallback: ((String) -> Void)? func requestPermission(callback: @escaping (String) -> Void) { self.permissionCallback = callback do { let peerId = MCPeerID(displayName: UUID().uuidString) session = MCSession(peer: peerId, securityIdentity: nil, encryptionPreference: .required) session?.delegate = self advertiser = MCNearbyServiceAdvertiser( peer: peerId, discoveryInfo: nil, serviceType: "network-perm" ) advertiser?.delegate = self browser = MCNearbyServiceBrowser( peer: peerId, serviceType: "network-perm" ) browser?.delegate = self advertiser?.startAdvertisingPeer() browser?.startBrowsingForPeers() // Stop after delay DispatchQueue.main.asyncAfter(deadline: .now() + 1.0) { [weak self] in self?.stopAll() // If no error occurred until now, consider permission triggered self?.permissionCallback?("granted") self?.permissionCallback = nil } } catch { permissionCallback?("error: \(error.localizedDescription)") permissionCallback = nil } } func stopAll() { advertiser?.stopAdvertisingPeer() browser?.stopBrowsingForPeers() session?.disconnect() } } extension NetworkPermissionManager: MCSessionDelegate { func session(_: MCSession, peer _: MCPeerID, didChange _: MCSessionState) {} func session(_: MCSession, didReceive _: Data, fromPeer _: MCPeerID) {} func session(_: MCSession, didReceive _: InputStream, withName _: String, fromPeer _: MCPeerID) {} func session(_: MCSession, didStartReceivingResourceWithName _: String, fromPeer _: MCPeerID, with _: Progress) {} func session(_: MCSession, didFinishReceivingResourceWithName _: String, fromPeer _: MCPeerID, at _: URL?, withError _: Error?) {} } extension NetworkPermissionManager: MCNearbyServiceAdvertiserDelegate { func advertiser(_: MCNearbyServiceAdvertiser, didReceiveInvitationFromPeer _: MCPeerID, withContext _: Data?, invitationHandler: @escaping (Bool, MCSession?) -> Void) { invitationHandler(false, nil) } func advertiser(_: MCNearbyServiceAdvertiser, didNotStartAdvertisingPeer error: Error) { print("❌ Advertising failed: \(error)") if let nsError = error as NSError?, nsError.domain == NetService.errorDomain, nsError.code == -72008 { permissionCallback?("denied") } else { permissionCallback?("error: \(error.localizedDescription)") } permissionCallback = nil stopAll() } } extension NetworkPermissionManager: MCNearbyServiceBrowserDelegate { func browser(_: MCNearbyServiceBrowser, foundPeer _: MCPeerID, withDiscoveryInfo _: [String: String]?) {} func browser(_: MCNearbyServiceBrowser, lostPeer _: MCPeerID) {} func browser(_: MCNearbyServiceBrowser, didNotStartBrowsingForPeers error: Error) { print("❌ Browsing failed: \(error)") if let nsError = error as NSError?, nsError.domain == NetService.errorDomain, nsError.code == -72008 { permissionCallback?("denied") } else { permissionCallback?("error: \(error.localizedDescription)") } permissionCallback = nil stopAll() } }``` I want to satisfy this following cases but it's not working as expected # Case1 Working App launches --> trigger permission using above code --> user granted permission --> connect to iOT's Wi-Fi using app --> Communicate via Local API ---> should return success response # Case2 Not working App launches --> trigger permission using above code --> user denied permission --> connect to iOT's Wi-Fi using app --> Communicate via Local API ---> should throw an error I double checked the permission status in the app settings there also showing disabled state In my case case 2 is also return success, even though user denied the permission I got success response. I wonder why this happens the same above 2 cases working as expected in iOS 17.x versions

I'm seeing a behavior difference in CGWindowListCopyWindowInfo between macOS 26 Tahoe and macOS 27 Golden Gate beta regarding the Screen Recording / System Audio Recording privacy permission, and I'd like to confirm whether this is intentional or a beta regression. Environment macOS 26 Tahoe (26.x) — tested behavior below macOS 27 Golden Gate beta 4 (26A5388g) — tested behavior below Expected behavior (matches Tahoe) When my app does NOT have permission under System Settings > Privacy & Security > Screen & System Audio Recording: CGWindowListCopyWindowInfo still returns window list entries for other running apps. However, kCGWindowOwnerName for windows owned by processes other than my own app is nil. When permission IS granted, kCGWindowOwnerName is populated correctly for all windows. Actual behavior on Golden Gate Even without Screen Recording permission granted (verified in System Settings, and via CGPreflightScreenCaptureAccess() returning false), kCGWindowOwnerName is populated for windows owned by other running apps — i.e., the same as if permission had been granted. Repro swift let options: CGWindowListOption = [.optionOnScreenOnly, .excludeDesktopElements] let windowList = CGWindowListCopyWindowInfo(options, kCGNullWindowID) as? [[String: AnyObject]] for window in windowList ?? [] { let owner = window[kCGWindowOwnerName as String] as? String print(owner ?? "nil") } On Tahoe without permission: prints nil for other apps' windows. On Golden Gate beta 4 without permission: prints the actual owner name for other apps' windows. Question Is this a known/intentional change in Golden Gate, or a beta regression in the TCC enforcement path for this API? Since Apple has been steadily tightening screen-capture-adjacent APIs (Sonoma/Sequoia/Tahoe) and recommending migration to ScreenCaptureKit, should we treat any reliance on kCGWindowOwnerName's permission-gated nil behavior as unsupported going forward, and use a different API to check whether the process has Screen Recording access? Any guidance from DTS would be appreciated. Happy to file a Feedback Assistant report with a sample project if useful — let me know the FB number format expected.

Hi, we have an app which used DeviceID to track users. We had implemented ATT and setup our privacy declaration in ASC accordingly. Now in our new version we decided to not track users anymore. We removed NSUserTrackingUsageDescription, removed ATT permission code and submitted the new version. Now, reviewer has complained that our privacy declaration in ASC still says we are tracking users and refused app acceptance. They told us to update the privacy declaration in ASC. We tried to do so, but ASC does not allow us to remove device ID tracking. It is showing a warning that our app still uses NSUserTrackingUsageDescription and in fact that is true for the production version. We are now in a chicken egg problem. We can't change our privacy declaration in ASC because the production version still uses the feature AND we do not get the new version accepted as long as our privacy declaration is not changed. How can we fix that ? Pls advise !

App Store Connect's privacy label system creates impossible review situations by checking live app versions instead of submitted builds. Problem: Developer has a live app with tracking on the App Store Developer create a new app version with all tracking removed Privacy labels from AppStore Connect cannot be updated because system references live version with tracking App gets rejected for privacy label mismatch with submitted build Cannot fix labels until approved, cannot get approved with wrong labels Expected behavior: Privacy label system should allow updates for pending app versions or check submitted build instead of live version. Steps to reproduce: Submit app update with tracking removed Try to update privacy labels to "no tracking" from AppStore Connect System shows error: "Your app contains NSUserTrackingUsageDescription, indicating that you will request permission to track users. You must indicate which data types are tracking users. If this is incorrect, update your app binary and upload a new build to App Store Connect." App gets rejected despite submitted build having no tracking This affects any developer trying to remove tracking functionality from AppStore Connect in such a scenario. I have opened a bug in Feedback Assistant: FB19459680