Seems like gethostname() is not returning host name anymore in iOS 17 beta, just localhost. Is this a bug?

Hello there. We have an endpoint security service that consists of a command-line tool and a client app that bundles a network extension (the command-line tool runs as a daemon via Launch Services and communicates with the extension via XPC). It works when installed manually under all OS versions, and under MacOS 12.x (Monterey) and earlier when provisioned via MDM. However, beginning with some version of 13.x (Ventura), MDM provisioning is insufficient. The daemon is unable to connect to the extension via XPC. Under "Full Disk Access" in System Pref^H^H^H^HSettings, an entry for our component appears but the switch is off. Turning the switch on manually at this point does not change the situation; the daemon apparently remains unable to talk to the extension. It seems as though some additional entitlement or declaration is now needed in the MDM mobileconfig to make things work under 13.x and above, but after trying a multitude of combinations, I'm at a loss. Any hints?

Newbie developer here developing a VisionOS app that requires live camera and microphone access. Struggling to understand the access permission policy of the Vision Pro, I am seeking help from the community on where I can find policies around whether and how an app can gain access to Vision Pro's cameras and microphone. Hoping that getting user consent is all it requires for the access. Any help is appreciated!

Hi, I am testing out an update for my app in macOS Sonoma. I first installed the App Store version of my app on the device running macOS Sonoma, and it ran fine. I then installed an updated version of my app through TestFlight (built with macOS Ventura SDK), but when I run this updated version, I get prompted ”MyApp differs from previously opened versions. Are you sure you want to open it?". Why is this happening? Is this warning only because the app is updated through TestFlight, or do I need to do something to prevent this warning from happening when I update my app through the App Store? I see this mentioned in an Apple security update:: App Sandbox now associates your macOS app with its sandbox container using its code signature. The operating system asks the person using your app to grant permission if it tries to access a sandbox container associated with a different app. For more information, see Accessing files from the macOS App Sandbox. My app is already sandboxed, and I'm not trying to access a different app's sandbox container, just my own. For the TestFlight build, it probably also uses the same Release configuration that the App Store build uses. I might have changed my provisioning profiles recently because they expired. Would that affect this and cause a prompt to be showed? Would love to know more about this prompt and how to avoid it. Thanks.

As of Xcode 15, Apple supports adding Privacy Manifests to SDKs. We develop an SDK that consists of several components (frameworks) for which we would like to add a Privacy Manifest. That works fine for our local builds, but we distribute our SDK via CocoaPods, which generates a single framework with the sources of all our components. This single framework currently does not have a Privacy Manifest. How would we be able to provide Privacy Manifests when using CocoaPods for distribution?

I implemented "com.apple.developer.device-information.user-assigned-device-name" on app, it's don't work.

We use Eventkit Framework to synchronize the meeting calendar to the system calendar, read the System Calendar with -[EKEventStore calendarsForEntityType:], Use - [EKEventStore saveEvent: span: commit: error:] wrote system calendar. This usage currently triggers the Contacts Permission Alert on a user. Through the log, we identified no use - [CNContactStore requestAccessForEntityType: completionHandler:] and Contacts API.

Request users' permissions to have their location displayed on a map; users must have the option to decline this request Require users to manually check-in each time they wish to have their location displayed on a map; there should be no option to enable automatic check-ins

I'm really excited by the idea of the privacy manifests, and really all the work Apple is doing to keep users protected. I work on the Mozilla VPN, and Mozilla shares Apple's commitment to privacy. We use Adjust to determine referrals for new subscriptions. But because of our commitment to privacy: After a user subscribes, we never activate the Adjust SDK on future app runs. We proxy the Adjust network call through our app, and strip out most of the fields it was going to send to the Adjust server. We keep a small handful of fields that are necessary for attribution (and even publish the list of those fields). Further, we don't send the Adjust network request (which has been stripped down) directly to Adjust's servers, we proxy it through our own server first. This both keeps user IP addresses private, and allows us to further strip out payload values on the server (or stop sending data onto Adjust entirely) if ever needed. Ultimately, this means Adjust's future privacy manifest likely won't be accurate for our app, as we're significantly modifying the Adjust SDK behavior and data collection. Questions: Will we be able to note in Xcode that the listed privacy manifest doesn't apply in our case? If there are future plans to compare privacy manifests with app nutritional labels in the App Store Review process, is it possible to consider this use case in your planning? Thanks!

How to uniquely identify the device to prevent fraudulent activity in any financial Apps? since UUID also gets changed on every installation, is there any option to track the device like how it is done with IMEI number ? Note: Our App is targeted for normal Appstore users.

when requestWhenInUseAuthorization() some phone not show system prompt view,The NSLocationWhenInUseUsageDescription key is already add. -locationManager:didChangeAuthorizationStatus: callback too kCLAuthorizationStatusNotDetermined,but the iPhone not show use location dialog,Does anyone know the reason？

Feedback report: FB12748529 Many of our users have received a new identifierForVendor (IDFV) when updating our apps. We released some app updates around 7/19/2023-7/21/2023, which is around the time we are seeing the IDFV change. After checking the contents of our updates, we aren’t sure why the IDFV has suddenly changed for these users. One thing we noticed is that our provisioning profiles were automatically updated to include the "xrOS" platform. This seems similar to this old thread: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/4202 Has anyone else seen recent changes with IDFV and/or xrOS?

It is stated that From Fall 2023 you’ll receive an email from Apple if you upload an app to App Store Connect that uses required reason API without describing the reason in its privacy manifest file. From Spring 2024, apps that don’t describe their use of required reason API in their privacy manifest file won’t be accepted by App Store Connect. There are some answers here : https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2023/10060/ but far from answering all questions. I have questions on how to implement: Where exactly is the privacy manifest ? How to create it, from which file template in Xcode ? WWDC speaks of a PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy (does it require a more recent version of Xcode than 14.2). WWDC describes a framework case. Is it the same for a "final" app ? is there a specific format for describing the reason ? Or just plain text. Is this text visible to the user or only to reviewer ? does it apply retroactively to apps already in AppStore (do they need to be resubmitted ?). It seems not. So I tried, in an iOS App, to declare the PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy as explained, with Xcode 14.2, using plist template, to no avail. Really not clear on how to proceed or even start… We would need a clear step by step tutorial with all prerequisites (Xcode or MacOS versions needed for instance).

I've just been looking at this list of APIs for which we will be soon be required to declare a "required reason" in the app's privacy manifest: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/privacy_manifest_files/describing_use_of_required_reason_api One of the listed functions is stat(). The rationale seems to be that a malicious app can use stat to get the timestamps of files outside the app container, thereby "fingerprinting" the device. The allowed reasons that we can declare are : To get timestamps that are displayed to the user. To get timestamps of files that are within the app's container. To get timestamps of files that the user has granted access to. I am concerned that this does not include many of the legitimate non-timestamp uses of stat(). For example, it can be used simply to test if a file exists, or to test whether a path refers to a file or a directory, or to check if two paths refer to the same file (e.g. via different symlinks), or to get the size of a file. Some of these things can be achieved in other ways; for example, I can check if a file exists by trying to open() it and checking for an error, and I can get the file size by opening it and calling lseek(SEEK_END). Maybe I can check if two paths are equivalent by using readlink() to form canonical paths for both and comparing them. But I bet there are other things that can't be done. I could probably fix all of my code to not call stat() for non-timestamp reasons in a few hours. It would be more difficult to fix the various open-source libraries that I use. What do you think we should all be doing?: "File a bug" asking for an additional reason for using stat(), i.e. to get non-timestamp information about files in the app's container. Deliberately mis-read allowed reason C617.1, "to access the timestamps of files inside the app container", as " to access the timestamps and other metadata of files inside the app container", and declare that in the privacy manifest. Change code to not call stat(). Any other suggestions? P.S. I guess that libc++ std::filesystem calls stat(). What is the status of using that? The std::filesystem functions that access file timestamps are not listed on the page linked above. If I call std::exists() to check if a file exists, and assuming that is implemented using stat(), will that trigger the new filter?

Apple recently announced some features to make device fingerprinting more difficult on their devices. The use of certain APIs that facilitate device fingerprinting will require justification. This technique is frequently used to prevent fraud and abuse in applications. For example, a device used to create and access multiple fake accounts to engage in fraudulent activities should be able to be identified and blocked. In the documentation on 'User privacy and data use', use cases related to fraud detection are not considered 'tracking' and are allowed. However it is not clear wether or not what applies to tracking can also be applied to fingerprinting. According to Apple's policies, is it possible to use device fingerprinting for fraud detection purposes?

How often does Apple update IPs posted in https://mask-api.icloud.com/egress-ip-ranges.csv ?

In Xcode 15, when performing an Archive build and clicking the 'Generate Privacy Report' button, it is believed that the app creates a PrivacyReport PDF file by inspecting the PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy file used by the Third-party SDKs within the app. However, upon testing, it appears that only the PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy file from the app itself is included in the generated PDF, and the PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy file from Third-party SDKs is not being included. For example, I placed the PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy file inside the 'MyFramework' project and created an xcframework with it. Then, I added MyFramework.xcframework into the TestApp and clicked the 'Generate Privacy Report' button after an Archive build, I encountered an error saying, 'The archive does not contain any PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy files.' (Of course, the added xcframework is already included in the TestApp target.) If you know the solution, please help me out.

I've set up a privacy manifest file in my SDK, which I'm developing in Xcode 15 beta 4, and built an xcframework. I verified that PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy exists in the xcframework. In state verifying the existence of PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy in xcframework, I incorporated the built xcframework into a test app for operation check, created an archive, and outputted a report from "Generate Privacy Report". Despite having a privacy manifest file set up in the test app, when I checked the report, I was able to confirm the contents of the test app's privacy manifest file but not the contents of the privacy manifest file I configured in the SDK. I understand that the SDK's privacy manifest file is merged with and outputted from the privacy manifest file of a project that incorporates the SDK. Am I mistaken?

For an ad SDK that shows web ads in WKWebView, if it does not know what tracking pixels will be in the web ads, is it still responsible for reporting Tracking Domains in the Privacy Manifest? If yes, how?

Hello there, I am building an app that's going to be keyboard oriented, meaning that the UI will be minimal and only live n the menu bar; all core functions will be performed from the keyboard hotkeys that should be available from wherever in the system. I know about a Swift library called Hotkey that's doing it and it seems to work, however it uses the Carbon API which is deprecated for many years, plus its code is double dutch to me and, since it relies on a legacy code I wish I could atleast understand it to maintain my version of it in case MacOS finally sheds of the Carbon API completely. Is there a way to realize global hotkey in a more modern way?