To validate incoming XPC connections from other executables, we perform SecCode checks for the dynamic signature of the connection (kSecCSDynamicInformation). Reading the setCodeSigningRequirement(_:) function documentation it appears to perform only static signing checks, is that so? If we use setCodeSigningRequirement(:) function in our listener(:, shouldAcceptNewConnection:) do we still need to check the dynamic information to be properly secure?

Using the SDK, I've printed out some log messages when I enter the wrong password: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] invoke 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] general: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] progname: 'SecurityAgentHelper-arm64' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] OS version: 'Version 15.5 (Build 24F74)' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] pid: '818' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] ppid: '1' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] euid: '92' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] uid: '92' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] session: 0x186e9 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] attributes: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] is root: f 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] has graphics: t 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] has TTY: t 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] is remote: f 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] auth session: 0x0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] context: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.088 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] authentication-failure: --S -14090 2025-08-20 15:58:14.088 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] pam_result: X-S 9 2025-08-20 15:58:14.089 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] hints: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.089 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] authorize-right: "system.login.console" 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-path: "/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app" 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-pid: 807 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-type: 'LDNB' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-uid: 0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-audit-token: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] 00 00 00 00 27 03 00 00 e9 86 01 00 68 08 00 00 ....'.......h... 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-pid: 807 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] flags: 259 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] reason: 0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] tries: 1 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] immutable hints: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-apple-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-firstparty-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-apple-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-firstparty-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.091 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] arguments: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.091 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] none 2025-08-20 15:58:14.108 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] LAContext: LAContext[4:8:112] 2025-08-20 15:58:14.119 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] token identities: 0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.120 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] token watcher: <TKTokenWatcher: 0x11410ee70> Specifically, is there a manual/link somewhere that can allow me to interpret: authentication-failure: --S -14090 and pam_result: X-S 9

I am trying to setup remote Java debugging between two machines running macOS (15.6 and 26). I am able to get the Java program to listen on a socket. However, I can connect to that socket only from the same machine, not from another machine on my local network. I use nc to test the connection. It reports Connection refused when trying to connect from the other machine. This issue sounds like it could be caused by the Java program lacking Local Network system permission. I am familiar with that issue arising when a program attempts to connect to a port on the local network. In that case, a dialog is displayed and System Settings can be used to grant Local Network permission to the client program. I don't know whether the same permission is required on the program that is receiving client requests. If it is, then I don't know how to grant that permission. There is no dialog, and System Settings does not provide any obvious way to grant permission to a program that I specify. Note that a Java application is a program run by the java command, not a bundled application. The java command contains a hard-wired Info.plist which, annoyingly, requests permission to use the microphone, but not Local Network access.

When we enable 3rd party authentication plugin using SFAuthorization window, then when user performs Lock Screen and then unlock the MAC. Now after unlock, if user tries to open Keychain Access, it is not getting opened. When trying to open Keychain Access, we are prompted for credentials but after providing the credentials Keychians are not getting opened. This is working on Sonoma 14.6.1 , but seeing this issue from macOS Sequoia onwards. Are there any suggested settings/actions to resolve this issue?

In Swift I'm using unzip by launching a Process to unzip a file. I added a launchRequirement to the process in order to make sure the executable is code signed by Apple and the identifier is com.apple.unzip. After testing out my code on another machines (both physical and virtual), I found out that in some the identifier is actually com.apple.zipinfo, which broke the SigningIdentifier requirement. It's safe to assume that /usr/bin/unzip can be trusted since it's in a System Integrity Protection (SIP) location, but I'm wondering why this executable has different identifiers?

General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Apple Platform Security support document Developer > Security Security Audit Thoughts forums post Cryptography: Forums tags: Security, Apple CryptoKit Security framework documentation Apple CryptoKit framework documentation Common Crypto man pages — For the full list of pages, run: % man -k 3cc For more information about man pages, see Reading UNIX Manual Pages. On Cryptographic Key Formats forums post SecItem attributes for keys forums post CryptoCompatibility sample code Keychain: Forums tags: Security Security > Keychain Items documentation TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations SecItem Fundamentals forums post SecItem Pitfalls and Best Practices forums post Investigating hard-to-reproduce keychain problems forums post App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access forums post Smart cards and other secure tokens: Forums tag: CryptoTokenKit CryptoTokenKit framework documentation Mac-specific resources: Forums tags: Security Foundation, Security Interface Security Foundation framework documentation Security Interface framework documentation BSD Privilege Escalation on macOS Related: Networking Resources — This covers high-level network security, including HTTPS and TLS. Network Extension Resources — This covers low-level network security, including VPN and content filters. Code Signing Resources Notarisation Resources Trusted Execution Resources — This includes Gatekeeper. App Sandbox Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

In the LightweightCodeRequirements framework, there is a LaunchCodeRequirement object which can be used as a requirement object for a Process for example. What I don't understand (I admit my macOS low-level knowledge is limited) is that how can this be used in a secure way that doesn't fall victim of a Time-of-Check/Time-of-Use issue. e.g. I specify a LaunchCodeRequirement via Process.launchRequirement for my process, let's say /usr/local/bin/mycommandlinetool. The LaunchCodeRequirement specifies my development team and a developer ID certificate. The process must be started in some form, before a SecCode/SecTask object can be created, rather than a SecStaticCode object (which only guarantees its validity checks to be intact as long as the file is not modified). But if the process was started, then I have no tools in my set to prevent it from executing its initialization code or similar. Then, by the time I'm able to check via SecCode/SecTask functions the LaunchCodeRequirement, I might have already ran malicious code - if mycommandlinetool was maliciously replaced. Or does the operating system use a daemon to copy the executable specified for Process to a secure location, then creates the SecStaticCode object, assesses the LaunchCodeRequirement and if passed, launches the executable from that trusted location (which would make sure it is immutable for replacement by malicious actors)? I have a hard time understanding how this works under the hood - if I remember correctly these are private APIs.

By default, it seems 15.6 is shipped with git version 2.39.5 (Apple Git-154) I was wondering when Apple will ship a Git version above 2.43 to resolve this vulnerability. Git Carriage Return Line Feed (CRLF) Vulnerability (CVE-2025-48384) https://github.com/git/git/security/advisories/GHSA-vwqx-4fm8-6qc9 You can install Homebrew then install newer versions of git using Homebrew; however that installs in a new location so the vulnerability is still present as the native version is behind and updated by Apple during software updates Thanks

how can I prevent handshake when certificate is user installed for example if user is using Proxyman or Charles proxy and they install their own certificates now system is trusting those certificates I wanna prevent that, and exclude those certificates that are installed by user, and accept the handshake if CA certificate is in a real valid certificate defined in OS I know this can be done in android by setting something like <network-security-config> <base-config> <trust-anchors> <certificates src="system" /> </trust-anchors> </base-config> </network-security-config>

If I was to build an app that opened a web server at local host on a random port that resolved subdomains for local host at that port, but there was no certificate authority, signed certificate available to provide HTTPS security, would this be in violation of apples ATS policy

Hi, I run a PacketTunnelProvider embedded within a system extension. We have been having success using this; however we have problems with accessing certificates/private keys manually imported in the file-based keychain. As per this, we are explicitly targeting the file-based keychain. However when attempting to access the certificate and private key we get the following error: System error using certificate key from keychain: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-25308 "CSSM Exception: -2147415840 CSSMERR_CSP_NO_USER_INTERACTION" (errKCInteractionNotAllowed / errSecInteractionNotAllowed: / Interaction is not allowed As per the online documentation, I would expect to be prompted for the access to the application: When an app attempts to access a keychain item for a particular purpose—like using a private key to sign a document—the system looks for an entry in the item’s ACL containing the operation. If there’s no entry that lists the operation, then the system denies access and it’s up to the calling app to try something else or to notify the user. If there is an entry that lists the operation, the system checks whether the calling app is among the entry’s trusted apps. If so, the system grants access. Otherwise, the system prompts the user for confirmation. The user may choose to Deny, Allow, or Always Allow the access. In the latter case, the system adds the app to the list of trusted apps for that entry, enabling the app to gain access in the future without prompting the user again But I do not see that prompt, and I only see the permission denied error in my program. I can work around this one of two ways Change the access control of the keychain item to Allow all applications to access this item. This is not preferable, as it essentially disables any ACLs for this item. Embed the certificate in a configuration profile that is pushed down to the device via MDM or something similar. This works at a larger scale, but if I'm trying to manually test out a certificate, I don't always want to have to set this up. Is there another way that I go about adding my application to the ACL of the keychain item? Thanks!

I am trying to create an app bundle with an xpc service. The main app creates a keychain item, and attempts to share (keychain access groups) with the xpc service it includes in its bundle. However, the xpc service always encounters a 'user interaction not allowed' error regardless of how I create the keychain item. kSecAttrAccessiblei is set to kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, the keychain access group is set for both the main app and the xpc service and in the provisioning profile. I've tried signing and notarizing. Is it ever possible for an xpc service to access the keychain? This all on macos 15.5.

Hi Team, How can we fetch the macOS password requirement(for setting a new password) that are inforce during login for users? Is there a way to get this info in swift programming?

Hi everyone, I’m working an Objective-C lib that performs Keychain operations, such as generating cryptographic keys and signing data. The lib will be used by my team in a Java program for macOS via JNI. When working with the traditional file-based Keychain (i.e., without access control flags), everything works smoothly, no issues at all. However, as soon as I try to generate a key using access control flags SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags, the Data Protection Keychain returns error -34018 (errSecMissingEntitlement) during SecKeyCreateRandomKey. This behavior is expected. To address this, I attempted to codesign my native dynamic library (.dylib) with an entitlement plist specifying various combinations of: keychain-access-groups com.apple.security.keychain etc. with: My Apple Development certificate Developer ID Application certificate Apple Distribution certificate None of these combinations made a difference, the error persists. I’d love to clarify: Is it supported to access Data Protection Keychain / Secure Enclave Keys in this type of use case? If so, what exact entitlements does macOS expect when calling SecKeyCreateRandomKey from a native library? I’d really appreciate any guidance or clarification. Thanks in advance! Best regards, Neil

Problem : Connection error occurs in iOS26 beta while connecting to the device's softap via commercial app (Socket exception errSSLfeerBadCert CFSreamErrorDomainSSL code -9825). iOS 18 release version does not occur. Why does it cause problems? Does the iOS 26 version not cause problems? Is there a way to set it up in the app so that the iOS 26 beta doesn't cause problems? error : "alias":"SOCKET_LOG", "additional":{"currentNetworkStatus":"socket e=errSSLPeerBadCert ns WifiStatus: Connected Error Domain kCFStreamErrorDomainSSL Code-9825 "(null)" UserInfo={NSLocalizedRecoverySuggestion=Error code definition can be found in Apple's SecureTransport.h} Description : It's an issue that happens when you connect our already mass-produced apps to our home appliances (using SoftAP), and it's currently only happening in iOS 26 beta. This particular issue didn't appear until iOS 18 version. Let me know to make sure that this issue will persist with the official release of iOS 26? If the issue continues to occur with the official version, would you share any suggestions on how to mitigate or avoid it. Also, it would be helpful to find out if there are known solutions or processes such as exemptions to fix this issue.

I am developing a macOS application (targeting macOS 13 and later) that is non-sandboxed and needs to install and trust a root certificate by adding it to the System keychain programmatically. I’m fine with prompting the user for admin privileges or password, if needed. So far, I have attempted to execute the following command programmatically from both: A user-level process A root-level process sudo security add-trusted-cert -d -r trustRoot -k /Library/Keychains/System.keychain /path/to/cert.pem While the certificate does get installed, it does not appear as trusted in the Keychain Access app. One more point: The app is not distributed via MDM. App will be distributed out side the app store. Questions: What is the correct way to programmatically install and trust a root certificate in the System keychain? Does this require additional entitlements, signing, or profile configurations? Is it possible outside of MDM management? Any guidance or working samples would be greatly appreciated.

Attempts to programmatically update or add numerous system-installed certificates (a common practice for organizations that rotate certificates regularly) are blocked, forcing manual, insecure, and error-prone workarounds. The root cause lies in the stricter security protocols implemented in macOS 15, specifically: System Integrity Protection (SIP) and Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC) Command we are using : sudo security authorizationdb write com.apple.trust-settings.admin

I'm developing an Authorization Plug-In and have stumbled upon a concerning behavior regarding credential caching that may have security implications. Consider this scenario: I'm working on a Mac without admin privileges, and I need to temporarily disable the Firewall for some testing. An administrator physically comes to my machine, inputs their credentials to disable the Firewall, and then leaves. What follows is that, for a short period after this action, the administrator's credentials remain cached in Authorization Services. During this window, I can perform some additional privileged operations without any re-authentication. For example, I can open Activity Monitor and send SIGKILL signals to arbitrary privileged processes (!!). From what I could gather, this happens because system.preferences.network shares cached credentials with other authorization rights. Even more concerning, even when I explicitly modify the authorization database to prevent credential sharing for this specific right, the behavior persists! I suspect the issue relates to the underlying shared authentication rules (such as authenticate-admin-30, which com.apple.activitymonitor.kill uses), but I've been unable to modify these rules to test this theory. From my understanding, the most concerning aspect is that even if all system Authorization Rights were configured to not share credentials, third-party applications could still create proprietary rights that might end up sharing credentials anyway. From my Auth Plug-In, I've tried unsetting the kAuthorizationEnvironmentShared context value (even though the documentation in AuthorizationTags.h tells me that the value is ignored), and looking for ways to override the timeout for shared credentials, both without success. Finally, I'm looking to answer some questions that have been raised: I understand that this credential sharing is a feature, but isn't the behavior I described actually a security vulnerability? I worry that other (potentially more dangerous) operations may be able to exploit this. Is there a recommended way to prevent privileged credentials from being reused across arbitrary authorization rights if the original process does not destroy the auth reference? Are there any options from within an Authorization Plug-In to ensure more strict authentication boundaries? What exactly is the authorization "session" mentioned in /System/Library/Security/authorization.plist? Does this concept imply that System Settings.app and Activity Monitor.app share the same session in my previous example? This post ended up being quite long, but unfortunately, documentation on the subject seems incredibly scarce. For reference, the little information I could find came from: QA 1277 The Credentials Cache and the Authentication Dialog Comments on /System/Library/Security/authorization.plist

Hello, I’m an iOS developer and the original creator of the app "Instant Save: Reels story" (App Apple ID: 6469411763). On July 5, 2025, I received two Apple emails saying the app was transferred to another developer account. However, I did not initiate or approve this transfer. My Apple Developer account has Two-Factor Authentication enabled, and I received no OTP or request for approval. I submitted a legal dispute form via Apple’s Intellectual Property page on July 7, 2025, but I’ve only received an automated acknowledgment — no dispute number or follow-up. I’ve also contacted Apple Developer Support multiple times by phone, but they confirmed they cannot escalate legal cases or access my dispute status. Has anyone else faced this issue recently? I’m looking for any guidance or similar experiences while I await a response from Apple Legal. Thanks in advance,
 Bhautik Amipara

We are experiencing a significant issue with macOS security alerts that began on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. This alert is incorrectly identifying output files from our snippet tests as malware, causing these files to be blocked and moved to the Trash. This is completely disrupting our automated testing workflows. Issue Description: Alert: We are seeing the "Malware Blocked and Moved to Trash" popup window. Affected Files: The security alert triggers when attempting to execute .par files generated as outputs from our snippet tests. These .par files are unique to each individual test run; they are not a single, static tool. System-Wide Impact: This issue is impacting multiple macOS hosts across our testing infrastructure. Timeline: The issue began abruptly on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. Before that time, our tests were functioning correctly. macOS Versions: The problem is occurring on hosts running both macOS 14.x and 15.x. Experimental Host: Even after upgrading an experimental host to macOS 15.6 beta 2, the issue persisted. Local execution: The issue can be reproduced locally. Observations: The security system is consistently flagging these snippet test output files as malware. Since each test generates a new .par file, and this issue is impacting all generated files, the root cause doesn't appear to be specific to the code within the .par files themselves. This issue is impacting all the snippet tests, making us believe that the root cause is not related to our code. The sudden and widespread nature of the issue strongly suggests a change in a security database or rule, rather than a change in our testing code. Questions: Could a recent update to the XProtect database be the cause of this false positive? Are there any known issues or recent changes in macOS security mechanisms that could cause this kind of widespread and sudden impact? What is the recommended way to diagnose and resolve this kind of false positive? We appreciate any guidance or assistance you can provide. Thank you.