In the latest 26.5, when creating a VM we can no longer disable SIP. We have confirmed we're using the proper admin user (anka) and its proper password (same one we log into the GUI with). It just keeps asking for the password as if it's wrong. It's critical we can disable SIP for VMs like we have been in previous versions.

Hi Apple Developer Forums, We are developing a managed macOS security/monitoring agent for enterprise customers (deployed only to MDM-managed endpoints). Our goal is to collect per-process network connection metadata (e.g., which process initiated a TCP connection, destination IP/port, timestamps). We are not intercepting or collecting network payload/content—only connection metadata for security telemetry/compliance. We previously explored options like: sysctl PCB lists (e.g., net.inet.tcp.pcblist_n) / kernel structs (not stable ABI; appears private/fragile) Aggregate TCP stats (sysctl net.inet.tcp.stats) which are public but system-wide only proc_pidinfo() / PROC_PIDFDSOCKETINFO for per-PID socket snapshots (polling-based; limited / not event-driven) It seems the supported, event-based approach for per-process connection visibility is EndpointSecurity.framework, but it requires the entitlement: com.apple.developer.endpoint-security.client Questions: Is EndpointSecurity.framework the recommended/supported approach for per-process TCP connection events on macOS for a managed enterprise security agent? What is the correct process to request approval for the Endpoint Security client entitlement under an Apple Developer Program team? (We were directed to post here.) Which Endpoint Security event types are appropriate for capturing connect/accept/close style network events per-process, strictly for metadata telemetry? Are there any platform/privacy constraints or best practices Apple expects us to follow for this use case (MDM-managed enterprise deployments)? We can provide additional details (distribution method, signing, MDM deployment model, privacy disclosures) if needed. Thanks!

Hi All, I am working on a macOS System Extension using Apple’s Network Extension Framework, designed to observe and log network activity at multiple layers. The system extension is currently stable and working as expected for HTTP and DNS traffic with 3 providers, getting Socket, HTTP, and DNS logs. Current Architecture Overview The project consists of two Xcode targets: 1. Main App Process Responsible for: Managing system extension lifecycle (activation, configuration) Establishing IPC (XPC) communication with extensions Receiving structured logs from extensions Writing logs efficiently to disk using a persistent file handle Uses: OSSystemExtensionManager NEFilterManager, NETransparentProxyManager, NEDNSProxyManager NWPathMonitor for network availability handling Persistent logging mechanism (FileHandle) 2. System Extension Process Contains three providers, all running within a single system extension process: a) Content Filter (NEFilterDataProvider) Captures socket-level metadata Extracts: PID via audit token Local/remote endpoints Protocol (TCP/UDP, IPv4/IPv6) Direction (inbound/outbound) Sends structured JSON logs via shared IPC b) Transparent Proxy (NETransparentProxyProvider) Intercepts TCP flows Creates a corresponding NWConnection to the destination Captures both HTTP and HTTPS traffic, sends it to HTTPFlowLogger file which bypasses if it's not HTTP traffic. Uses a custom HTTPFlowLogger: Built using SwiftNIO library (NIO HTTP1) Parses up to HTTP/1.1 traffic Handles streaming, headers, and partial body capture (with size limits) Maintains per-flow state and lifecycle management Logs structured HTTP data via shared IPC c) DNS Proxy (NEDNSProxyProvider) Intercepts UDP DNS traffic Forwards queries to upstream resolver (system DNS or fallback) Maintains shared UDP connection Tracks pending requests using DNS IDs Parses DNS packets (queries + responses) using a custom parser Logs structured DNS metadata via shared IPC Shared Component: IPCConnection Single bidirectional XPC channel used by all providers Handles: App → Extension registration Extension → App logging Uses Mach service defined in system extension entitlements Project Structure NetworkExtension (Project) │ ├── NetworkExtension (Target 1: Main App) │ ├── AppDelegate.swift │ ├── Assets.xcassets │ ├── Info.plist │ ├── NetworkExtension.entitlements │ ├── Main.storyboard │ └──ViewController.swift │ ├── SystemExtensions (Target 2: Extension Process) │ ├── common/ │ │ ├── IPCConnection.swift │ │ └── main.swift │ │ │ ├── DNSProxyProvider/ │ │ ├──DNSDataParser.swift │ │ └──DNSProxyProvider.swift (DNS Proxy) │ │ │ ├── FilterDataProvider/ │ │ └── FilterDataProvider.swift │ │ │ ├── TransparentProxyProvider/ │ │ ├── HTTPLogParser.swift │ │ ├── LogDataModel.swift │ │ └──TransparentProxyProvider.swift │ │ │ ├── Info.plist │ └── SystemExtensions.entitlements │ Current Capabilities Unified logging pipeline across: Socket-level metadata HTTP traffic (HTTP/1.1) DNS queries/responses Efficient log handling using persistent file descriptors Stable IPC communication between app and extensions Flow-level tracking and lifecycle management Selective filtering (e.g., bypass rules for specific IPs) What's the best approach to add TLS Inspection with MITM proxy setup? Some context and constraints: Existing implementation handles HTTP parsing and should remain unchanged (Swift-based). I’m okay with bypassing apps/sites that use certificate pinning (e.g., banking apps) and legitimate sites. Performance is important — I want to avoid high CPU utilization. I’m relatively new to TLS inspection and MITM proxy design. Questions Is it a good idea to implement TLS inspection within a system extension, or does that typically introduce significant complexity and performance overhead? As NETransparentProxyProvider already intercepting HTTPS traffic, can we redirect it to a separate processing pipeline (e.g., another file/module), while keeping the existing HTTP parser(HTTPFlowLogger - HTTP only parser) intact? What are the recommended architectural approaches for adding HTTPS parsing via MITM in a performant way? Are there best practices for selectively bypassing pinned or sensitive domains while still inspecting other traffic? Any guidance on avoiding common pitfalls (e.g., certificate handling, connection reuse, latency issues)? I’m looking for a clean, maintainable approach to integrate HTTPS inspection into my existing system without unnecessary complexity or performance degradation. Please let me know if any additional details from my side would help in suggesting the most appropriate approach. Thanks in advance for your time and insights—I really appreciate it.

On Sonoma beta 7, if system.login.screensaver is updated to use “authenticate-session-owner-or-admin”, and then Lock Screen is not hiding the macOS Desktop. Step1. Update system.login.screensaver authorizationdb rule to use “authenticate-session-owner-or-admin”( to get old SFAutorizationPluginView at Lock Screen ). Step 2. Once the rule is in place after logout and login, now click on Apple icon and select “Lock Screen”. Even after selecting Lock Screen, complete macOS Desktop is visible with no control for the user to unlock the screen. To gain access we have to restart the MAC.

tl;dr: The title and/or can I even add a keychain entitlement to a cli app? I'm trying to store a generated private key and certificate properly in a CLI app. The call to SecItemAdd always results in an error with message A required entitlement isn't present. I assume this is errSecMissingEntitlement, and its docs say it happens "when you specify an access group to which your app doesn’t belong". But I'm not even specifying one. Here's a small excerpt (I know it's not a MVCE but the question is pretty general anyway): func storeCert(_ cert: Data) throws { let addQuery = [ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecValueRef: cert, kSecAttrLabel: CERT_USER_LABEL, kSecAttrApplicationLabel: CERT_APP_LABEL ] as [String: Any] let status = SecItemAdd(addQuery as CFDictionary, nil) guard status == errSecSuccess else { let msg = SecCopyErrorMessageString(status, nil) as String? ?? "" throw MyErr.generic(message: "Unable to store cert: \(msg)") } } I can't add the keychain entitlement to my CLI target, it doesn't show as an option in the add capability window. Disclaimer: I'm quite new to macOS / Apple development, so if there's something obvious I'm missing, my bad.

When implementing a custom right in macOS authorizationdb, the mechanism array element builtin:authenticate is displaying the message 'Enter the name and password of a user in the "(null)" group to allow this.' on the macOS credential prompt UI popup. I am trying to find a fix to avoid the reference to null group in the message label that is displayed just above the username and password input fields. The current plist uses class as the key and value as the evaluate-mechanisms. The mechanisms array includes mechanism array with elements "builtin:login-begin", "mycustombundle:mycustompreaction", "builtin:authenticate", "mycustombundle:mycustommechanism". I have tried specifying group in the plist, have tried setting hint in the MechanismInvoke for group, username, security, authority, prompt, reason among several other hints into the context duing the execution of mycustombundle:mycustompreaction, but none seem to fix the "(null)" in the message label. Any help is greately appreciated. There is not much of any documentation for developers implementing custom authorization in macOS.

Dear TestFlight Team! I am observing an increasing misuse of TestFlight public and private invites to distribute scam, spam, and potentially malicious builds: I had reported this already in December last year via Feedback assistant, but since the malicious behavior has not stopped, I hope that you can forward my bug reports to the right team: FB21379977, FB21845307 In multiple cases, these builds impersonate well-known apps (e.g. ChatGPT, OpenAI, Meta) by changing the app name and icon after an initial TestFlight approval, misleading users into installing software from unrelated developer accounts. I believe this represents a systemic weakness in the TestFlight review and update flow, enabling targeted phishing or malware distribution outside the App Store review process. My bug reports have attached: TestFlight invitation emails (.eml) Screenshots from TestFlight documenting impersonation behavior ⸻ Steps to reproduce Create a new Apple Developer account. Upload an initial, benign app (e.g. a calculator) as version 1.0.0 and obtain TestFlight approval. Upload a second build: without changing the version number increase build number Change the app name to a well-known product (e.g. “ChatGPT”) Change the app icon to match the impersonated product Invite targeted email addresses to the TestFlight group. Recipients receive an official TestFlight invite and are prompted to install the impersonating app. ⸻ Expected results TestFlight builds that significantly change app identity (name, icon, branding) should: Require additional review, or Be blocked from distribution without re-approval. Developer accounts should not be able to impersonate well-known companies (e.g. “OpenAI Platforms LLC”) without verification. Users should be protected from installing TestFlight builds that materially differ from what was originally reviewed. ⸻ Actual results App name and icon can be changed between TestFlight builds without triggering additional review. TestFlight invites can convincingly impersonate trusted brands. Targeted users may reasonably believe they are installing a legitimate beta. This creates a credible vector for: Phishing (credentials, payment details) Data exfiltration Social engineering attacks I did not install the builds to avoid personal risk, but the attached artifacts should allow Apple’s internal teams to reproduce and analyze the behavior safely. Some more examples:

Dear Screen Time Team! The Screen Time passcode can be brute-forced without rate limiting by repeatedly attempting guesses through the "Erase All Content and Settings" flow. This allows unlimited passcode attempts with no delay, lockout, or escalation, effectively defeating the purpose of the Screen Time passcode as a parental control mechanism. Impact: Children can bypass Screen Time protections by guessing the passcode No rate limiting enables trivial brute-force attacks (especially for 4-digit codes) Undermines trust in Screen Time as a parental control system Creates real-world safety risks for families relying on Screen Time restrictions Publicly shared methods (e.g. on TikTok) increase likelihood of widespread abuse Steps to Reproduce: Enable Screen Time and set a passcode Open Settings → General → Transfer or Reset iPhone → Erase All Content and Settings When prompted for the Screen Time passcode, enter an incorrect code Repeat the process with different guesses Expected Result: After a small number of incorrect attempts, the system should: enforce exponential backoff delays, or temporarily lock further attempts, or require Apple ID authentication Attempts should be rate-limited across system flows Actual Result: Unlimited passcode attempts are allowed No delay, lockout, or penalty is applied Enables rapid brute-force guessing of the Screen Time passcode Notes: This appears to bypass standard passcode protections that exist in other parts of iOS The issue is especially severe for 4-digit Screen Time passcodes (10,000 combinations) The attack surface is exposed through a system-level reset flow Suggested Fix: Introduce global rate limiting for Screen Time passcode attempts across all entry points Apply exponential backoff after failed attempts Require Apple ID authentication after multiple failures Consider enforcing 6-digit minimum passcodes for Screen Time Log and unify attempt counters across system components Severity: Critical (Security vulnerability enabling brute-force of parental control passcode) See TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@aldanaisthebest12170/video/7615053429500644621 Feedback request: FB22263276 – Frederik (one sec app)

Hi, In the app I’m working on, we rely on SecKeychainUnlock to verify that a password can be used to unlock the login keychain. When macOS 26.4 rolled out, we started getting bug reports that led me to a discovery that makes me think SecKeychainUnlock behavior was changed. I’m going to illustrate my findings with a sample code: #include <pwd.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <Security/SecKeychain.h> #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations" int main(void) { char password[100]; printf("password: "); scanf("%s", password); struct passwd *home = getpwuid(getuid()); if (!(home && home->pw_dir)) return 1; char path[1024]; strcat(path, home->pw_dir); strcat(path, "/Library/Keychains/login.keychain-db"); SecKeychainRef keychain = NULL; OSStatus result = SecKeychainOpen(path, &keychain); if (result != errSecSuccess) { fprintf(stderr, "SecKeychainOpen failed (error %d)\n", result); return 1; } SecKeychainStatus status = 0; result = SecKeychainGetStatus(keychain, &status); if (result != errSecSuccess) { fprintf(stderr, "SecKeychainGetStatus failed (error %d)\n", result); return 1; } if (status & kSecUnlockStateStatus) { printf("keychain is unlocked, will try to lock first\n"); result = SecKeychainLock(keychain); if (result != errSecSuccess) { fprintf(stderr, "SecKeychainLock failed (error %d)\n", result); return 1; } printf("SecKeychainLock succeeded\n"); } else { printf("keychain is locked\n"); } result = SecKeychainUnlock(keychain, strlen(password), password, TRUE); if (result == errSecSuccess) { printf("SecKeychainUnlock succeeded\n"); printf("password '%s' appears to be valid\n", password); } else { printf("SecKeychainUnlock failed (error %d)\n", result); printf("password '%s' appears to be invalid\n", password); } return 0; } Here are the outputs of this program on a machine running macOS 26.3 when provided with a correct password deadbeef and with an incorrect password foobar: testuser1@tahoe1 kcdebug % ./kcdebug password: deadbeef keychain is unlocked, will try to lock first SecKeychainLock succeeded SecKeychainUnlock succeeded password 'deadbeef' appears to be valid testuser1@tahoe1 kcdebug % ./kcdebug password: foobar keychain is unlocked, will try to lock first SecKeychainLock succeeded SecKeychainUnlock failed (error -25293) password 'foobar' appears to be invalid And here are the outputs of this program on a machine running macOS 26.4: testuser1@tahoe2 kcdebug % ./kcdebug password: deadbeef keychain is unlocked, will try to lock first SecKeychainLock succeeded SecKeychainUnlock succeeded password 'deadbeef' appears to be valid testuser1@tahoe2 kcdebug % ./kcdebug password: foobar keychain is unlocked, will try to lock first SecKeychainLock succeeded SecKeychainUnlock succeeded password 'foobar' appears to be valid I’m prepared to send a feedback with Feedback Assistant, but I would like to get a confirmation that this is indeed a bug and not an intended change in behavior. I would also like to know what are my options now. SecKeychainUnlock is just a means to an end; what I really need is the ability to keep the keychain password in sync with the user password when the latter is changed by our program. Thanks in advance.

Can a macOS Platform SSO extension reliably identify the original app behind a Safari or ASWebAuthenticationSession-mediated request, or does ASAuthorizationProviderExtensionAuthorizationRequest only expose the immediate caller such as Safari ? We are seeing: callerBundleIdentifier = com.apple.Safari callerTeamIdentifier = Apple audit-token-based validation also resolves to Safari So the question is whether this is the expected trust model, and if so, what Apple-recommended mechanism should be used to restrict SSO participation to approved apps when the flow is browser-mediated.

We have utilised the KeyChain Framework for Adding items into KeyChain. We have Generated KeyPair using 'SecKeyGeneratePair' API as below (OSStatus)generateAssymetricKeyPair:(NSUInteger)bitSize{ OSStatus sanityCheck = noErr; SecKeyRef publicKeyRef = NULL; SecKeyRef privateKeyRef = NULL; NSString *appGrpIdentifier = @"group.com.sample.xyz" // Set the private key attributes. NSDictionary *privateKeyAttr = @{(id)kSecAttrIsPermanent: @YES, (id)kSecAttrApplicationTag: [TAG_ASSYMETRIC_PRIVATE_KEY dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding], (id)kSecAttrCanEncrypt:@NO, (id)kSecAttrCanDecrypt:@YES, (id)kSecAttrAccessGroup: appGrpIdentifier }; // Set the public key attributes. NSDictionary *publicKeyAttr = @{(id)kSecAttrIsPermanent: @YES, (id)kSecAttrApplicationTag: [TAG_ASSYMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding], (id)kSecAttrCanEncrypt:@YES, (id)kSecAttrCanDecrypt:@NO, (id)kSecAttrAccessGroup: appGrpIdentifier }; // Set top level attributes for the keypair. NSDictionary *keyPairAttr = @{(id)kSecAttrKeyType: (id)kSecAttrKeyTypeRSA, (id)kSecAttrKeySizeInBits: @(bitSize), (id)kSecClass: (id)kSecClassKey, (id)kSecPrivateKeyAttrs: privateKeyAttr, (id)kSecPublicKeyAttrs: publicKeyAttr, // MOBSF-WARNING-SUPPRESS: (id)kSecAttrAccessible: (id)kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock, // mobsf-ignore: ios_keychain_weak_accessibility_value // MOBSF-SUPPRESS-END (id)kSecAttrAccessGroup: appGrpIdentifier }; // Generate Assymetric keys sanityCheck = SecKeyGeneratePair((CFDictionaryRef)keyPairAttr, &publicKeyRef, &privateKeyRef); if(sanityCheck == errSecSuccess){ NSLog(@"[DB_ENCRYPTION] <ALA_INFO> [OS-CCF] CALLED Assymetric keys are generated"); } else{ NSLog(@"[DB_ENCRYPTION] <ALA_ERROR> [OS-CCF] CALLED Error while generating asymetric keys : %d", (int)sanityCheck); } if (publicKeyRef) { CFRelease(publicKeyRef); } if (privateKeyRef) { CFRelease(privateKeyRef); } return sanityCheck; } KeyPair is added into the KeyChain (BOOL)saveSymetricKeyToKeychain:(NSData *)symmetricKeyData keyIdentifier:(NSString *)keyIdentifier { NSString *appGrpIdentifier = [KeychainGroupManager getAppGroupIdentifier]; NSDictionary *query = @{ (__bridge id)kSecClass: (__bridge id)kSecClassKey, (__bridge id)kSecAttrApplicationTag: keyIdentifier, (__bridge id)kSecValueData: symmetricKeyData, (__bridge id)kSecAttrKeyClass: (__bridge id)kSecAttrKeyClassSymmetric, // MOBSF-WARNING-SUPPRESS: (__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessible: (__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock, // mobsf-ignore: ios_keychain_weak_accessibility_value // MOBSF-SUPPRESS-END (__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessGroup: appGrpIdentifier }; // Now add the key to the Keychain status = SecItemAdd((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)query, NULL); if (status == errSecSuccess) { NSLog(@"[DB_ENCRYPTION] Key successfully stored in the Keychain"); return YES; } else { NSLog(@"<ALA_ERROR> [DB_ENCRYPTION] Error storing key in the Keychain: %d", (int)status); return NO; } } Post App Transfer, we are able to retrieve the Public & Private Key Reference without rebuilding the keychain Query:- Is this attribute "kSecAttrAccessGroup" helping us to retrieve the KeyChain items without having to rebuild on App Transfer to New Apple Account as described in this set of guidelines. Could you please explain in detail on this. https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/transfer-an-app/overview-of-app-transfer Keychain sharing continues to work only until the app is updated. Therefore, you must rebuild the keychain when submitting updates. If your keychain group is defined in the Xcode project, replace it with a group created by the recipient, incorporating their Team ID for continued keychain sharing. After the update, users must re-login once as the app cannot retrieve the authentication token from the keychain.

DTS regularly receives questions about how to preserve keychain items across an App ID change, and so I thought I’d post a comprehensive answer here for the benefit of all. If you have any questions or comments, please start a new thread here on the forums. Put it in the Privacy & Security > General subtopic and tag it with Security. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access The list of keychain access groups your app can access is determined by three entitlements. For the details, see Sharing Access to Keychain Items Among a Collection of Apps. If your app changes its App ID prefix, this list changes and you’re likely to lose access to existing keychain items. This situation crops up under two circumstances: When you migrate your app from using a unique App ID prefix to using your Team ID as its App ID prefix. When you transfer your app to another team. In both cases you have to plan carefully for this change. If you only learn about the problem after you’ve made the change, consider undoing the change to give you time to come up with a plan before continuing. Note On macOS, the information in this post only applies to the data protection keychain. For more information about the subtleties of the keychain on macOS, see On Mac Keychains. For more about App ID prefix changes, see Technote 2311 Managing Multiple App ID Prefixes and QA1726 Resolving the Potential Loss of Keychain Access warning. Migrate From a Unique App ID Prefix to Your Team ID Historically each app was assigned its own App ID prefix. This is no longer the case. Best practice is for apps to use their Team ID as their App ID prefix. This enables multiple neat features, including keychain item sharing and pasteboard sharing. If you have an app that uses a unique App ID prefix, consider migrating it to use your Team ID. This is a good thing in general, as long as you manage the migration process carefully. Your app’s keychain access group list is built from three entitlements: keychain-access-groups — For more on this, see Keychain Access Groups Entitlement. application-identifier (com.apple.application-identifier on macOS) com.apple.security.application-groups — For more on this, see App Groups Entitlement. Keycahin access groups from the third bullet are call app group identified keychain access groups, or AGI keychain access groups for short. IMPORTANT A macOS app can only use an AGI keychain access group if all of its entitlement claims are validated by a provisioning profile. See App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony for more about this concept. Keychain access groups from the first two bullets depend on the App ID prefix. If that changes, you lose access to any keychain items in those groups. WARNING Think carefully before using the keychain to store secrets that are the only way to access irreplaceable user data. While the keychain is very reliable, there are situations where a keychain item can be lost and it’s bad if it takes the user’s data with it. In some cases losing access to keychain items is not a big deal. For example, if your app uses the keychain to manage a single login credential, losing that is likely to be acceptable. The user can recover by logging in again. In other cases losing access to keychain items is unacceptable. For example, your app might manage access to dozens of different servers, each with unique login credentials. Your users will be grumpy if you require them to log in to all those servers again. In such situations you must carefully plan your migration. The key thing to understand is that an app group is tied to your team, not your App ID prefix, and thus your app retains access to AGI keychain access groups across an App ID prefix change. This suggests the following approach: Release a version of your app that moves keychain items from other keychain access groups to an AGI keychain access group. Give your users time to update to this new version, run it, and so move their keychain items. When you’re confident that the bulk of your users have done this, change your App ID prefix. The approach has one obvious caveat: It’s hard to judge how long to wait at step 2. Transfer Your App to Another Team Historically there was no supported way to maintain access to keychain items across an app transfer. That’s no longer the case, but you must still plan the transfer carefully. The overall approach is: Identify an app group ID to transfer. This could be an existing app group ID, but in many cases you’ll want to register a new app group ID solely for this purpose. Use the old team (the transferor) to release a version of your app that moves keychain items from other keychain access groups to the AGI keychain access group for this app group ID. Give your users time to update to this new version, run it, and so move their keychain items. When you’re confident that the bulk of your users have done this, initiate the app transfer. Once that’s complete, transfer the app group ID you selected in step 1. See App Store Connect Help > Transfer an app > Overview of app transfer > Apps using App Groups. Publish an update to your app from the new team (the transferee). When a user installs this version, it will have access to your app group, and hence your keychain items. WARNING Once you transfer the app group, the old team won’t be able to publish a new version of any app that uses this app group. That makes step 1 in the process critical. If you have an existing app group that’s used solely by the app being transferred — for example, an app group that you use to share state between the app and its app extensions — then choosing that app group ID makes sense. On the other hand, choosing the ID of an app group that’s share between this app and some unrelated app, one that’s not being transferred, would be bad, because any updates to that other app will lose access to the app group. There are some other significant caveats: The process doesn’t work for Mac apps because Mac apps that have ever used an app group can’t be transferred. See App Store Connect Help > Transfer an app > App transfer criteria. If and when that changes, you’ll need to choose an iOS-style app group ID for your AGI keychain access group. For more about the difference between iOS- and macOS-style app group IDs, see App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony. The current transfer process of app groups exposes a small window where some other team can ‘steal’ your app group ID. We have a bug on file to improve that process (r. 171616887). The process works best when transferring between two teams that are both under the control of the same entity. If that’s not the case, take steps to ensure that the old team transfers the app group in step 5. When you submit the app from the new team (step 6), App Store Connect will warn you about a potential loss of keychain access. That warning is talking about keychain items in normal keychain access groups. Items in an AGI keychain access group will still be accessible as long as you transfer the app group. Alternative Approaches for App Transfer In addition to the technique described in the previous section, there are a some alternative approaches you should at consider: Do nothing Do not transfer your app Get creative Do Nothing In this case the user loses all the secrets that your app stored in the keychain. This may be acceptable for certain apps. For example, if your app uses the keychain to manage a single login credential, losing that is likely to be acceptable. The user can recover by logging in again. Do Not Transfer Another option is to not transfer your app. Instead, ship a new version of the app from the new team and have the old app recommend that the user upgrade. There are a number of advantages to this approach. The first is that there’s absolutely no risk of losing any user data. The two apps are completely independent. The second advantage is that the user can install both apps on their device at the same time. This opens up a variety of potential migration paths. For example, you might ship an update to the old app with an export feature that saves the user’s state, including their secrets, to a suitably encrypted file, and then match that with an import facility on the new app. Finally, this approach offers flexible timing. The user can complete their migration at their leisure. However, there are a bunch of clouds to go with these silver linings: Your users might never migrate to the new app. If this is a paid app, or an app with in-app purchase, the user will have to buy things again. You lose the original app’s history, ratings, reviews, and so on. Get Creative Finally, you could attempt something creative. For example, you might: Publish a new version of the app that supports exporting the user’s state, including the secrets. Tell your users to do this, with a deadline. Transfer the app and then, when the deadline expires, publish the new version with an import feature. Frankly, this isn’t very practical. The problem is with step 2: There’s no good way to get all your users to do the export, and if they don’t do it before the deadline there’s no way to do it after. Test Before You Ship Once you have a new version of your app, with the new App ID prefix, it’s time to test. To run a day-to-day test: On a test device, install the existing version of the app from the App Store. Use the app to generate keychain items as a normal user would. For example, if you store login credentials in the keychain, use the app to save such a credential. In Xcode, run the new version of your app. Check that the keychain items you created in step 2 still work. After you upload this new version to App Store Connect, use TestFlight to run an internal test: On a test device, install the existing version of the app from the App Store. Use the app to generate keychain items as a normal user. For example, if you store login credentials in the keychain, use the app to save such a credential. Use TestFlight to update the app to your new version. Check that the keychain items you created in step 2 still work. Do this before you release the app to your beta testers and then again before releasing it to customers. WARNING These TestFlight test are your last chance to ensure that everything works. If you detect an error at this stage, you still have a chance to fix it. Revision History 2026-04-07 Added the Test Before You Ship section. 2026-03-31 Rewrote the Transfer Your App to Another Team section to describe a new approach for preserving access to keychain items across app transfers. Moved the previous discussion into a new Alternative Approaches for App Transfer section. Clarified that a macOS program can now use an app group as a keychain access group as long as its entitlements are validated. Made numerous editorial changes. 2022-05-17 First posted.

We have been testing several domains (including xiaohongshu.com, bilibili.com, douyin.com, and tls13.xargs.org) and have encountered a systemic issue related to Apple's Certificate Transparency (CT) policy enforcement on iOS 18. We would like to seek clarification from the Apple team. Observed Behavior: On iOS 18 devices where the CT log list (assetVersion) is at version ≤1006, Safari presents "This Connection Is Not Private" for the affected domains. NSURLSession returns error -1202 (NSURLErrorServerCertificateUntrusted), and SecTrust rejects the certificate chain entirely. Other domains whose certificates use 2026-series CT log servers connect normally on the same device. Key Affected User Pattern: The vast majority of affected devices are those upgraded directly from iOS 14 or iOS 15 to iOS 18, where the CT log list did not automatically update after the upgrade and remains stuck at version ≤1006. Brand-new devices and devices that have updated their CT list to version 1012 connect normally — confirmed through direct testing. This suggests the issue is not a bug in iOS 18 itself, but rather a failure to refresh the CT log list on older devices after a major OS upgrade, resulting in a low-… (truncated) Root Cause Analysis: The failing certificates embed SCTs from three CT log servers: Cloudflare Nimbus2027, Tiger2027h1, and Elephant2027h1. These servers were added to Apple's trusted CT log list between September and November 2025. Devices whose CT list is still at version ≤1006 do not include these servers, causing all SCTs to be deemed invalid and the certificate to be rejected. Questions: What triggers a CT log list update? Under what conditions does the Trusted Asset (CT log list) update on iOS devices? Is there an update mechanism independent of the system OTA? Why does upgrading from iOS 14/15 to iOS 18 appear to leave the CT list at an older version rather than refreshing it as part of the upgrade? Is Apple aware of this as a known issue? For devices that upgraded to iOS 18 from iOS 14/15 and whose CT list was not refreshed, while CAs are already using newly-trusted log servers — does Apple have an official recommendation or a fix planned? Is there a "safe use window" guidance for CAs? Does Apple communicate to CAs a recommended waiting period after a new CT log server is added to the trust list, before it should be used to issue certificates targeting iOS users? If not, are there plans to publish such guidance? CT list behavior across upgrade paths: Can Apple clarify whether devices upgrading from iOS 14/15 to iOS 18 receive a different CT list assetVersion compared to devices upgrading from iOS 16/17 or performing a clean install? Is there a patch or mechanism to ensure devices on older upgrade paths also receive timely CT list updates? Thank you for your attention. We look forward to a clear response.

I’m developing an iOS application and aiming to install a PKCS#12 (.p12) certificate into the com.apple.token keychain access group so that Microsoft Edge for iOS, managed via MDM/Intune, can read and use it for client certificate authentication. I’m attempting to save to the com.apple.token keychain access group, but I’m getting error -34018 (errSecMissingEntitlement) and the item isn’t saved. This occurs on both a physical device and the simulator. I’m using SecItemAdd from the Security framework to store it. Is this the correct approach? https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/secitemadd(::) I have added com.apple.token to Keychain Sharing. I have also added com.apple.token to the app’s entitlements. Here is the code I’m using to observe this behavior: public static func installToTokenGroup(p12Data: Data, password: String) throws -> SecIdentity { // First, import the P12 to get the identity let options: [String: Any] = [ kSecImportExportPassphrase as String: password ] var items: CFArray? let importStatus = SecPKCS12Import(p12Data as CFData, options as CFDictionary, &items) guard importStatus == errSecSuccess, let array = items as? [[String: Any]], let dict = array.first else { throw NSError(domain: NSOSStatusErrorDomain, code: Int(importStatus), userInfo: [NSLocalizedDescriptionKey: "Failed to import P12: \(importStatus)"]) } let identity = dict[kSecImportItemIdentity as String] as! SecIdentity let addQuery: [String: Any] = [ kSecClass as String: kSecClassIdentity, kSecValueRef as String: identity, kSecAttrLabel as String: kSecAttrAccessGroupToken, kSecAttrAccessible as String: kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock, kSecAttrAccessGroup as String: kSecAttrAccessGroupToken ] let status = SecItemAdd(addQuery as CFDictionary, nil) if status != errSecSuccess && status != errSecDuplicateItem { throw NSError(domain: NSOSStatusErrorDomain, code: Int(status), userInfo: [NSLocalizedDescriptionKey: "Failed to add to token group: \(status)"]) } return identity }

Hi everyone. Since the update to iOS 26, we are no longer able to tap the person's name and view the certificate of a signed email and choose to install the certificate or remove it. This has always worked just fine but seems to be broken on iOS 26 and I have verified that it does not work on iOS 26.1 beta as well. The part that is strange is it does work just fine on an iPad running iPad OS 26. This makes it impossible to send encrypted emails to someone via the mail app on an iPhone. I have found a temporary workaround which is to install Outlook for iOS and install the certificates through that app which then allows me to send encrypted emails via Outlook. This appears to be a bug just with the iPhone as I have also seen a few other people online talking about the same problem. Has anyone found a solution to this?

I recently turned on the enhanced security options for my macOS app in Xcode 26.0.1 by adding the Enhanced Security capability in the Signing and Capabilities tab. Then, Xcode adds the following key-value sets (with some other key-values) to my app's entitlements file. <key>com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version</key> <integer>1</integer> <key>com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions</key> <integer>2</integer> These values appear following the documentation about the enhanced security feature (Enabling enhanced security for your app) and the app works without any issues. However, when I submitted a new version to the Mac App Store, my submission was rejected, and I received the following message from the App Review team via the App Store Connect. Guideline 2.4.5(i) - Performance Your app incorrectly implements sandboxing, or it contains one or more entitlements with invalid values. Please review the included entitlements and sandboxing documentation and resolve this issue before resubmitting a new binary. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version" value must be boolean and true. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions" value must be boolean and true. When I changed those values directly in the entitlements file based on this message, the app appears to still work. However, these settings are against the description in the documentation I mentioned above and against the settings Xcode inserted after changing the GUI setting view. So, my question is, which settings are actually correct to enable the Enhanced Security and the Additional Runtime Platform Restrictions?

Hi everyone, I’ve been working on an experimental prototype called FaceBridge that explores whether Secure Enclave–backed biometric authorization can be delegated between macOS and iPhone using only public Apple APIs. The goal of the project was to better understand the architectural boundaries of cross-device trust and approval flows that resemble Apple’s built-in Touch ID / Continuity authorization experiences. FaceBridge implements a local authorization pipeline where: macOS generates a signed authorization request the request is delivered to a trusted nearby iPhone over BLE / Network framework the iPhone verifies sender identity Face ID approval is requested using LocalAuthentication the iPhone signs the approval response using Secure Enclave–backed keys macOS validates the response and unlocks a protected action Security properties currently implemented: • Secure Enclave–backed signing identities per device • cryptographic device pairing and trust persistence • replay protection using nonce + timestamp binding • structured authorization request/response envelopes • signed responder identity verification • trusted-device registry model • local encrypted transport over BLE and local network This is intentionally not attempting to intercept or replace system-level Touch ID dialogs (App Store installs, Keychain prompts, loginwindow, etc.), but instead explores what is possible within application-level authorization boundaries using public APIs only. The project is open source: https://github.com/wesleysfavarin/facebridge Technical architecture write-up: https://medium.com/@wesleysfavarin/facebridge I’m particularly interested in feedback around: • recommended Secure Enclave identity lifecycle patterns • best practices for cross-device trust persistence • LocalAuthentication usage in delegated approval scenarios • whether similar authorization models are expected to become more formally supported across Apple platforms in the future Thanks in advance for any guidance or suggestions.

Hi, I’m building a macOS tool that analyzes process behavior to detect autonomous / AI-like activity locally (process trees, file access patterns, and network usage). The system is fully user-space and runs locally in real time. I’m planning to use the Endpoint Security Framework for process and file event monitoring. This is an open-source project (non-enterprise), developed by a solo developer. My question: What are the realistic chances of getting Endpoint Security entitlements approved for this type of project? Are there specific requirements or common reasons for rejection I should be aware of? Thanks, sivan-rnd

Hi , I did The MFA(2FA) of Email OTP For MacOS Login Screen using, Authorization Plugin, Using This git hub project. It is working For Login Screen , Im trying to Add The Same plugin for LockScreen but it is not working at lock Screen , Below is the reffrense theard For The issue , https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/127614, please Share The Code that should Present the NSwindow at Screen Saver (Lock Screen) MacOS .

I’m working on a product that includes TLS inspection capability. TLS inspection using a local MitM requires installing a trusted root certificate which is then used to create masquerade certificates to intercept and forward TLS traffic through the proxy. For manual installation the end user is required to authenticate as an administrator to modify the trust settings on our internal CA’s root certificate. My question concerns the options for enterprise deployment using an MDM. We want the generated root certificate to be unique to each endpoint so that if a private key is compromised it can’t be used to intercept traffic anywhere else. We can install a “certificate trust” configuration profile from the MDM but this requires a base64 encoded string of the root certificate. In effect the MDM needs to obtain the certificate from the endpoint and then send it back in the form of a configuration profile. I’m not aware that MDMs like Jamf can be configured to do this directly so we’re looking for any other mechanism to have macOS trust a locally generated certificate via MDM based on some non endpoint-unique criteria? One option might be to use an external CA with a trusted certificate to sign an intermediate endpoint certificate but this creates a significant risk if the external trusted certificate were ever compromised. Is this a common industry practice? So my question remains is there a better way to trust our per endpoint root certificate via MDM without needing to install a unique per endpoint configuration profile?