Hello, A customer has requested the development of a home assistance app to be published on the App Store. The app will connect to a server running locally at the end user's home, for example on a Raspberry Pi. Users would enter the IP address or hostname of their personal server into the app. A strict requirement is that, for data protection reasons, there must not be any proxy server. The app should only communicate directly with the local server (e.g., Raspberry Pi). We are able to solve technical challenges such as DNS, dynamic IP, and port forwarding, router configuration. However, I'm concerned about Apple's requirement that the endpoint – in this case, the Raspberry Pi at the user's home – must not use self-signed SSL certificates. While it may be technically possible to secure the home server with a certificate provider like Let's Encrypt, it is unrealistic to expect a typical user with no technical training to accomplish this setup independently. Is there a recommended solution to this problem, particularly in the context of IoT devices and apps? Any advice or experiences would be deeply appreciated.

I'm trying to export and re-import a P-256 private key that was originally generated via SecKeyCreateRandomKey(), but I keep running into roadblocks. The key is simply exported via SecItemExport() with format formatWrappedPKCS8, and I did set a password just to be sure. Do note that I must use the file-based keychain, as the data protection keychain requires a restricted entitlement and I'm not going to pay a yearly fee just to securely store some private keys for a personal project. The 7-day limit for unsigned/self-signed binaries isn't feasible either. Here's pretty much everything I could think of trying: Simply using SecItemImport() does import the key, but I cannot set kSecAttrLabel and more importantly: kSecAttrApplicationTag. There just isn't any way to pass these attributes upfront, so it's always imported as Imported Private Key with an empty comment. Keys don't support many attributes to begin with and I need something that's unique to my program but shared across all the relevant key entries, otherwise it's impossible to query for only my program's keys. kSecAttrLabel is already used for something else and is always unique, which really only leaves kSecAttrApplicationTag. I've already accepted that this can be changed via Keychain Access, as this attribute should end up as the entry's comment. At least, that's how it works with SecKeyCreateRandomKey() and SecItemCopyMatching(). I'm trying to get that same behaviour for imports. Running SecItemUpdate() afterwards to set these 2 attributes doesn't work either, as now the kSecAttrApplicationTag is suddenly used for the entry's label instead of the comment. Even setting kSecAttrComment (just to be certain) doesn't change the comment. I think kSecAttrApplicationTag might be a creation-time attribute only, and since SecItemImport() already created a SecKey I will never be able to set this. It likely falls back to updating the label because it needs to target something that is still mutable? Using SecItemImport() with a nil keychain (i.e. create a transient key), then persisting that with SecItemAdd() via kSecValueRef does allow me to set the 2 attributes, but now the ACL is lost. Or more precise: the ACL does seem to exist as any OS prompts do show the label I originally set for the ACL, but in Keychain Access it shows as Allow all applications to access this item. I'm looking to enable Confirm before allowing access and add my own program to the Always allow access by these applications list. Private keys outright being open to all programs is of course not acceptable, and I can indeed access them from other programs without any prompts. Changing the ACL via SecKeychainItemSetAccess() after SecItemAdd() doesn't seem to do anything. It apparently succeeds but nothing changes. I also reopened Keychain Access to make sure it's not a UI "caching" issue. Creating a transient key first, then getting the raw key via SecKeyCopyExternalRepresentation() and passing that to SecItemAdd() via kSecValueData results in The specified attribute does not exist. This error only disappears if I remove almost all of the attributes. I can pass only kSecValueData, kSecClass and kSecAttrApplicationTag, but then I get The specified item already exists in the keychain errors. I found a doc that explains what determines uniqueness, so here are the rest of the attributes I'm using for SecItemAdd(): kSecClass: not mentioned as part of the primary key but still required, otherwise you'll get One or more parameters passed to a function were not valid. kSecAttrLabel: needed for my use case and not part of the primary key either, but as I said this results in The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrApplicationLabel: The specified attribute does not exist. As I understand it this should be the SHA1 hash of the public key, passed as Data. Just omitting it would certainly be an option if the other attributes actually worked, but right now I'm passing it to try and construct a truly unique primary key. kSecAttrApplicationTag: The specified item already exists in the keychain. kSecAttrKeySizeInBits: The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrEffectiveKeySize: The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrKeyClass: The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrKeyType: The specified attribute does not exist. It looks like only kSecAttrApplicationTag is accepted, but still ignored for the primary key. Even entering something that is guaranteed to be unique still results in The specified item already exists in the keychain, so I think might actually be targeting literally any key. I decided to create a completely new keychain and import it there (which does succeed), but the key is completely broken. There's no Kind and Usage at the top of Keychain Access and the table view just below it shows symmetric key instead of private. The kSecAttrApplicationTag I'm passing is still being used as the label instead of the comment and there's no ACL. I can't even delete this key because Keychain Access complains that A missing value was detected. It seems like the key doesn't really contain anything unique for its primary key, so it will always match any existing key. Using SecKeyCreateWithData() and then using that key as the kSecValueRef for SecItemAdd() results in A required entitlement isn't present. I also have to add kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain: false to SecItemAdd() (even though that should already be the default) but then I get The specified item is no longer valid. It may have been deleted from the keychain. This occurs even if I decrypt the PKCS8 manually instead of via SecItemImport(), so it's at least not like it's detecting the transient key somehow. No combination of kSecAttrIsPermanent, kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain and kSecUseKeychain on either SecKeyCreateWithData() or SecItemAdd() changes anything. I also tried PKCS12 despite that it always expects an "identity" (key + cert), while I only have (and need) a private key. Exporting as formatPKCS12 and importing it with itemTypeAggregate (or itemTypeUnknown) does import the key, and now it's only missing the kSecAttrApplicationTag as the original label is automatically included in the PKCS12. The outItems parameter contains an empty list though, which sort of makes sense because I'm not importing a full "identity". I can at least target the key by kSecAttrLabel for SecItemUpdate(), but any attempt to update the comment once again changes the label so it's not really any better than before. SecPKCS12Import() doesn't even import anything at all, even though it does return errSecSuccess while also passing kSecImportExportKeychain explicitly. Is there literally no way?

Hi everyone, I’m encountering an unexpected Keychain behavior in a production environment and would like to confirm whether this is expected or if I’m missing something. In my app, I store a deviceId in the Keychain based on the classic KeychainItemWrapper implementation. I extended it by explicitly setting: kSecAttrAccessible = kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock My understanding is that kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock should allow Keychain access while the app is running in the background, as long as the device has been unlocked at least once after reboot. However, after the app went live, I observed that when the app performs background execution (e.g., triggered by background tasks / silent push), Keychain read attempts intermittently fail with: errSecInteractionNotAllowed (-25308) This seems inconsistent with the documented behavior of kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock. Additional context: The issue never occurs in foreground. The issue does not appear on development devices. User devices are not freshly rebooted when this happens. The Keychain item is created successfully; only background reads fail. Setting the accessibility to kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly produces the same result. Questions: Under what circumstances can kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock still cause a -25308 error? Is there any known restriction when accessing Keychain while the app is running in background execution contexts? Could certain system states (Low Power Mode, Background App Refresh conditions, device lock state, etc.) cause Keychain reads to be blocked unexpectedly? Any insights or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

We have a custom SecurityAgentPlugin that is triggered by multiple authorizationdb entries. Some customers report that the SecurityAgent process takes window focus even though no UI or windows are displayed. Our plugin explicitly ignores the _securityAgent user and does not show any UI for that user. However, in macOS 26.1, it appears that the plugin still causes the SecurityAgent to take focus as soon as it is triggered. Is this a change in macOS 26.1 or a bug? Can we do anything to prevent "focus stealing"?

Hi Team, How do I prevent screenshots using SwiftUI. I was using this solution on UIKit: extension UIView { func makeSecure() { DispatchQueue.main.async { let protectedView = UIView() self.superview?.addSubview(protectedView) // constraints... let secureView = SecureView() self.superview?.addSubview(secureView) // constraints... secureView.addSecureSubview(self) // constraints... } } } class SecureView: UIView { private lazy var secureField: UIView = { var secureField: UIView = UIView() // ... if let secureContainer = SecureField().secureContainer { secureField = secureContainer } ... return secureField }() required init() { ... } } Is it posible to do the same thing using SwiftUI. Do we have an example? What would you recommend when we work with confidencial information in SwiftUI like bank account information? Thanks in advance!

Hi, everyone! Is there any way to change ACL of existing Private key in system keychain using MDM? We would like to add the binary or .app to access list of the key. I tried to send script via MDM which imported/exported our certificate with private key with required ACL. But can we change it without import/export?

When trying to check if a certificate has been revoked with SecPolicyCreateRevocation (Flags: kSecRevocationUseAnyAvailableMethod | kSecRevocationRequirePositiveResponse) and SecTrustEvaluateWithError I always get the result error code errSecIncompleteCertRevocationCheck, regardless if the certificate was revoked or not. Reproduction: Execute the program from the attached Xcode project (See Feedback FB21224106). Error output: Error: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67635 ""revoked.badssl.com","E8","ISRG Root X1" certificates do not meet pinning requirements" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription="revoked.badssl.com","E8","ISRG Root X1" certificates do not meet pinning requirements, NSUnderlyingError=0x6000018d48a0 {Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67635 "Certificate 0 “revoked.badssl.com” has errors: Failed to check revocation;" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Certificate 0 “revoked.badssl.com” has errors: Failed to check revocation;}}} To me it looks like that the revocation check just fails („Failed to check revocation;“), no further information is provided by the returned error. In the example the certificate chain of https://revoked.badssl.com (default code) and https://badssl.com is verified (to switch see comments in the code). I have a proxy configured in the system, I assume that the revocation check will use it. On the same machine, the browsers (Safari and Google Chrome) can successfully detect if the certificate was revoked (revoked.badssl.com) or not (badssl.com) without further changes in the system/proxy settings. Note: The example leaks some memory, it’s just a test program. Am I missing something? Feedback: FB21224106

While working with Platform SSO on macOS, I’m trying to better understand how the system handles cases where a user’s local account password becomes unsynchronized with their Identity Provider (IdP) password—for example, when the device is offline during a password change. My assumption is that macOS may store some form of persistent token during the Platform SSO user registration process (such as a certificate or similar credential), and that this token could allow the system to unlock the user’s login keychain even if the local password no longer matches the IdP password. I’m hoping to get clarification on the following: Does macOS actually use a persistent token to unlock the login keychain when the local account password is out of sync with the IdP password? If so, how is that mechanism designed to work? If such a capability exists, is it something developers can leverage to enable a true passwordless authentication experience at the login window and lock screen (i.e., avoiding the need for a local password fallback)? I’m trying to confirm what macOS officially supports so I can understand whether passwordless login is achievable using the persistent-token approach. Thanks in advance for any clarification.

Hi, We are trying to use Apple Security API for KeyChain Services. Using the common App Group : Specifying the common app group in the "kSecAttrAccessGroup" field of the KeyChain query, allowed us to have a shared keychains for different apps (targets) in the app group, but this did not work for extensions. Enabling the KeyChain Sharing capability : We enabled the KeyChain Sharing Ability in the extensions and the app target as well, giving a common KeyChain Access group. Specifying this in the kSecAttrAccessGroup field also did not work. This was done in XCode as we were unable to locate it in the Developer portal in Indentifiers. We tried specifying "$AppIdentifier.KeyChainSharingGroup" in the kSecAttrAccessGroup field , but this did not work as well The error code which we get in all these 3 cases when trying to access the Keychain from the extension is error code 25291 (errSecNotAvailable). The Documentation says this error comes when "No Trust Results are available" and printing the error in xcode using the status says "No keychain is available. The online Documentation says that it is possible to share keychain with extensions, but by far we are unable to do it with the methods suggested. Do we need any special entitlement for this or is there something we are missing while using these APIs? We really appreciate any and all help in solving this issue! Thank you

When I try to archive an app in order to submit it to the App Store I receive the following errors I do not know how to fix: error: Framework /Users/fbartolom/Library/Developer/Xcode/DerivedData/Virtual_Tags-apzduassdiglhcapscsllvzbfgid/Build/Intermediates.noindex/ArchiveIntermediates/Virtual Tags/InstallationBuildProductsLocation/Applications/VirtualTags.app/Frameworks/StoreKit.framework did not contain an Info.plist (in target 'VirtualTags' from project 'Virtual Tags') error: Framework /Users/fbartolom/Library/Developer/Xcode/DerivedData/Virtual_Tags-apzduassdiglhcapscsllvzbfgid/Build/Intermediates.noindex/ArchiveIntermediates/Virtual Tags/InstallationBuildProductsLocation/Applications/VirtualTags.app/Frameworks/Security.framework did not contain an Info.plist (in target 'VirtualTags' from project 'Virtual Tags') error: Framework /Users/fbartolom/Library/Developer/Xcode/DerivedData/Virtual_Tags-apzduassdiglhcapscsllvzbfgid/Build/Intermediates.noindex/ArchiveIntermediates/Virtual Tags/InstallationBuildProductsLocation/Applications/VirtualTags.app/Frameworks/CloudKit.framework did not contain an Info.plist (in target 'VirtualTags' from project 'Virtual Tags') MacBook Pro M5, Tahoe 26.1, Xcode 26.1.1

Transport Layer Security (TLS) is the most important security protocol on the Internet today. Most notably, TLS puts the S into HTTPS, adding security to the otherwise insecure HTTP protocol. IMPORTANT TLS is the successor to the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol. SSL is no longer considered secure and it’s now rarely used in practice, although many folks still say SSL when they mean TLS. TLS is a complex protocol. Much of that complexity is hidden from app developers but there are places where it’s important to understand specific details of the protocol in order to meet your requirements. This post explains the fundamentals of TLS, concentrating on the issues that most often confuse app developers. Note The focus of this is TLS-PKI, where PKI stands for public key infrastructure. This is the standard TLS as deployed on the wider Internet. There’s another flavour of TLS, TLS-PSK, where PSK stands for pre-shared key. This has a variety of uses, but an Apple platforms we most commonly see it with local traffic, for example, to talk to a Wi-Fi based accessory. For more on how to use TLS, both TLS-PKI and TLS-PSK, in a local context, see TLS For Accessory Developers. Server Certificates For standard TLS to work the server must have a digital identity, that is, the combination of a certificate and the private key matching the public key embedded in that certificate. TLS Crypto Magic™ ensures that: The client gets a copy of the server’s certificate. The client knows that the server holds the private key matching the public key in that certificate. In a typical TLS handshake the server passes the client a list of certificates, where item 0 is the server’s certificate (the leaf certificate), item N is (optionally) the certificate of the certificate authority that ultimately issued that certificate (the root certificate), and items 1 through N-1 are any intermediate certificates required to build a cryptographic chain of trust from 0 to N. Note The cryptographic chain of trust is established by means of digital signatures. Certificate X in the chain is issued by certificate X+1. The owner of certificate X+1 uses their private key to digitally sign certificate X. The client verifies this signature using the public key embedded in certificate X+1. Eventually this chain terminates in a trusted anchor, that is, a certificate that the client trusts by default. Typically this anchor is a self-signed root certificate from a certificate authority. Note Item N is optional for reasons I’ll explain below. Also, the list of intermediate certificates may be empty (in the case where the root certificate directly issued the leaf certificate) but that’s uncommon for servers in the real world. Once the client gets the server’s certificate, it evaluates trust on that certificate to confirm that it’s talking to the right server. There are three levels of trust evaluation here: Basic X.509 trust evaluation checks that there’s a cryptographic chain of trust from the leaf through the intermediates to a trusted root certificate. The client has a set of trusted root certificates built in (these are from well-known certificate authorities, or CAs), and a site admin can add more via a configuration profile. This step also checks that none of the certificates have expired, and various other more technical criteria (like the Basic Constraints extension). Note This explains why the server does not have to include the root certificate in the list of certificates it passes to the client; the client has to have the root certificate installed if trust evaluation is to succeed. In addition, TLS trust evaluation (per RFC 2818) checks that the DNS name that you connected to matches the DNS name in the certificate. Specifically, the DNS name must be listed in the Subject Alternative Name extension. Note The Subject Alternative Name extension can also contain IP addresses, although that’s a much less well-trodden path. Also, historically it was common to accept DNS names in the Common Name element of the Subject but that is no longer the case on Apple platforms. App Transport Security (ATS) adds its own security checks. Basic X.509 and TLS trust evaluation are done for all TLS connections. ATS is only done on TLS connections made by URLSession and things layered on top URLSession (like WKWebView). In many situations you can override trust evaluation; for details, see Technote 2232 HTTPS Server Trust Evaluation). Such overrides can either tighten or loosen security. For example: You might tighten security by checking that the server certificate was issued by a specific CA. That way, if someone manages to convince a poorly-managed CA to issue them a certificate for your server, you can detect that and fail. You might loosen security by adding your own CA’s root certificate as a trusted anchor. IMPORTANT If you rely on loosened security you have to disable ATS. If you leave ATS enabled, it requires that the default server trust evaluation succeeds regardless of any customisations you do. Mutual TLS The previous section discusses server trust evaluation, which is required for all standard TLS connections. That process describes how the client decides whether to trust the server. Mutual TLS (mTLS) is the opposite of that, that is, it’s the process by which the server decides whether to trust the client. Note mTLS is commonly called client certificate authentication. I avoid that term because of the ongoing industry-wide confusion between certificates and digital identities. While it’s true that, in mTLS, the server authenticates the client certificate, to set this up on the client you need a digital identity, not a certificate. mTLS authentication is optional. The server must request a certificate from the client and the client may choose to supply one or not (although if the server requests a certificate and the client doesn’t supply one it’s likely that the server will then fail the connection). At the TLS protocol level this works much like it does with the server certificate. For the client to provide this certificate it must apply a digital identity, known as the client identity, to the connection. TLS Crypto Magic™ assures the server that, if it gets a certificate from the client, the client holds the private key associated with that certificate. Where things diverge is in trust evaluation. Trust evaluation of the client certificate is done on the server, and the server uses its own rules to decided whether to trust a specific client certificate. For example: Some servers do basic X.509 trust evaluation and then check that the chain of trust leads to one specific root certificate; that is, a client is trusted if it holds a digital identity whose certificate was issued by a specific CA. Some servers just check the certificate against a list of known trusted client certificates. When the client sends its certificate to the server it actually sends a list of certificates, much as I’ve described above for the server’s certificates. In many cases the client only needs to send item 0, that is, its leaf certificate. That’s because: The server already has the intermediate certificates required to build a chain of trust from that leaf to its root. There’s no point sending the root, as I discussed above in the context of server trust evaluation. However, there are no hard and fast rules here; the server does its client trust evaluation using its own internal logic, and it’s possible that this logic might require the client to present intermediates, or indeed present the root certificate even though it’s typically redundant. If you have problems with this, you’ll have to ask the folks running the server to explain its requirements. Note If you need to send additional certificates to the server, pass them to the certificates parameter of the method you use to create your URLCredential (typically init(identity:certificates:persistence:)). One thing that bears repeating is that trust evaluation of the client certificate is done on the server, not the client. The client doesn’t care whether the client certificate is trusted or not. Rather, it simply passes that certificate the server and it’s up to the server to make that decision. When a server requests a certificate from the client, it may supply a list of acceptable certificate authorities [1]. Safari uses this to filter the list of client identities it presents to the user. If you are building an HTTPS server and find that Safari doesn’t show the expected client identity, make sure you have this configured correctly. If you’re building an iOS app and want to implement a filter like Safari’s, get this list using: The distinguishedNames property, if you’re using URLSession The sec_protocol_metadata_access_distinguished_names routine, if you’re using Network framework [1] See the certificate_authorities field in Section 7.4.4 of RFC 5246, and equivalent features in other TLS versions. Self-Signed Certificates Self-signed certificates are an ongoing source of problems with TLS. There’s only one unequivocally correct place to use a self-signed certificate: the trusted anchor provided by a certificate authority. One place where a self-signed certificate might make sense is in a local environment, that is, securing a connection between peers without any centralised infrastructure. However, depending on the specific circumstances there may be a better option. TLS For Accessory Developers discusses this topic in detail. Finally, it’s common for folks to use self-signed certificates for testing. I’m not a fan of that approach. Rather, I recommend the approach described in QA1948 HTTPS and Test Servers. For advice on how to set that up using just your Mac, see TN2326 Creating Certificates for TLS Testing. TLS Standards RFC 6101 The Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Protocol Version 3.0 (historic) RFC 2246 The TLS Protocol Version 1.0 RFC 4346 The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1 RFC 5246 The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 RFC 8446 The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3 RFC 4347 Datagram Transport Layer Security RFC 6347 Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2 RFC 9147 The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3 Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Revision History: 2025-11-21 Clearly defined the terms TLS-PKI and TLS-PSK. 2024-03-19 Adopted the term mutual TLS in preference to client certificate authentication throughout, because the latter feeds into the ongoing certificate versus digital identity confusion. Defined the term client identity. Added the Self-Signed Certificates section. Made other minor editorial changes. 2023-02-28 Added an explanation mTLS acceptable certificate authorities. 2022-12-02 Added links to the DTLS RFCs. 2022-08-24 Added links to the TLS RFCs. Made other minor editorial changes. 2022-06-03 Added a link to TLS For Accessory Developers. 2021-02-26 Fixed the formatting. Clarified that ATS only applies to URLSession. Minor editorial changes. 2020-04-17 Updated the discussion of Subject Alternative Name to account for changes in the 2019 OS releases. Minor editorial updates. 2018-10-29 Minor editorial updates. 2016-11-11 First posted.

Hello, When using ASWebAuthenticationSession with an HTTPS callback URL (Universal Link), I receive the following error: Authorization error: The operation couldn't be completed. Application with identifier jp.xxxx.yyyy.dev is not associated with domain xxxx-example.go.link. Using HTTPS callbacks requires Associated Domains using the webcredentials service type for xxxx-example.go.link. I checked Apple’s official documentation but couldn’t find any clear statement that webcredentials is required when using HTTPS callbacks in ASWebAuthenticationSession. What I’d like to confirm: Is webcredentials officially required when using HTTPS as a callback URL with ASWebAuthenticationSession? If so, is there any official documentation or technical note that states this requirement? Environment iOS 18.6.2 Xcode 16.4 Any clarification or official references would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I spent the entire day debugging a network issue on my Apple Watch app, only to realize the problem isn't my code—it's Apple's inflexible design. The Context: I am building a generic MCP (Model Context Protocol) client for watchOS. The nature of this app is to allow users to input their own server URLs (e.g., a self-hosted endpoint, or public services like GitHub's MCP server) to interact with LLMs and tools. The Problem: When using standard URLSession to connect to widely trusted, public HTTPS endpoints (specifically GitHub's official MCP server at https://mcp.github.com), the connection is forcefully terminated by the OS with NSURLErrorDomain Code=-1200 (TLS handshake failed). The Analysis: This is caused by App Transport Security (ATS). ATS is enforcing a draconian set of security standards (specific ciphers, forward secrecy requirements, etc.) that many perfectly valid, secure, and globally accepted servers do not strictly meet 100%. The Absurdity: We cannot whitelist domains: Since this is a generic client, I cannot add NSExceptionDomains to Info.plist because I don't know what URL the user will input. We cannot disable ATS: Adding NSAllowsArbitraryLoads is a guaranteed rejection during App Store review for a general-purpose app without a "compelling reason" acceptable to Apple. The result: My app is effectively bricked. It cannot connect to GitHub. It cannot connect to 90% of the user's self-hosted servers. The Question: Is the Apple Watch just a toy? How does Apple expect us to build flexible, professional tools when the OS acts like a nanny that blocks connections to GitHub? We need a way to bypass strict ATS checks for user-initiated connections in generic network tools, similar to how curl -k or other developer tools work. The current "all-or-nothing" policy is suffocating.

I'm looking to implement USB monitoring for FIDO2 authentication through a custom Authorization Plugin, specifically for the below ones. This plugin applies to the following macOS authorization mechanisms: system.login.console — login window authentication system.login.screensaver — screensaver unlock authentication The goal is to build a GUI AuthPlugin, an authorization plugin that presents a custom window prompting the user to "Insert your FIDO key”. Additionally, the plugin should detect when the FIDO2 device is removed and respond accordingly. Additional Info: We have already developed a custom authorization plugin which is a primary authentication using OTP at login and Lock Screen. We are now extending to include FIDO2 support as a primary. Our custom authorization plugin is designed to replace the default loginwindow:login mechanism with a custom implementation. Question: Is there a reliable approach to achieve the USB monitoring functionality through a custom authorization plugin? Any guidance or pointers on this would be greatly appreciated.

I've had a Unreal Engine project that uses libwebsocket to make a websocket connection with SSL to a server. Recently I made a build using Unreal Engine 5.4.4 on MacOS Sequoia 15.5 and XCode 16.4 and for some reason the websocket connection now fails because it can't get the local issuer certificate. It fails to access the root certificate store on my device (Even though, running the project in the Unreal Editor works fine, it's only when making a packaged build with XCode that it breaks) I am not sure why this is suddenly happening now. If I run it in the Unreal editor on my macOS it works fine and connects. But when I make a packaged build which uses XCode to build, it can't get the local issuer certificate. I tried different code signing options, such as sign to run locally or just using sign automatically with a valid team, but I'm not sure if code signing is the cause of this issue or not. This app is only for development and not meant to be published, so that's why I had been using sign to run locally, and that used to work fine but not anymore. Any guidance would be appreciated, also any information on what may have changed that now causes this certificate issue to happen. I know Apple made changes and has made notarizing MacOS apps mandatory, but I'm not sure if that also means a non-notarized app will now no longer have access to the root certificate store of a device, in my research I haven't found anything about that specifically, but I'm wondering if any Apple engineers might know something about this that hasn't been put out publicly.

General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Apple Platform Security support document Developer > Security Enabling enhanced security for your app documentation article Creating enhanced security helper extensions documentation article 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"

It seems it is not possible to give a CLI app (non .app bundle) full disk access in macOS 26.1. This seems like a bug and if not that is a breaking change. Anybody seeing the same problem? Our application needs full disk access for a service running as a LaunchDaemon. The binary is located in a /Library subfolder.

I am trying to communicate with the backend of my project. So I need to install the certificate into the simulator. I have the .pem file but when I drag-dropped it into the simulator, I got the error "Simulator device failed to complete the requested operation.". The simulator is an iPhone 16 Pro running iOS 18.5. Is there any way to install the cert to my simulator? PS: I can't use Apple Configurator or MDM because I am using the office's Mac. And I can't install anything there. So I can only do it manually.

Hi everyone 👋 I’m running into a persistent SSL issue on iOS where the app fails to establish a secure HTTPS connection to our backend APIs. The same endpoints work fine on Android and web, but on iOS the requests fail with: Error Domain=NSURLErrorDomain Code=-1200 "An SSL error has occurred and a secure connection to the server cannot be made." UserInfo={ NSLocalizedDescription = "An SSL error has occurred and a secure connection to the server cannot be made."; _kCFStreamErrorDomainKey = 3; _kCFStreamErrorCodeKey = -9802; } 🔍 What I’ve Checked: The servers use valid, trusted SSL certificates from a public CA TLS 1.2 and 1.3 are enabled The intermediate certificates appear correctly configured (verified using SSL Labs) The issue happens on our customer's end. (Got it via Sentry) Note: We recently removed NSAppTransportSecurity(NSAllowsArbitraryLoads) on our app, since all the endpoints use valid HTTPS certificates and standard configurations. ❓ Questions: Are there additional SSL validation checks performed by iOS when ATS is enabled? Has anyone seen similar behaviour, where valid certificate chains still trigger SSL errors? Any insights or debugging suggestions would be greatly appreciated 🙏

Hi, I’ve developed a custom Authorization Plugin and placed it under: /Library/Security/SecurityAgentPlugins/AuthPlugin.bundle I also updated the corresponding right in the authorization database (authorizationdb) to point to my plugin’s mechanism. However, when I invoke the right, my plugin does not get loaded. The system log shows the following errors: AuthorizationHostHelper: Init: unable to load bundle executable for plugin: AuthPlugin.bundle AuthorizationHostHelper: Processing request: Failed to create agent mechanism AuthPlugin:auth.startup.authenticate, failing authentication! Here’s what I’ve verified so far: The plugin bundle and its executable are signed and notarized successfully. The executable inside the bundle is universal (arm64 + x86_64). The bundle structure looks correct (Contents/Info.plist, Contents/MacOS/..., etc.). Despite that, the plugin fails to load at runtime. Could anyone provide advice on how to debug or trace why the SecurityAgent cannot load the bundle executable? Are there any entitlements, permissions, or SIP-related restrictions that might prevent custom authorization plugins from being loaded on modern macOS versions? Thanks in advance for any insights!