We’ve run into what looks like a gap in how forceAirDropUnmanaged is enforced on iOS devices. Setup: Device: iOS 17.x (unsupervised, enrolled in MDM) MDM Restriction: forceAirDropUnmanaged = true Managed Open-In restriction also applied (block unmanaged destinations). Verified: from a managed app, the AirDrop icon is hidden in the share sheet. This part works as expected. Issue: When two iOS devices are brought close together, the proximity-initiated AirDrop / NameDrop flow still allows transfer of photos, videos, or files between devices. In this path, forceAirDropUnmanaged does not appear to apply, even though the same restriction works correctly in the standard sharing pane. What I’d expect: If forceAirDropUnmanaged is enabled, all AirDrop transfer paths (including proximity/NameDrop) should be treated as unmanaged, and thus blocked when “Managed Open-In to unmanaged destinations” is restricted. What I observe instead: Share sheet → AirDrop hidden ✅ Proximity/NameDrop → transfer still possible ❌ Questions for Apple / Community: Is this a known limitation or expected behavior? Is there a different restriction key (or combination) that also covers proximity-based AirDrop? If not currently supported, should this be filed as Feedback (FB) to request alignment between share sheet AirDrop and NameDrop enforcement? This behaviour introduces a compliance gap for organisations relying on MDM to control data exfiltration on unsupervised or user-enrolled devices. Any clarification or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

How can we receive the iPadOS 18.6.1 update on an iPad? We have configured the MDM update days policy to receive recent, but not the latest, iPadOS updates; however, we are only able to get versions 18.6.2 and 18.6. Is the availability of iPadOS updates dependent on the iPad's region? Thank you in advance for your assistance.

We are experiencing a critical issue where VPP app installations are consistently taking an excessive amount of time, leading to significant delays in asset association. We are deployionThis is a systemic problem that affects all VPP apps, not just an isolated case. Apps: 39470db7-e475-4269-9709-c80641657027 => com.zimride.instant d0876900-2579-463e-99f1-b7c85ef5c5e8 com.microsoft.azureauthenticator Troubleshooting: We have performed extensive troubleshooting and can confirm the following: VPP Token: The VPP token has been successfully renewed and is currently active and valid. License Availability: We've verified that there are sufficient VPP licenses available for the apps being deployed. Device Status: We've attempted the following on the affected devices: Restarted the devices. Switched to different Wi-Fi networks. Uninstalled and re-installed the apps. App Status: The issue is not limited to a single app; all VPP apps are failing to install. License Revocation: We attempted to revoke and reassign licenses for some devices, but this did not resolve the issue. The app was not pushed, and the pending status remained. Troubleshooting: Through our internal investigation, we have determined that the core issue is that the Asset Association Status is consistently taking excessive time. This seems to be preventing the app installation queue from processing. We have observed a significant delay in the processing of events within the Notification Channel. The time between the event being created and a response being received is excessively long, indicating a potential backlog or issue. We have included a few recent examples below for your reference: Event ID: 39470db7-e475-4269-9709-c80641657027 com.zimride.instant Created Time: 2025-08-26 01:02:04 Response Time: 2025-08-26 01:34:05 Event ID: d0876900-2579-463e-99f1-b7c85ef5c5e8 com.microsoft.azureauthenticator Created Time: 2025-08-25 21:16:29 Response Time: 2025-08-25 22:21:07 We would appreciate your help in the following areas: Resolution: Could you provide any known solutions or workarounds for an asset association status that is taking excessive amount of time'? Best Practices: Are there any recommended best practices or additional parameters we should be checking with the MDM that might influence the queueing of VPP app assignments? Queueing Parameters: Could you provide insight into the parameters or conditions that can affect the queueing and processing of VPP app installations on Apple's servers? Please let us know if there is any additional information or logs we can provide.

Hi everyone, I’m working as an IT engineer in the cruise industry and need to troubleshoot passenger complaints about Apple’s new RCS messaging feature (introduced with iOS 18). Could someone help confirm which domains and ports iPhones use when they send RCS messages? For the fortigate and palo alto firewalls I need specifics: domains (or subdomains) that need whitelisting and the ports involved. Any official or community-sourced info would be super helpful—thanks in advance!

Hello! I’m testing certificate issuance using a locally running Smallstep step-ca ACME server with the device-attest-01 challenge. I’ve created a custom MDM profile for this purpose. When I install the profile, the certificate is issued successfully, but it is not saved to the Keychain as stated in the documentation. I can only see the certificate via mdmclient or in the Wi-Fi settings dropdown menu. Is this expected behavior, or are there additional settings that need to be included in the MDM profile?

New devices coming to this year is named as iPhone 17 .... Why we care not going for iPhone 26. .... ? if it is named as iPhone 26... in line with new version policy, it will be easier to relate in all perspective.

During VPP app installation, the app-device asset association event took longer than the usual maximum of 30 seconds to complete, regardless of the number of app licenses involved.

ABM has introduced a target date for moving a device from one MDM server to a new one. However, there's nothing in the API for setting that when you use the API to move MDM server Am I missing something or does it just not exist? Thanks Caroline

When I try to sign in Managed Apple ID in supervised device there appears a prompt stating that "Apple ID" is a work account.This account must be signed in as a work account on this device.When I click continue it takes to VPN and device management tab where MDM profile already exists. Note:The managed Apple ID has a ICloud subscription for it. When I remove the subscription for the Apple ID and try to sign in, it works. Kindly help on this or advise on any additional steps required to enable sign in for managed Apple ID in this scenario

Apple face app is used to fore video calling and chatting and voice calling AP same a what’s app tango etc…

We have applications RME and RMEUI, which are added under FileProviders section. Looking for MDM profile that can lock these entries so that users cannot disable them. Currently we are using JAMF Pro MDM to control our applications. In Sequoia OS -> Open System Preferences -> General -> Login Items & Extensions -> Under Extensions section -> File Providers In Tahoe OS -> Open System Preferences -> General -> Login Items & Extensions -> Under By Category/App section -> File Providers (In the screen shot you can find RME entry)

Hello, We are currently deploying Apple devices in our organization using Apple Business Manager (ABM) and are looking for a long-term self-hosted MDM solution. We initially considered MicroMDM, but since official support will end in December 2025, we are evaluating NanoMDM. I would like to confirm: Is NanoMDM a stable and production-ready option for long-term use with Apple Business Manager and Automated Device Enrollment (ADE)? Does NanoMDM support all essential features like: Supervision Remote wipe App deployment Configuration profiles Are there any limitations or known issues with using NanoMDM? Are there any other open-source or lightweight MDM solutions Apple developers recommend that are actively maintained? We are aiming for a reliable, secure, and future-proof self-hosted MDM setup. Any guidance or shared experience would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Vijay Pratap Singh

Summary: When applying a configuration profile that uses allowListedAppBundleIDs to permit a defined set of apps, essential Apple Watch apps are unexpectedly removed from the paired Watch — even though their associated iPhone bundle IDs are explicitly included. This issue occurs with a minimal profile, and has been consistently reproducible on the latest versions of iOS and watchOS. Impact: This behavior severely limits the use of Apple Watch in managed environments (e.g., education, family management, accessibility contexts), where allowlisting is a key control mechanism. It also suggests either: Undocumented internal dependencies between iOS and watchOS apps, or A possible regression in how allowlists interact with Watch integration. Steps to Reproduce: Create a configuration profile with a Restrictions payload containing only the allowListedAppBundleIDs key. Allow a broad list of essential system apps, including all known Apple Watch-related bundle IDs: com.apple.NanoAlarm com.apple.NanoNowPlaying com.apple.NanoOxygenSaturation com.apple.NanoRegistry com.apple.NanoRemote com.apple.NanoSleep com.apple.NanoStopwatch com.apple.NanoWorldClock (All the bundles can be seen in the Attached profile) Install the profile on a supervised or non-supervised iPhone paired with an Apple Watch. Restart both devices. Observe that several core Watch apps (e.g. Heart Rate, Activity, Workout) are missing from the Watch. Expected Behavior: All apps explicitly included in the allowlist should function normally. System apps — especially those tied to hardware like Apple Watch — should remain accessible unless explicitly excluded. Actual Behavior: Multiple Apple Watch system apps are removed or hidden, despite their iPhone bundle IDs being listed in the allowlist. Test Environment: iPhone running iOS 18 Apple Watch running watchOS 11 Profile includes only the allowListedAppBundleIDs key Issue confirmed on fresh devices with no third-party apps Request for Apple Engineering: Please confirm whether additional internal or undocumented bundle IDs are required to preserve Apple Watch functionality when allowlisting apps. If this behavior is unintended, please treat this as a regression or bug affecting key system components. If intentional, please provide formal documentation listing all required bundle IDs for preserving Watch support with allowlisting enabled. Attachment: .mobileconfig profile demonstrating the issue (clean, minimal, reproducible) Attached test profile = https://drive.google.com/file/d/12YknGWuo1bDG-bmzPi0T41H6uHrhDmdR/view?usp=sharing

Subject: Questions Regarding Signing Certificates for MDM Configuration Profiles Dear all, I hope this message finds you well. I have some questions regarding the signing certificates used for MDM configuration profiles. Currently, our company uses an SSL certificate to sign MDM configuration profiles. However, with the announcement that the validity period of SSL certificates will gradually be shortened starting in 2026, we are considering alternative options for signing certificates. Through our internal testing and investigation, we have found examples of the following certificate chains being used: ・Developer ID - G1 (Expiring 02/01/2027 22:12:15 UTC) + Developer ID Application certificate chain ・Apple Root CA + Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Intermediate Certificate + MDM CSR certificate chain We would appreciate any insights or experiences you can share regarding the following points: Apple Support previously advised that "certificates issued by public certificate authorities (CAs) trusted by Apple" are recommended. The certificates listed at https://www.apple.com/certificateauthority/ are typically preinstalled on Apple devices. Are these considered "trusted public CAs" by Apple in this context? Is it acceptable in practice to use a certificate obtained from the “Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles” section on developer.apple.com for signing MDM configuration profiles? We would be grateful to hear about any real-world experiences. If the answer to question 2 is yes, which certificate type within “Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles” would be most appropriate for signing configuration profiles? If using certificates from question 2 is not suitable, are there alternative certificate types (other than SSL) that are valid for longer periods (e.g., more than one year) and appropriate for signing MDM configuration profiles? Apple's official documents do not seem to clearly specify what type of certificate should be used to sign MDM configuration profiles. If you know of any helpful documents or resources related to this topic, we would greatly appreciate it if you could share them. Thank you very much for your time and support. We would truly appreciate any advice or guidance you can provide.

The result Plist for the InstalledApplicationList MDM command is reporting duplicate Application identifiers. Sometimes with different version, other times with the same version. The device is MacOS 15.5, Enrolled via ABM (Supervised). Here are a couple samples from the returned list. Duplicate app: <key>BundleSize</key> <integer>398051</integer> <key>Identifier</key> <string>com.adobe.Acrobat.NativeMessagingHost</string> <key>Installing</key> <false/> <key>Name</key> <string>NativeMessagingHost</string> <key>ShortVersion</key> <string>5.0</string> <key>Version</key> <string>5.0</string> </dict> <dict> <key>BundleSize</key> <integer>398051</integer> <key>Identifier</key> <string>com.adobe.Acrobat.NativeMessagingHost</string> <key>Installing</key> <false/> <key>Name</key> <string>NativeMessagingHost</string> <key>ShortVersion</key> <string>5.0</string> <key>Version</key> <string>5.0</string> </dict> Different Version: <key>BundleSize</key> <integer>4197200</integer> <key>Identifier</key> <string>com.adobe.adobe_licutil</string> <key>Installing</key> <false/> <key>Name</key> <string>adobe_licutil</string> <key>ShortVersion</key> <string>11.0.0.39</string> <key>Version</key> <string>11.0.0.39</string> </dict> <dict> <key>BundleSize</key> <integer>4443177</integer> <key>Identifier</key> <string>com.adobe.AcroLicApp</string> <key>Installing</key> <false/> <key>Name</key> <string>AcroLicApp</string> <key>ShortVersion</key> <string>25.001.20432</string> <key>Version</key> <string>25.001.20432</string> </dict> <dict> <key>BundleSize</key> <integer>7380980</integer> <key>Identifier</key> <string>com.adobe.adobe_licutil</string> <key>Installing</key> <false/> <key>Name</key> <string>adobe_licutil</string> <key>ShortVersion</key> <string>10.0.0.274</string> <key>Version</key> <string>10.0.0.274</string> </dict>

Im trying to make my own iOS MDM Server with SCEP. I cant send a response to the PKIOperation without the iPad rejecting it. Can someone post the PKIOperation response structure

Finally got to the stage where the ACME certificate profile is successfully installed. However, the public key/certificate itself isn't appearing in the System Keychain. I'm not sure if this is normal or if it's an indication that something went wrong after the profile installation. Unfortunately, I didn't study the log detail at the time and I'm uncertain of how to retrieve those logs from two days ago for the ACME activities. Can anyone confirm that macOS 26 should be storing ACME-retrieved MDM profile-based certificates in the System Keychain? If they should be there, what can possibly go wrong? The most obvious issue I can see is that the ACME server has requested the certificate with two CN's, which comes from the MDM profile asking for the subject against CN and the OID (2.5.4.3). Both CN's are identical. I'm surprised the profile installed if something is wrong. At first, I assumed Apple had decided to stop installing the certificates into the System Keychain.

I want to install Chrome extension via configuration profile without user needing to go to System Settings and install profile manually. Can i install configuraation profile by making user only interact with my app?

Hi Apple team and community, We’re currently integrating with the Apps and Books for Organizations API as part of our device management solution and would like to highlight a few critical points we've encountered — including a reliability issue, an enhancement suggestion, and a request for clarification on API rate limits. 1. Issue: Intermittent 403 Errors with stoken-authenticated-apps Endpoint We are encountering intermittent 403 Forbidden responses from the stoken-authenticated-apps endpoint. Approximately 30–35% of the requests fail with a 403 status code. These failures are inconsistent — the same request (using the same Content Token and Storefront) may succeed upon retry. All requests are properly authenticated and include the required Cookie and other headers as specified in the API documentation. This issue is impacting our ability to reliably fetch app metadata at scale, particularly in workflows. We’d like to know: Is this a known issue? Could it be due to a rate limit or token misconfiguration? Are any changes required on our end to avoid these failures? 2. Enhancement Request: Include externalVersionId in versionHistory Response The versionHistory extension currently returns: versionString releaseNotes releaseDate However, for Declarative Device Management (DDM) workflows such as App Pinning, we need the externalVersionId as well. Without it, we can't reliably correlate version metadata with the specific version ID required for pinning. Adding externalVersionId would: Enable precise version targeting during App Pinning Improve reliability and automation in managed deployments We request that Apple consider including externalVersionId in the versionHistory response to better support DDM-based app lifecycle management. 3. Rate Limit Clarification We found the following note in the Apps and Books for Organizations API documentation: "The Apps and Books for Organizations API limits the number of requests your app can make using a developer token within a specific period of time. If you exceed this limit, you’ll temporarily receive 429 Too Many Requests error responses for requests that use the token. This error resolves itself shortly after the request rate has reduced." While this confirms that a rate limit is enforced, there is no detailed information about the thresholds — such as the number of allowed requests per minute, hour, or day per developer token. To help us implement proper throttling and retry strategies, we request clarification on the following: What is the exact rate limit threshold per developer token? Are there per-endpoint limits, or is it a global cap for all requests using the token? Does the API return a Retry-After header when the limit is exceeded? What is the recommended backoff strategy for clients to follow when receiving 429 errors? This information would help us implement efficient throttling and error handling logic. Any insights from the Apple team or other developers who’ve encountered these issues would be greatly appreciated!

I'm currently testing app updates using the App:Managed declarative device management payload, and I have a question regarding app update status reporting. Presently, by subscribing to the app.managed.list status item, we can retrieve a list of managed applications along with their installation status. Additionally, we enable automatic updates for managed App Store apps using the UpdateBehavior.AutomaticAppUpdates key. However, especially when a critical application update is initiated, we frequently find ourselves needing more detailed information about the update process. For instance, having status items similar to softwareupdate.install-state and softwareupdate.failure-reason would be incredibly helpful for user troubleshooting. My question is: Is there a way to obtain a similar level of detailed, real-time status updates for app updates? Any insights you might have, or existing methods to achieve this, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.