General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Privacy Resources Security Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Hi everyone, I'm working on an app that stores multiple secrets in the Keychain, each protected with .userPresence. My goal is to authenticate the user once via FaceID/TouchID and then read multiple Keychain items without triggering subsequent prompts. I am reusing the same LAContext instance for these operations, and I have set: context.touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration = LATouchIDAuthenticationMaximumAllowableReuseDuration However, I'm observing that every single SecItemCopyMatching call triggers a new FaceID/TouchID prompt, even if they happen within seconds of each other using the exact same context. Here is a simplified flow of what I'm doing: Create a LAContext. Set touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration to max. Perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item A, passing [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID. Success. Immediately perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item B, passing the same [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID again. My question is: Does the .userPresence access control flag inherently force a new user interaction for every Keychain access, regardless of the LAContext reuse duration? Is allowableReuseDuration only applicable for LAContext.evaluatePolicy calls and not for SecItem queries? If so, is there a recommended pattern for "unlocking" a group of Keychain items with a single biometric prompt? Environment: iOS 17+, Swift. Thanks!

Hello, I’m working on an authorization plugin which allows users to login and unlock their computer with various methods like a FIDO key. I need to add smart cards support to it. If I understand correctly, I need to construct a URLCredential object with the identity from the smart card and pass it to the completion handler of URLSessionDelegate.urlSession(_:didReceive:completionHandler:) method. I’ve read the documentation at Using Cryptographic Assets Stored on a Smart Card, TN3137: On Mac keychain APIs and implementations, and SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices and created a simple code that reads the identities from the keychain: CFArrayRef identities = nil; OSStatus status = SecItemCopyMatching((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)@{ (id)kSecClass: (id)kSecClassIdentity, (id)kSecMatchLimit: (id)kSecMatchLimitAll, (id)kSecReturnRef: @YES, }, (CFTypeRef *)&identities); if (status == errSecSuccess && identities) { os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Found identities: %{public}ld\n", CFArrayGetCount(identities)); } else { os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Error: %{public}ld\n", (long)status); } When I use this code in a simple demo app, it finds my Yubikey identities without problem. When I use it in my authorization plugin, it doesn’t find anything in system.login.console right and finds Yubikey in authenticate right only if I register my plugin as non-,privileged. I tried modifying the query in various ways, in particular by using SecKeychainCopyDomainSearchList with the domain kSecPreferencesDomainDynamic and adding it to the query as kSecMatchSearchList and trying other SecKeychain* methods, but ended up with nothing. I concluded that the identities from a smart card are being added to the data protection keychain rather than to a file based keychain and since I’m working in a privileged context, I won’t be able to get them. If this is indeed the case, could you please advise how to proceed? Thanks in advance.

(Xcode 26.2, iPhone 17 Pro) I can't seem to get hardware tag checks to work in an app launched without the special "Hardware Memory Tagging" diagnostics. In other words, I have been unable to reproduce the crash example at 6:40 in Apple's video "Secure your app with Memory Integrity Enforcement". When I write a heap overflow or a UAF, it is picked up perfectly provided I enable the "Hardware Memory Tagging" feature under Scheme Diagnostics. If I instead add the Enhanced Security capability with the memory-tagging related entitlements: I'm seeing distinct memory tags being assigned in pointers returned by malloc (without the capability, this is not the case) Tag mismatches are not being caught or enforced, regardless of soft mode The behaviour is the same whether I launch from Xcode without "Hardware Memory Tagging", or if I launch the app by tapping it on launchpad. In case it was related to debug builds, I also tried creating an ad hoc IPA and it didn't make any difference. I realise there's a wrinkle here that the debugger sets MallocTagAll=1, so possibly it will pick up a wider range of issues. However I would have expected that a straight UAF would be caught. For example, this test code demonstrates that tagging is active but it doesn't crash: #define PTR_TAG(p) ((unsigned)(((uintptr_t)(p) >> 56) & 0xF)) void *p1 = malloc(32); void *p2 = malloc(32); void *p3 = malloc(32); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p1 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p1, PTR_TAG(p1)); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p2 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p2, PTR_TAG(p2)); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p3 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p3, PTR_TAG(p3)); free(p2); void *p2_realloc = malloc(32); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p2 after free+malloc = %p (tag: %u)\n", p2_realloc, PTR_TAG(p2_realloc)); // Is p2_realloc the same address as p2 but different tag? os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Same address? %s\n", ((uintptr_t)p2 & 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFF) == ((uintptr_t)p2_realloc & 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFF) ? "YES" : "NO"); // Now try to use the OLD pointer p2 os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Attempting use-after-free via old pointer p2...\n"); volatile char c = *(volatile char *)p2; // Should this crash? os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Read succeeded! Value: %d\n", c); Example output: p1 = 0xf00000b71019660 (tag: 15) p2 = 0x200000b711958c0 (tag: 2) p3 = 0x300000b711958e0 (tag: 3) p2 after free+malloc = 0x700000b71019680 (tag: 7) Same address? NO Attempting use-after-free via old pointer p2... Read succeeded! Value: -55 For reference, these are my entitlements. [Dict] [Key] application-identifier [Value] [String] … [Key] com.apple.developer.team-identifier [Value] [String] … [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.checked-allocations [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.checked-allocations.enable-pure-data [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.dyld-ro [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version [Value] [Int] 1 [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.hardened-heap [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions [Value] [Int] 2 [Key] get-task-allow [Value] [Bool] true What do I need to do to make Memory Integrity Enforcement do something outside the debugger?

https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=j9zukcr6 starting from Jan 2026 there is change in requirements for account notifications for Sign in with Apple. Does this apply only to developers based in South Korea or all apps which are avai via the korean App Store?

Hello, I have a question regarding the lifecycle of user consent and tokens in "Sign in with Apple." Specifically, I would like to understand the behavior of the auth/revoke API in relation to App Store Connect status changes. Impact of App Status Changes If an app is "Removed from Sale" or "Deleted" from App Store Connect, does Apple automatically revoke all associated user tokens and consent? Or is it still the developer's responsibility to programmatically revoke each user's token via the REST API to ensure the app is removed from the user’s "Apps Using Apple ID" list? API Availability after Removal Once an app is no longer available on the App Store (or its record is deleted in App Store Connect), is the auth/revoke REST API still accessible? I want to ensure that a developer can still perform necessary privacy clean-up tasks (revoking consent) even if the app is not currently distributed. Specific User Impacts of Non-Revocation If we do not call the revocation API, besides the app remaining in the "Sign in with Apple" list, what are the specific consequences for the user? Thank you for your guidance.

QuickLookAR shares the actual USDZ model instead of the original website URL — critical copyright and data leak issue on iOS 26 Since iOS 26, QuickLookAR (or ARQuickLookPreviewItem) no longer preserves the original web URL when sharing a model. Instead of sending the link to the hosted file, the system directly shares the actual USDZ model file with the recipient. This is a critical regression and a severe breach of intellectual property protection, as it exposes proprietary 3D models that must never be distributed outside of the controlled web environment. In earlier iOS versions (tested up to iOS 18), QuickLookAR correctly handled sharing — the share sheet would send the website link where the model is hosted, not the file itself. Starting with iOS 26, this behavior has changed and completely breaks the intended secure flow for AR experiences. Our project relies on allowing users to view models in AR via QuickLook, without ever transferring the underlying 3D assets. Now, the share operation forces full file sharing, giving end users unrestricted access to the model file, which can be copied, rehosted, or reverse-engineered. This issue critically affects production environments and prevents us from deploying our AR-based solutions. Implement a standard QuickLookAR preview with a USDZ file hosted on your web server (e.g., via ARQuickLookPreviewItem). 2. Open the AR view on iOS 26. 3. Tap the Share icon from QuickLookAR. 4. Send via any messenger (Telegram, WhatsApp, etc.). 5. Observe that the actual .usdz model is sent instead of the original website URL. ⸻ Expected behavior: QuickLookAR should share only the original URL (as in iOS 17–18), not the file itself. This ensures that intellectual property and licensed 3D models remain protected and controlled by the content owner. ⸻ Actual behavior: QuickLookAR shares the entire USDZ file, leaking the model content outside of the intended environment. ⸻ Impact: • Violation of copyright and confidential data policies • Loss of control over proprietary 3D assets • Breaking change for all existing web-based AR integrations • Critical blocker for AR production deployment ⸻ Environment: • iOS 26.0 and 26.1 (tested on iPhone 14, iPhone 15) • Safari + QuickLookAR integration • Works correctly on iOS 17 / iOS 18 ⸻ Notes: This regression appears to have been introduced in the latest iOS 26 system handling of QuickLookAR sharing. Please escalate this issue to the ARKit / QuickLook engineering team as it directly affects compliance, IP protection, and usability of AR features across production applications. Additional Notes / Verification: Please test this behavior yourself using the CheckAR test model on my website: https://admixreality.com/ios26/ • If the login page appears, click “Check AR” and then “View in Your Space”. • On iOS 18 and earlier, sharing correctly sends the website URL. • On iOS 26, sharing sends the actual USDZ model file. This clearly demonstrates the regression and the security/IP issue.

On iOS 26, QuickLookAR (ARQuickLookPreviewItem) shares the actual .usdz file via the system Share Sheet instead of the original website URL. This is a regression from iOS 17–18, where sharing correctly preserved and sent only the source URL. Repro steps: 1. Open a web-hosted USDZ model in QuickLookAR (Safari). 2. Tap Share. 3. Share via any messenger. 4. The full .usdz file is sent. Expected: Share Sheet sends only the original URL. Actual: Share Sheet sends the USDZ file. Impact: Uncontrolled distribution of proprietary 3D assets. Critical IP / data leak. Blocks production AR deployments relying on QuickLook. Environment: iOS 26.0–26.1, iPhone 14 / 15. Works as expected on iOS 17–18. Test case: https://admixreality.com/ios26/

Hello. When a user revokes Apple Login authorization, I am expecting a webhook to be delivered to our configured endpoint, but I currently not receiving any at all. So I have some questions: Should the revoke event webhook be delivered in real-time? If it is not real-time, when is the webhook supposed to be sent? If my server fails to respond to the webhook request, does Apple retry the delivery? (Actually I couldn't find how to response in this scenario, but if I can) Thanks in advance.

I want to add the "Sign In with Apple" feature to my iPadOS application. I've already done the following: Include com.apple.developer.applesignin in mobileprovision Include com.apple.developer.applesignin in entitlements However, I'm getting the following errors: `Authorization failed: Error Domain=AKAuthenticationError Code=-7026 "(null)" UserInfo={AKClientBundleID=xxxx} LaunchServices: store (null) or url (null) was nil: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "process may not map database" UserInfo={_LSLine=72, _LSFunction=_LSServer_GetServerStoreForConnectionWithCompletionHandler, _LSFile=LSDReadService.mm, NSDebugDescription=process may not map database} Attempt to map database failed: permission was denied. This attempt will not be retried. Failed to initialize client context with error Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "process may not map database" UserInfo={_LSLine=72, _LSFunction=_LSServer_GetServerStoreForConnectionWithCompletionHandler, _LSFile=LSDReadService.mm, NSDebugDescription=process may not map database} Failed to get application extension record: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1000 "(null)" ` What is this problem? How can I solve it? Hoping someone can help, thank you!

"I am attempting to read and write data to an Office Group Container, and I am consistently prompted with the "App would like to access data from other apps" alert. How can I configure the application or environment to suppress this repeated permission prompt?"

Hello, I am implementing "Sign in with Apple" on my backend and validating the Identity Token (JWT) received from the client. I noticed that for some users who choose the "Hide My Email" option, the is_private_email claim is missing from the ID Token payload, even though the email address clearly belongs to the private relay domain (@privaterelay.appleid.com). Here is an example of the decoded payload I received: { "iss": "https://appleid.apple.com", "aud": "com.platform.elderberry.new.signinwithapple", "exp": 1764402438, "iat": 1764316038, "sub": "000851.86193ef81ad247feb673746c19424f28.0747", "c_hash": "3FAJNf4TILzUgo_YFe4E0Q", "email": "x8sqp2dgvv@privaterelay.appleid.com", "email_verified": true, "auth_time": 1764316038, "nonce_supported": true // "is_private_email": true <-- This field is missing } My Questions: Is the is_private_email claim considered optional in the ID Token? Is it safe and recommended to rely solely on the email domain suffix (@privaterelay.appleid.com) to identify if a user is using a private email? Any insights or official references would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hello, I am implementing "Sign in with Apple" on my backend and validating the Identity Token (JWT) received from the client. I noticed that for some users who choose the "Hide My Email" option, the is_private_email claim is missing from the ID Token payload, even though the email address clearly belongs to the private relay domain (@privaterelay.appleid.com). Here is an example of the decoded payload I received: { "iss": "https://appleid.apple.com", "aud": "xxx", "exp": 1764402438, "iat": 1764316038, "sub": "xxxxxxxx", "c_hash": "3FAJNf4TILzUgo_YFe4E0Q", "email": "xxx@privaterelay.appleid.com", "email_verified": true, "auth_time": 1764316038, "nonce_supported": true // "is_private_email": true <-- This field is missing } My Questions: Is the is_private_email claim considered optional in the ID Token? Is it safe and recommended to rely solely on the email domain suffix (@privaterelay.appleid.com) to identify if a user is using a private email? Any insights or official references would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hello I am trying to release an application using EXPO ROUTER + EXPO RN WEB. I am trying to implement Apple Login using Firebase. I have already put necessary info in both App Store Connect and Firebas console. Now I am so confused what I have to do next. What are some resource I could use or tips you could possibly give me when making apple login available using firebase. Pleas all helps are welcomed and needed

Hello, we are using DeviceCheck – App Attest in a production iOS app. The integration has been live for some time and works correctly for most users, but a small subset of users encounter non-deterministic failures that we are unable to reproduce internally. Environment iOS 14+ Real devices only (no simulator) App Attest capability enabled Correct App ID, Team ID and App Attest entitlement Production environment Relevant code let service = DCAppAttestService.shared service.generateKey { keyId, error in // key generation } service.attestKey(keyId, clientDataHash: hash) { attestation, error in // ERROR: com.apple.devicecheck.error 3 / 4 } service.generateAssertion(keyId, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) { assertion, error in // ERROR: com.apple.devicecheck.error 3 / 4 } For some users we intermittently receive: com.apple.devicecheck.error error 3 com.apple.devicecheck.error error 4 Characteristics: appears random affects only some users/devices sometimes resolves after time or reinstall not reproducible on our test devices NSError contains no additional diagnostic info Some questions: What is the official meaning of App Attest errors 3 and 4? Are these errors related to key state, device conditions, throttling, or transient App Attest service issues? Is there any recommended way to debug or gain more insight when this happens in production? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated, as this impacts real users and is difficult to diagnose. Thank you.

Hi, we were recently approved for the com.apple.developer.web-browser.public-key-credential entitlement and have added it to our app. It initially worked as expected for a couple of days, but then it stopped working. We're now seeing the same error as before adding the entitlement: Told not to present authorization sheet: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServicesCore.AuthorizationError Code=1 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 "(null)" Do you have any insights into what might be causing this issue? Thank you!

I now had the second user with 26.2. complaining about a hang in my app. The hang occurs when the first AppleScript for Mail is run. Here is the relevant section from the process analysis in Activity Monitor: + 2443 OSACompile (in OpenScripting) + 52 [0x1b32b30f4] + 2443 SecurityPolicyTestDescriptor (in OpenScripting) + 152 [0x1b32a2284] + 2443 _SecurityPolicyTest(char const*, void const*, unsigned long) (in OpenScripting) + 332 [0x1b32a2118] + 2443 InterpreterSecurity_ScanBuffer (in libInterpreterSecurity.dylib) + 112 [0x28c149304] + 2443 -[InterpreterSecurity scanData:withSourceURL:] (in libInterpreterSecurity.dylib) + 164 [0x28c148db4] + 2443 -[XProtectScan beginAnalysisWithFeedback:] (in XprotectFramework) + 544 [0x1d35a1e58] + 2443 -[XPMalwareEvaluation initWithData:assessmentClass:] (in XprotectFramework) + 92 [0x1d359ada4] + 2443 -[XPMalwareEvaluation initWithRuleString:withExtraRules:withURL:withData:withAssessmentClass:feedback:] (in XprotectFramework) + 36 [0x1d359b2a8] My app is correctly signed and notarised. The first user had to completely uninstall/reinstall the app and the everything worked again. Why does this happen? How can the problem be fixed?

Hello, We are experiencing an issue related to Sign in with Apple Server-to-Server (S2S) notifications, specifically involving repeated delivery of the account-deleted event, and would like to ask whether this behavior is expected or known. Background We have configured an S2S notification endpoint for Sign in with Apple in accordance with Apple’s requirements for account status change notifications. Our endpoint: Is reachable over HTTPS Consistently returns HTTP 200 OK Successfully receives other S2S events, including: email-enabled email-disabled consent-revoked Issue: Repeated 'account-deleted' events for the same Apple ID For most users, the account-deleted event is delivered only once, as expected. However, for a specific Apple ID used with Sign in with Apple, we are observing repeated deliveries of the same account-deleted event, arriving at regular intervals (approximately every 5 minutes). The payload contents are identical between deliveries and include the same user identifier (sub) and event timestamp. Notably: The Apple ID deletion itself completed successfully The payload does not change between deliveries Our endpoint continues to return HTTP 200 OK for every request Questions We would appreciate clarification on the following points: Is repeated delivery of the same account-deleted event expected behavior in any scenario? Is there a retry or redelivery mechanism for this event type, even when HTTP 200 is returned? Could repeated deliveries indicate that the deletion process is still considered “in progress” on Apple’s side? Are developers expected to treat account-deleted events as at-least-once delivery and handle them idempotently? Additional context While researching this issue, we found a forum thread describing a very similar case: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/735674 In that discussion, Apple staff advised submitting the issue via Feedback Assistant, which suggests that this behavior may already be understood internally. We have also submitted a Feedback Assistant report with detailed logs and timestamps. Any clarification on the expected behavior or recommended handling for this scenario would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and support.

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?

During internal testing, we observed the following behavior and would appreciate clarification on whether it is expected and supported in production environments. When generating an elliptic-curve cryptographic key pair using "kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave", and explicitly specifying a "kSecAttrAccessGroup", we found that cryptographic operations (specifically encryption and decryption) could be successfully performed using this key pair from two distinct applications. Both applications had the Keychain Sharing capability enabled and were signed with the same provisioning profile identity. Given the documented security properties of Secure Enclave, backed keys, namely that private key material is protected by hardware and access is strictly constrained by design, we would like to confirm whether the ability for multiple applications (sharing the same keychain access group and signing identity) to perform cryptographic operations with the same Secure Enclave–backed key is expected behavior on iOS. Specifically, we are seeking confirmation on: Whether this behavior is intentional and supported in production. Whether the Secure Enclave enforces access control primarily at the application-identifier (App ID) level rather than the individual app bundle level in this scenario. Whether there are any documented limitations or guarantees regarding cross-application usage of Secure Enclave keys when keychain sharing is configured. Any guidance or references to official documentation clarifying this behavior would be greatly appreciated.

Hi everyone, I am currently implementing Server-to-Server Notifications for Sign in with Apple. I’ve encountered a discrepancy between the official documentation and the actual payload I received, and I would like to clarify which one is correct. The Situation: I triggered an account deletion event via privacy.apple.com to test the notification flow. When my server received the notification, the type field in the JSON payload was account-deleted (past tense). The Issue: According to the official Apple documentation, the event type is listed as account-delete (present tense). Here is the discrepancy I am observing: Documentation: account-delete Actual Payload: account-deleted My Question: Is the documentation outdated, or is this a known inconsistency? Should I handle both strings (account-delete and account-deleted) in my backend logic to be safe, or is account-deleted the new standard? Any insights or confirmation from those who have implemented this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!