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"

Platforms: macOS 15.x (Sequoia), Intel-Based App type: Endpoint Security (ES) client, notarized Developer ID app + LaunchDaemon Goal: Boot-time ES client that runs on any Mac (managed or unmanaged) Summary Our ES client launches and functions when started manually (terminal), but when loaded as a LaunchDaemon it fails to initialize the ES connection with: (libEndpointSecurity.dylib) Failed to open service: 0xe00002d8: Caller lacks TCC authorization for Full Disk Access We can’t find a supported way to grant Full Disk Access (SystemPolicyAllFiles) to a system daemon on unmanaged Macs (no MDM). Local installation of a PPPC (TCC) profile is rejected as “must originate from a user-approved MDM server.” We’re seeking confirmation: Is MDM now the only supported path for a boot-time ES daemon that requires FDA? If so, what’s Apple’s recommended approach for unmanaged Macs? Environment & Artifacts Binary (path placeholder): /Library/Application Support///App/.app/Contents/MacOS/ Universal (x86_64 + arm64) Notarized, hardened runtime; Developer ID Team <TEAM_ID> Entitlements include: com.apple.developer.endpoint-security.client (present) Daemon plist (simplified; placeholders used): <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"><dict> <key>Label</key> <string>com.example.esd</string> <key>Program</key> <string>/Library/Application Support/<VENDOR>/<PRODUCT>/Platform/<daemon-exec></string> <key>WorkingDirectory</key> <string>/Library/Application Support/<VENDOR>/<PRODUCT>/Platform</string> <key>RunAtLoad</key><true/> <key>KeepAlive</key><true/> </dict></plist> Designated requirement (abridged & masked): identifier "<BUNDLE_ID>" and anchor apple generic and certificate 1[...] and certificate leaf[...] and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = "<TEAM_ID>" What works Launching the ES client manually (interactive shell) succeeds; ES events flow. Signature, notarization, entitlements, Gatekeeper: all OK. What fails (daemon) launchctl print system/ shows it starts, but Console logs: (libEndpointSecurity.dylib) Failed to open service: 0xe00002d8:Caller lacks TCC authorization for Full Disk Access System TCC DB shows ES consent rows but no allow for TCCServiceSystemPolicyAllFiles for the daemon binary. Installing a PPPC mobileconfig locally (system scope) is blocked as “must originate from a user-approved MDM server.” Repro (minimal) Install app bundle + LaunchDaemon plist above (placeholders). Verify entitlements & notarization: codesign -dvvv --entitlements :- "" spctl --assess --type execute -vv "" Start daemon & watch logs: sudo launchctl bootstrap system "/Library/LaunchDaemons/.plist" log stream --style compact --predicate 'process == "" OR subsystem == "com.apple.TCC"' --info Observe FDA denial message only in daemon context. Attempt to add FDA via PPPC profile (system scope) → rejected unless installed by user-approved MDM. Questions for Apple On macOS 14/15, is Full Disk Access for system daemons strictly MDM-only via PPPC (i.e., not installable locally)? Under what conditions would libEndpointSecurity report a Full Disk Access denial at client initialization, given ES consent is distinct from FDA? For unmanaged Macs needing boot-time ES processing, does Apple recommend a split: root LaunchDaemon (ES subscription; no protected file I/O) + per-user LaunchAgent (user-granted FDA) via XPC for on-demand disk access? Would moving ES connection code into a System Extension change FDA requirements for unmanaged devices, or is FDA still governed by PPPC/MDM? If behavior changed across releases, can Apple confirm the intended policy so vendors can document MDM requirements vs. unmanaged install paths? What we’ve tried Verified signature, notarization, hardened runtime, ES entitlement present. Confirmed context difference: manual run OK; daemon fails. Inspected system TCC: ES consent rows present; no FDA allow for daemon. Tried installing system-scoped PPPC locally → blocked as “must originate from a user-approved MDM server.” Considered LaunchAgent-only, but ES needs root; evaluating daemon+agent split to keep ES in root and put FDA-gated work in user space. What we need A definitive statement on the supported way to grant FDA to a system daemon on macOS 14/15. If MDM PPPC is required, we’ll ship “daemon mode requires MDM” and provide a daemon+agent fallback for unmanaged devices. If a compliant non-MDM path exists for daemon FDA on unmanaged Macs, please share exact steps. Thanks! Happy to provide additional logs privately if helpful.

Hello, I'm an application developer related to Apple system extensions. I developed an endpoint security system extension that can run normally before the 14.x system. However, after I upgraded to 15.x, I found that when I uninstalled and reinstalled my system extension, although the system extension was installed successfully, a system warning box would pop up when I clicked enable in the Settings, indicating a failure. I conducted the following test. I reinstalled a brand-new MAC 15.x system. When I installed my applications, the system extensions could be installed successfully and enabled normally. However, when I uninstalled and reinstalled, my system extension couldn't be enabled properly and a system warning popped up as well. I tried disabling SIP and enabling System Extension Developers, but it still didn't work. When the system warning box pops up, I can see some error log information through the console application, including an error related to Failed to authorize right 'com.apple.system-extensions.admin' by client '/System/Library/ExtensionKit/Extensions/SettingsSystemExtensionController.appex' [2256] for authorization created by '/System/Library/ExtensionKit/Extensions/SettingsSystemExtensionController.appex' [2256] (3,0) (-60005) (engine 179) as shown in the screenshot. The same problem, mentioned in Cannot approve some extensions in MacOS Sequoia , but there is no solution

I've been spending days trying to solve the memory leak in a small menu bar application I've wrote (SC Menu). I've used Instruments which shows the leaks and memory graph which shows unreleased allocations. This occurs when someone views a certificate on the smartcard. Basically it opens a new window and displays the certificate, the same way Keychain Access displays a certificate. Whenever I create an SFCertificateView instance and set setDetailsDisclosed(true) - a memory leak happens. Instruments highlights that line. import Cocoa import SecurityInterface class ViewCertsViewController: NSViewController { var selectedCert: SecIdentity? = nil override func viewDidLoad() { super.viewDidLoad() self.view = NSView(frame: NSRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: 500, height: 500)) self.view.wantsLayer = true var secRef: SecCertificate? = nil guard let selectedCert else { return } let certRefErr = SecIdentityCopyCertificate(selectedCert, &secRef) if certRefErr != errSecSuccess { os_log("Error getting certificate from identity: %{public}@", log: OSLog.default, type: .error, String(describing: certRefErr)) return } let scrollView = NSScrollView() scrollView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.borderType = .lineBorder scrollView.hasHorizontalScroller = true scrollView.hasVerticalScroller = true let certView = SFCertificateView() guard let secRef = secRef else { return } certView.setCertificate(secRef) certView.setDetailsDisclosed(true) certView.setDisplayTrust(true) certView.setEditableTrust(true) certView.setDisplayDetails(true) certView.setPolicies(SecPolicyCreateBasicX509()) certView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.documentView = certView view.addSubview(scrollView) // Layout constraints NSLayoutConstraint.activate([ scrollView.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.leadingAnchor), scrollView.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.trailingAnchor), scrollView.topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.topAnchor), scrollView.bottomAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.bottomAnchor), // Provide certificate view a width and height constraint certView.widthAnchor.constraint(equalTo: scrollView.widthAnchor), certView.heightAnchor.constraint(greaterThanOrEqualToConstant: 500) ]) } } https://github.com/boberito/sc_menu/blob/dev_2.0/smartcard_menu/ViewCertsViewController.swift Fairly simple.

I’m using a custom Installer plug-in (InstallerPane) to collect sensitive user input (username/password) during install. After the payload is laid down, I need to send those values to a newly installed agent (LaunchAgent) to persist them. What I tried I expose an XPC Mach service from the agent and have the plug-in call it. On the agent side I validate the XPC client using the audit token → SecCodeCopyGuestWithAttributes → SecCodeCheckValidity. However, the client process is InstallerRemotePluginService-* (Apple’s view service that hosts all plug-ins), so the signature I see is Apple’s, not mine. I can’t distinguish which plug-in made the call. Any suggestion on better approach ?

Hi, I have a certificate, how can I display the certificate content in my Mac app just like Keychain Access app does. Can I popup the certificate content dialog just like Keychain Access app?

I have an app (currently not released on App Store) which runs on both iOS and macOS. The app has widgets for both iOS and macOS which uses user preference (set in app) into account while showing data. Before upgrading to macOS 15 (until Sonoma) widgets were working fine and app was launching correctly, but after upgrading to macOS 15 Sequoia, every time I launch the app it give popup saying '“Kontest” would like to access data from other apps. Keeping app data separate makes it easier to manage your privacy and security.' and also widgets do not get user preferences and throw the same type of error on Console application when using logging. My App group for both iOS and macOS is 'group.com.xxxxxx.yyyyy'. I am calling it as 'UserDefaults(suiteName: Constants.userDefaultsGroupID)!.bool(forKey: "shouldFetchAllEventsFromCalendar")'. Can anyone tell, what am I doing wrong here?

Hi, is it somehow possible to access a key that was generated by the DCAppAttestService generateKey() function? I need to be 100% sure that no actor from within or outside of my app can access the generated key with the DeviceCheck Framework. It would also be helpful to get some official resources to the topic. Thank you in advance, Mike

I am developing a daemon-based product that needs a cryptographic, non-spoofable proof of machine identity so a remote management server can grant permissions based on the physical machine. I was thinking to create a signing key in the Secure Enclave and use a certificate signed by that key as the machine identity. The problem is that the Secure Enclave key I can create is only accessible from user context, while my product runs as a system daemon and must not rely on user processes or launchAgents. Could you please advise on the recommended Apple-supported approaches for this use case ? Specifically, Is there a supported way for a system daemon to generate and use an unremovable Secure Enclave key during phases like the pre-logon, that doesn't have non user context (only the my application which created this key/certificate will have permission to use/delete it) If Secure Enclave access from a daemon is not supported, what Apple-recommended alternatives exist for providing a hardware-backed machine identity for system daemons? I'd rather avoid using system keychain, as its contents may be removed or used by root privileged users. The ideal solution would be that each Apple product, would come out with a non removable signing certificate, that represent the machine itself (lets say that the cetificate name use to represent the machine ID), and can be validated by verify that the root signer is "Apple Root CA"

Hello everybody, in my React Native-Expo-Firebase app, I am trying to integrate Sign in with Apple, along with the related token revocation at user deletion. I did succeed in integrating the login, and the app correctly appears in the Apple Id list (the list of apps currently logged with Apple ID). The problem is that, if I select the app and press "Interrupt Apple login usage for this app", the app simply stays there, nothing happens. If I do the same with another app, this works fine. Either if I do this via my iPhone's settings, or via https://account.apple.com/account/manage -> Sign in with Apple, I get the same result, the app cannot be removed. I hope I managed to explain my situation clearly, I'd be happy to provide more info if necessary. Thank you in advance.

I have an Autofill Passkey Provider working for Safari and Chrome via WebAuthn protocol. Unfortunately, Chrome will not offer my extension as a logon credential provider unless I add the credential to the ASCredentialIdentityStore. I wonder what is the best way to access the ASCredentialIdentityStore from an AutoFill extension? I understand I cannot access it directly from the extension context, so what is the best way to trigger my container app to run, based on a new WebAuthn registration? The best I can think of so far is for the www site to provide an App Link to launch my container app as part of the registration ceremony. Safari will offer my extension even without adding it to the ASCredentialIdentityStore, so I guess I should file a request with Chrome to work this way too, given difficulty of syncing ASCredentialIdentityStore with WebAuthn registration.

I received Apple’s recent notice about the new requirement to provide a server-to-server notification endpoint when registering or updating a Services ID that uses Sign in with Apple. (Official notice: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=j9zukcr6 ) We already use Sign in with Apple on our website and app, but only as a login method for pre-registered users, not as a way to create new accounts. That means users already exist in our system, and Apple login is used only for authentication convenience (similar to linking a social account). I have some questions about how to properly implement the required server-to-server notifications in this case: 1. email-enabled / email-disabled: We don’t use or store the email address provided by Apple. Are we still required to handle these events, or can we safely ignore them if the email is not used in our system? 2. consent-revoked: We don’t store Apple access or refresh tokens, we use them only during login and discard them immediately. In this case, do we still need to handle token revocation, or can we simply unlink the Apple login from the user account when receiving this notification? 3. account-delete: If a user deletes their Apple account, we can unlink the Apple login and remove related Apple data, but we cannot delete the user’s primary account in our system (since the account exists independently). Is this acceptable under Apple’s requirements as well? We want to make sure our implementation aligns with Apple’s policy and privacy requirements, while maintaining consistency with our existing account management system. If anyone from Apple or other developers who implemented similar logic could provide guidance or share examples, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Hi! Is it possible to disable the option for users to 'Sign in with Another Device'? I encounter this message during the authentication process and I want to prevent it from appearing. I appreciate your help and look forward to your response.

Hello, I am currently implementing a biometric authentication registration flow using WebAuthn. I am using ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialRegistrationRequest, and I would like to know if there is a way to hide the "Save to another device" option that appears during the registration process. Specifically, I want to guide users to save the passkey only locally on their device, without prompting them to save it to iCloud Keychain or another device. If there is a way to hide this option or if there is a recommended approach to achieve this, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Also, if this is not possible due to iOS version or API limitations, I would be grateful if you could share any best practices for limiting user options in this scenario. If anyone has experienced a similar issue, your advice would be very helpful. Thank you in advance.

I'm working on integrating Passkey functionality into my iOS app (targeting iOS 16.0+), and I'm facing an issue where the system dialog still shows the "Save to another device" option during Passkey registration. I want to hide this option to force users to create Passkeys only on the current device. 1. My Current Registration Implementation Here’s the code I’m using to create a Passkey registration request. I’ve tried to use ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider (which is supposed to target platform authenticators like Face ID/Touch ID), but the "Save to another device" option still appears: `// Initialize provider for platform authenticators let provider = ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider(relyingPartyIdentifier: domain) // Create registration request let registrationRequest = provider.createCredentialRegistrationRequest( challenge: challenge, name: username, userID: userId ) // Optional configurations (tried these but no effect on "another device" option) registrationRequest.displayName = "Test Device" registrationRequest.userVerificationPreference = .required registrationRequest.attestationPreference = .none // Set up authorization controller let authController = ASAuthorizationController(authorizationRequests: [registrationRequest]) let delegate = PasskeyRegistrationDelegate(completion: completion) authController.delegate = delegate // Trigger the registration flow authController.performRequests(options: .preferImmediatelyAvailableCredentials)` 2. Observation from Authentication Flow (Working as Expected) During the Passkey authentication flow (not registration), I can successfully hide the "Use another device" option by specifying allowedCredentials in the ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialAssertionRequest. Here’s a simplified example of that working code: let assertionRequest = provider.createCredentialAssertionRequest(challenge: challenge) assertionRequest.allowedCredentials = allowedCredentials After adding allowedCredentials, the system dialog no longer shows cross-device options—this is exactly the behavior I want for registration. 3. My Questions Is there a similar parameter to allowedCredentials (from authentication) that I can use during registration to hide the "Save to another device" option? Did I miss any configuration in the registration request (e.g., authenticatorAttachment or other properties) that forces the flow to use only the current device’s platform authenticator? Are there any system-level constraints or WebAuthn standards I’m overlooking that cause the "Save to another device" option to persist during registration? Any insights or code examples would be greatly appreciated!

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?

I have reached out to support and they simply tell me they are unable to help me, first redirecting me to generic Apple support, after following up they provided the explanation that they only handle administrative tasks and to post on the forums. I am unable to change my App Tracking Transparency it provides no real error, though network traffic shows a 409 HTTP response from the backend API when trying to save. Here is a screenshot of the result when trying to save. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get this resolved? I've commented back to the reviewers and they simply provided help documentation. I have a technical issue and am unable to get anyone to help resolve this.

Hello I have a problem with provisionprofile file. I have created Identifier with Sign in with Apple capability turned on, created Profile with Developer ID selected and now I try to export archive with generated Developer ID provision file but it says "Profile doesn't support Sign in with Apple" Also interesting thing that default provisions like macOS App Development Mac App Store Connect don't show such error when I try to export archive Maybe this problem is only related to Developer ID provision and Direct Distribution doesn't support Sign in with Apple, but I havent found proves about this idea

We are using Apple's PSSO to federate device login to out own IdP. We have developed our own extension app and deployed it using MDM. Things works fine but there are 2 issues that we are trying to get to the root cause - On some devices after restarting we see an error message on the logic screen saying "The registration for this device is invalid and must be repaired" And other error message is "SmartCard configuration is invalid for this account" For the 1st we have figured out that this happens when the registration doesn't happen fully and the key is not tied to the user so when the disk needs to be decrypted at the FileVault screen the issue is raised. For the "SmartCard configuration is invalid for this account" issue also one aspect is invalid registration but there has been other instances as well where the devices were registered completely but then also the the above error was raised. We verified the registration being completed by checking if the SmartCard is visible in the System Report containing the key. Has anyone seen the above issues and any possible resolution around it?

Hey everyone, I'm hitting a really frustrating issue with App Attest. My app was working perfectly with DCAppAttestService on October 12th, but starting October 13th it started failing with DCError Code 2 "Failed to fetch App UUID" at DCAppAttestController.m:153. The weird part is I didn't change any code - same implementation, same device, same everything. I've tried switching between development and production entitlement modes, re-registered my device in the Developer Portal, created fresh provisioning profiles with App Attest capability, and verified that my App ID has App Attest enabled. DCAppAttestService.isSupported returns true, so the device supports it. Has anyone else run into this? This is blocking my production launch and I'm not sure if it's something on my end or an Apple infrastructure issue.

I'm experiencing an issue with Sign In with Apple integration in my React Native Expo app (Bundle ID: com.anonymous.TuZjemyApp). Problem Description: When users attempt to sign in using Sign In with Apple, they successfully complete Face ID/password authentication, but then receive a "Sign-Up not completed" error message. The authentication flow appears to stop at this point and doesn't return the identity token to my app. Technical Details: Frontend Implementation: Using expo-apple-authentication. Requesting scopes: FULL_NAME and EMAIL App is properly configured in app.json with: usesAppleSignIn: true Entitlement: com.apple.developer.applesignin Backend Implementation: Endpoint: POST /api/auth/apple Using apple-signin-auth package for token verification Verifying tokens with audience: com.anonymous.TuZjemyApp Backend creates/updates user accounts based on Apple ID Question: I'm not sure why the authentication flow stops with "Sign-Up not completed" after successful Face ID verification. The identity token never reaches my app. Could you please help me understand: What might cause this specific error message? Are there any additional Apple Developer Portal configurations required? Could this be related to app capabilities or entitlements? Is there a specific setup needed for the app to properly receive identity tokens? I set up provisioning profiles, and added Sign in with Apple as a capability and still it doesn't work.