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"

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"

Following previous question here :https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/801397, I've decided to move my VPN implementation using NEPacketTunnelProvider on a dedicated networkExtension. My extension receives packets using readPacketsWithCompletionHandler and forwards them immediately to a daemon through a shared memory ring buffer with Mach port signaling. The daemon then encapsulates the packets with our VPN protocol and sends them over a UDP socket. I'm seeing significant throughput degradation, much higher than the tunnel overhead itself. On our side, the IPC path supports parallel handling, but I'm not not sure whether the provider has any internal limitation that prevents packets from being processed in parallel. The tunnel protocol requires packet ordering, but preparation can be done in parallel if the provider allows it. Is there any inherent constraint in NEPacketTunnelProvider that prevents concurrent packet handling, or any recommended approach to improve throughput in this model? For comparison, when I create a utun interface manually with ifconfig and route traffic through it, I observe performance that is about four times faster.

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 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.

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"?

Why can’t sandboxed mac app store apps have full disk access available in the system settings for full disk access? I discovered mac app store apps in release mode cannot access the ai auggie command line program and other command line programs like opengrep on your system. Debug builds fine. I came up with a workaround: Since I have an ssh client built in for connecting to remote servers, why not connect to ssh on the same local machine… Ask the user for their username and password in a popup. To do this, you have to enable remote login on your mac in system settings -> sharing. In addition you must grant full disk access to cli ssh in system settings: add /usr/libexec/sshd-keygen-wrapper It all works, but I don’t see the cli program in mac settings. To remove the cli program you must run a command line program to remove all full disk access support from all apps. No way to just undo ssh. So my question is, even though I got CodeFrog all working for a mac app store release, should I not do it because it’s insecure or too complicated with the system settings? Should I instead sell the app off the store like Panic Nova? Need some advice. I have not implemented in app purchases yet. Should I just have a reality check and sell the app off the store, or try for app store approval? Bummer… Maybe I’m ahead of my time, but perhaps Apple could review the source code for apps requesting full disk access and make sure there’s nothing fraudulent in them. Then, developer tools app store apps could be in the store with the user’s assurance that nothing is happening behind the scenes that is scary. From: https://blog.greenrobot.com/2025/11/10/i-have-a-decision-to-make/ Related post: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/806187 I submitted a code level tech support question for this. They directed me here.

Hi, I'm using Swift Playground version 4.6.4 (1997.50) on macOS Tahoe 26.1 and when I create new apps, I get a security warning message every time I try to add a new line of code or switch between ContentView and MyApp source files 🤬 The message is "My app.app would like to access data from other apps" I've checked my Mac's Privacy & Security settings to ensure Playground has full disk access. Clicking the "Allow" button does not resolve the issue, it keeps happening each time I do anything - its makes Playground unusable 😞 Does anyone know how to stop these messages ? Is this a bug ?

On macOS 26.1 (25B78) I can't give Full Disk Access to sshd-keygen-wrapper. Now my Jenkins jobs do not work because they do not have the permission to execute the necessary scripts. Until macOS 26.1 everything worked fine. I restarted the machine several times and tried to give access from Settings -> Privacy & Security -> Full Disk Access but it just does not work. I tried logging with ssh on the machine and executing a script but again nothing happened.

I cannot find any reference to this within the Apple developer documents (or certainly searching for multiple possible keywords yields no results). The only reference I can find is to documents written in support of its announcement in 2002: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=huqjyh7k. Is there any further documentation on implementing or has the capability been deprecated?

Since October 3rd, I've stopped receiving responses to the Private Access Tokens challenge. I'm using this link: https://demo-issuer.private-access-tokens.fastly.com/.well-known/token-issuer-directory. I receive tokens from Fastly and return a header to the iOS app, but then I don't receive another authentication request from iOS. The user has automatic verification enabled on their phone. The problem is global and affects all my mobile app users. Has anyone encountered a similar problem and found a solution?

Hi, After enabling the new Enhanced Security capability in Xcode 26, I’m seeing install failures on devices running < iOS 26. Deployment target: iOS 15.0 Capability: Enhanced Security (added via Signing & Capabilities tab) Building to iOS 18 device error - Unable to Install ...Please ensure sure that your app is signed by a valid provisioning profile. It works fine on iOS 26 devices. I’d like to confirm Apple’s intent here: Is this capability formally supported only on iOS 26 and later, and therefore incompatible with earlier OS versions? Or should older systems ignore the entitlement, meaning this behavior might be a bug?

Is there any particular reason why ASWebAuthenticationSession doesn't have support for async/await? (example below) do { let callbackURL = try await webAuthSession.start() } catch { // handle error } I'm curious if this style of integration doesn't exist for architectural reasons? Or is the legacy completion handler style preserved in order to prevent existing integrations from breaking?

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"

Recently, we have adapted the passkey function on the Mac, but we always encounter the error message "Unable to verify the web credentials association of xxx with domain aaa. Please try again in a few seconds." We can confirm that https://aaa/.well-known/apple-app-site-association has been configured and is accessible over the public network. Additionally, the entitlements in the app have also been set with webcredentials:aaa. This feature has been experiencing inconsistent performance. When I restart my computer or reinstall the pkg, this feature may work or it may still not work. I believe this is a system issue. Here is feed back ID: FB20876945 In the feedback, I provided the relevant logs. If you have any suggestions or assistance, please contact me. I would be extremely grateful!

Hi, I am developing a Platform SSO in order to have integrated with our IdP, which I am also adapting to provide the right endpoints for Platform SSO. I have a few questions about the implementation: does the client-request-id need to be present on all requests? Is it unique per request, or requests that are bound together like those requesting a nonce and those who will use that nonce should use the same client-request-id? I am not sure how the loginManager.presentRegistrationViewController works. I'd like to get the user to authenticate to my IdP before device registration. So I am not sure if I should provide my own Webview or something similar or if this method should do something for me; My idea is to request user authentication once, save the state when performing device registration, so that I avoid asking for user authentication twice when performing user registration. Is this the right way to do it? How does platform SSO handles tokens? If one application of my IdP requests the authentication on a common OIDC/OAuth2 flow, should I perform some sort of token exchange? How about SAML? Platform SSO seems to be token-centric, but how does one handle SAML flows? Is it by using WebView as well?

I'm trying to setup device attestation. I believe I have everything setup correctly but the final step of signature validation never succeeds. I've added validation on the client side for debugging and it doesn't validate using CryptoKit. After the assertion is created, I try to validate it: assertion = try await DCAppAttestService.shared.generateAssertion(keyId, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) await validateAssertionLocallyForDebugging(keyId: keyId, assertionObject: assertion, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) In the validateAssertionLocallyForDebugging method, I extract all the data from the CBOR assertionObject and then setup the parameters to validate the signature, using the key that was created from the original attestation flow, but it fails every time. I'm getting the public key from the server using a temporary debugging API. let publicKeyData = Data(base64Encoded: publicKeyB64)! let p256PublicKey = try P256.Signing.PublicKey(derRepresentation: publicKeyData) let ecdsaSignature = try P256.Signing.ECDSASignature(derRepresentation: signature) let digestToVerify = SHA256.hash(data: authenticatorData + clientDataHash) print(" - Recreated Digest to Verify: \(Data(digestToVerify).hexDescription)") if p256PublicKey.isValidSignature(ecdsaSignature, for: digestToVerify) { print("[DEBUG] SUCCESS: Local signature validation passed!") } else { print("[DEBUG] FAILED: Local signature validation failed.") } I have checked my .entitlements file and it is set to development. I have checked the keyId and verified the public key. I have verified the public key X,Y, the RP ID Hash, COSE data, and pretty much anything else I could think of. I've also tried using Gemini and Claude to debug this and that just sends me in circles of trying hashed, unhashed, and double hashed clientData. I'm doing this from Xcode on an M3 macbook air to an iPhone 16 Pro Max. Do you have any ideas on why the signature is not validating with everything else appears to be working? Thanks

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.

Hi everyone, I’m looking for clarification on best practices for storing API keys in an iOS app — for example, keys used with RevenueCat, PostHog, AWS Rekognition, barcode scanners, and similar third-party services. I understand that hard-coding API keys directly in the app’s source code is a bad idea, since they can be extracted from the binary. However, using a .plist file doesn’t seem secure either, as it’s still bundled with the app and can be inspected. I’m wondering: What are Apple’s recommended approaches for managing these kinds of keys? Does Xcode Cloud offer a built-in or best-practice method for securely injecting environment variables or secrets at build time? Would using an external service like AWS Secrets Manager or another server-side solution make sense for this use case? Any insights or examples of how others are handling this securely within Apple’s ecosystem would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for considering my questions! — Paul

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.

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?