General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Apple Platform Security support document Developer > Security 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"

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.

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?

Hello, Thanks for the new video on Memory Integrity Enforcement! Is the presented app's sample code available (so that we can play with it and find & fix the bug on our own, using Soft Mode)? Thanks in advance!

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’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"

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.

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.

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.

FB18383742 Setup 🛠️ Xcode 16.4 (16F6) 📱 iPhone 13 mini (iOS 18.0.1) ⌚️ Apple Watch Series 10 (watchOS 11.3.1) Observations As AccessorySetupKit does not request "Core Bluetooth permissions", when a watchOS companion app is installed after having installed the iOS app, the toggle in the watch settings for Privacy & Security > Bluetooth is turned off and disabled After removing the iPhone associated with the Apple Watch, Bluetooth works as expected in the watchOS app Upon reinstalling the iOS app, there's a toggle for Bluetooth in the iOS ASK app's settings and the ASK picker cannot be presented 🤨 From ASK Documentation: AccessorySetupKit is available for iOS and iPadOS. The accessory’s Bluetooth permission doesn’t sync to a companion watchOS app. But this doesn't address not being able to use Core Bluetooth in a watch companion app at all 🥲 Reproducing the bug Install the iOS + watchOS apps Launch iOS app, tap "start scan", observe devices can be discovered (project is set up to find heart rate monitors) Launch watchOS, tap allow on Bluetooth permission pop-up watchOS app crashes 💥 Meanwhile, in the iOS app, there should be a log entry for 💗 CBCentralManager state: poweredOff and the ASK picker is no longer able to discover any devices The state of the device permissions: iOS app has no paired accessories or Bluetooth permission watchOS app's Bluetooth permission shown as turned off & disabled Remove the iOS app Relaunch the watchOS app Notice the CBCentralManager state is unauthorized Remove and reinstall the watchOS app Tap allow on Bluetooth permission pop-up watchOS app does not crash and CBCentralManager state is poweredOn The state of the watch permissions: Bluetooth is turned on & the toggle is not disabled Note that at this time the iOS app is not installed, there is no way to remove Bluetooth permission for the watch app. Reinstall + launch the iOS app Notice a warning in the log: [##### WARNING #####] App has companion watch app that maybe affected if using CoreBluetooth framework. Please read developer documentation for AccessorySetupKit. Notice a log entry for 💗 CBCentralManager state: poweredOn before tapping start scan Tap start scan and observe another log entry: Failed to show picker due to: The operation couldn’t be completed. (ASErrorDomain error 550.) ASErrorDomain 550: The picker can't be used because the app is in the background. Is this the expected error? 🤔 The state of the iOS permissions: The app's settings show a Bluetooth toggle normally associated with Core Bluetooth, but the app never showed a Core Bluetooth pop-up The iOS ASK app now has Core Bluetooth permission 😵‍💫 Following up with Apple This is a known bug that should be fixed in watchOS 26 when Bluetooth permissions for watch apps can be set independently of the iOS app. I've yet to test it with watchOS 26. See repo for the same post with screenshots of the settings and demo code reproducing the bug: https://github.com/superturboryan/AccessorySetupKit-CoreBluetooth-watchOS-Demo

Hello everyone, We recently transferred our iOS app from one Apple Developer account to another, and after the transfer, we encountered a serious issue where all previously stored Keychain data and the local database became inaccessible. As a result, all users are automatically logged out and lose access to their locally stored data (such as chat history) once they update to the new version signed with the new Team ID. We understand that Keychain items are tied to the App ID prefix (Team ID), which changes during an app transfer. However, we’re looking for possible workarounds or best practices to avoid user data loss. Questions: Is there any reliable method to maintain or migrate access to old Keychain data after an app transfer? Would reverting the app back to the original developer account and releasing an update from there (to persist or migrate data) before transferring it again be a viable solution? Has anyone faced a similar issue and found a practical way to handle data persistence during an app transfer? Any guidance, technical suggestions, or shared experiences would be highly appreciated. This issue is causing major impact for our users, so we’re hoping to find a safe and supported approach. Thank you, Mohammed Hassan