I'd like to implement unit tests that exercise keys made available via a persistent token interface. However, when attempting to list available tokens by passing kSecAttrAccessGroupToken as the kSecAttrAccessGroup to SecItemCopyMatching from a unit test, -34018 is returned. It succeeds without the kSecAttrAccessGroup, which makes sense given the unit test binary does not have com.apple.token Keychain Group. The Xcode UI indicates "Capabilities are not supported" for the unit test binary when attempting to add a Keychain Sharing capability to enable use of persistent tokens. This feels like a dead end but begs the question is there any way to implement unit tests to exercise a persistent token interface? It seems like the only path may be write unit tests that drive an independent app that handles the interactions with the persistent token.

Hi, When calling generateAssertion on DCAppAttestService.shared, it gives invalidKey error when there was an update for an offloaded app. The offloading and reinstall always works fine if it is the same version on app store that was offloaded from device, but if there is an update and the app tries to reuse the keyID from previous installation for generateAssertion, attestation service rejects the key with error code 3 (invalid key) for a significant portion of our user. In our internal testing it failed for more than a third of the update attempts. STEPS TO REPRODUCE: install v1 from app store generate key using DCAppAttestService.shared.generateKey Attest this key using DCAppAttestService.shared.attestKey Send the attestation objection to our server and verify with apple servers Generate assertions for network calls to backend using DCAppAttestService.shared.generateAssertion with keyID from step 2 Device offloads the app (manually triggered by user, or automatically by iOS) A new version v2 is published to App Store Use tries to open the app Latest version is download from the App Store App tries to use the keyID from step 2 to generate assertions DCAppAttestService throws invalidKey error (Error Domain=com.apple.devicecheck.error Code=3) Step 7 is critical here, if there is no new version of the app, the reinstalled v1 can reuse the key from step 2 without any issues Is this behaviour expected? Is there any way we can make sure the key is preserved between offloaded app updates? Thanks

Hi, We're encountering an intermittent issue where certain users are unexpectedly logged out of our app and unable to log in again. We believe we've narrrowed down the issue to the Keychain due to the following reasons: We use a keychain item to determine if the member is logged in or not. Failure to retrieve the value leads the app to believe the member is logged out. API error logs on the server show 3 missing values in fields that are each populated from items stored in the keychain. Additional Notes: The issue is hard to reproduce and seems to affect only a subset of users. In some cases, uninstalling and reinstalling the app temporarily resolves the problem, but the issue recurs after a period of time. The behavior appears to have coincided with the release of iOS 18. We’re using the “kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked” accessibility attribute. Given that our app doesn’t perform background operations, we wouldn’t expect this to be an issue. We’re also considering changing this to "kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly" to see if this might resolve the issue. We're the keychain-swift library to interact with the keychain. We are currently adding extensive logging around our keychain implementation to confirm our findings but are looking for any additional input. Questions: Has anyone encountered similar keychain behavior on iOS 18? Are there known changes or stability issues with the keychain in iOS 18 that might lead to such intermittent “item not found” errors? Any recommended workarounds or troubleshooting steps that could help isolate the problem further? Thanks for any help you can provide.

Hello, I've developed a macOS app with an AutoFill Credential Provider extension that functions as a passkey provider. In the registration flow, I want my app to appear as a passkey provider only when specific conditions are met. Is there a way to inspect the request from the web before the passkey provider selection list is displayed to the user, determine whether my app can handle it, and then use that result to instruct the OS on whether to include my app in the passkey provider selection list? Alternatively, is there a way to predefine conditions that must be met before my app is offered as a passkey provider in the selection list? Thanks!

In a project I was using Local Authentication to authenticate a user. When I got a request to support smartcard/PIV token authentication (which Local Authentication does not support), I had to switch to Authorization Services, which works pretty. There's only one issue I have. Local Authentication's evaluatePolicy:localizedReason:reply: requires a reason in the form "<appname>" is trying to <localized reason>. The app is currently translated into 41 languages and I would like to use the localized strings for the AuthorizationEnvironment of Authorization Services as well. The problem is that Local Authentication prefixes the localized string with something like "<appname>" is trying to and Authorization Services does not do this. Is there a way to get this prefix from somewhere so I can manually add it to the (partially) localized string? Any help would be highly appreciated. Thank you, Marc

I have developed framework and want to use this framework in authplugin which added on same project in different target That plugin target is working fine without framework, once I am adding framework the authplugin is not working Auth-plugin I am using to change in screen-saver plist

I'm developing an iOS app that utilizes Universal Links and ASWebAuthenticationSession to deep-link from a website to the app itself. This implementation adheres to the recommendations outlined in RFC 8252, ensuring that the app opening the ASWebAuthenticationSession is the same app that is launched via the Universal Link. Problem: 　While most users can successfully launch the app via Universal Links,a few percent of users experience instances where the app fails to launch, and the user is redirected to the browser. What I've Tried: 　ASWebAuthenticationSession Configuration: I've double-checked the configuration of callbackURLScheme and presentationContextProvider. 　Universal Links: Verified the apple-app-site-association file and associated domains entitlement. 　Network Conditions: Tested on various network environments (Wi-Fi, cellular) and devices. Questions: 　What are the potential causes for this behavior? 　Has anyone else encountered a similar issue and found a solution? 　Are there any debugging techniques or ways to generate more detailed logs? I haven't been able to determine which device or OS version is causing this problem. Thank you.

Hi, My MACOS app has sensitive content and dont want user to take screenshot or to record the screen. I tries window.sharingType=none. With this user can still record the screen. I know that user can record with external device. But we dont want him to record using screen capture. Can you please tell me how to detect when screen recording is active in MACOs apps? or how to prevent screen recording in MACOs apps. Thanks

Hi! I am trying to run the demo app(SampleEndpointApp) from the WWDC2020 presentation(link). Here are the steps I followed in order to run the app: I submitted a request for the Endpoint Security entitlement and got the approval from the Apple Support team. Created an identifier and assigned Endpoint Security capability. Updated the Bundle Identifier in ViewController.m and in the Extension target. Built and copied the app bundle to /Application folder. Ran the app, clicked "Install Extension" and got the confirmation message that everything went well. Looking into the logs, I see the following : (libEndpointSecurity.dylib) Failed to open service: 0xe00002d8: Caller lacks TCC authorization for Full Disk Access I keep getting the same message even after granting SampleEndpointApp Full Disk Access in Privacy & Security. System : macOS Sequoia 15.1.1 Could you please assist me with this issue? Andrei

I want to implement webauthn using WKWebView for my mac application. I want to host the asaa file in the rpid. Below are my site configuration - Main domain - example.com Subdomain which has the sign-in view and where webauthn kicks in - signin.example.com RPID - example.com Where shall i host the asaa file at domain(example.com) or subdomain(signin.example.com)?

Is there a step by step program on Sending Push notifications? I seem to be stuck at load private key. I get this error. SecKeyCreateWithData failed with error: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-50 "EC private key creation from data failed" It is a new p8 file. I tried different format. I read some articles that say that there is a bug I think. I don't know for sure because it was written in jibberish. 90% of the code is dealing with these stupid keys. This should be 1 function setting the pipe and then I can use the pipe. This is ridiculous. If anybody has any ideas. The code is a mess because I tried so many different ideas. Push Notification.txt

I am working on adding RFC4217 Secure FTP with TLS by extending Mike Gleason's classic libncftp client library. I refactored the code to include an FTP channel abstraction with FTP channel abstraction types for TCP, TLS, and TCP with Opportunistic TLS types. The first implementation of those included BSD sockets that libncftp has always supported with the clear TCP channel type. I first embarked on extending the sockets implementation by adding TCP, TLS, and TCP with Opportunistic TLS channel abstraction types against the new, modern Network.framework C-based APIs, including using the “tricky” framer technique to employ a TCP with Opportunistic TLS FTP channel abstraction type to support explicit FTPS as specified by RFC4217 where you have to connect first in the clear with TCP, request AUTH TLS, and then start TLS after receiving positive confirmation. That all worked great. Unfortunately, at the end of that effort, I discovered that many modern FTPS server implementations (vsftpd, pure-ftpd, proftpd) mandate TLS session reuse / resumption across the control and data channels, specifying the identical session ID and cipher suites across the control and data channels. Since Network.framework lacked a necessary and equivalent to the Secure Transport SSLSetPeerID, I retrenched and rewrote the necessary TLS and TCP with Opportunistic TLS FTP channel abstraction types using the now-deprecated Secure Transport APIs atop the Network.framework-based TCP clear FTP channel type abstraction I had just written. Using the canonical test server I had been using throughout development, test.rebex.net, this Secure Transport solution seemed to work perfectly, working in clear, secure-control-only, and secure-control+data explicit FTPS operation. I then proceeded to expand testing to include a broad set of Microsoft FTP Service, pure-ftpd, vsftpd, proftpd, and other FTP servers identified on the Internet (a subset from this list: https://gist.github.com/mnjstwins/85ac8348d6faeb32b25908d447943300). In doing that testing, beyond test.rebex.net, I was unable to identify a single (among hundreds), that successfully work with secure-control+data explicit FTPS operation even though nearly all of them work with secure-control-only explicit FTPS operation. So, I started regressing my libncftp + Network.framework + Secure Transport implementation against curl 8.7.1 on macOS 14.7.2 “Sonoma": % which curl; `which curl` --version /usr/bin/curl curl 8.7.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin23.0) libcurl/8.7.1 (SecureTransport) LibreSSL/3.3.6 zlib/1.2.12 nghttp2/1.61.0 Release-Date: 2024-03-27 Protocols: dict file ftp ftps gopher gophers http https imap imaps ipfs ipns ldap ldaps mqtt pop3 pop3s rtsp smb smbs smtp smtps telnet tftp Features: alt-svc AsynchDNS GSS-API HSTS HTTP2 HTTPS-proxy IPv6 Kerberos Largefile libz MultiSSL NTLM SPNEGO SSL threadsafe UnixSockets I find that curl (also apparently written against Secure Transport) works in almost all of the cases my libncftp does not. This is a representative example: % ./samples/misc/ncftpgetbytes -d stderr --secure --explicit --secure-both ftps://ftp.sjtu.edu.cn:21/pub/README.NetInstall which fails in the secure-control+data case with errSSLClosedAbort on the data channel TLS handshake, just after ClientHello, attempts whereas: % curl -4 --verbose --ftp-pasv --ftp-ssl-reqd ftp://ftp.sjtu.edu.cn:21/pub/README.NetInstall succeeds. I took an in-depth look at the implementation of github.com/apple-oss-distributions/curl/ and git/github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Security/ to identify areas where my implementation was, perhaps, deficient relative to curl and its curl/lib/vtls/sectransp.c Secure Transport implementation. As far as I can tell, I am doing everything consistently with what the Apple OSS implementation of curl is doing. The analysis included: SSLSetALPNProtocols Not applicable for FTP; only used for HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. SSLSetCertificate Should only be relevant when a custom, non-Keychain-based certificate is used. SSLSetEnabledCiphers This could be an issue; however, the cipher suite used for the data channel should be the same as that used for the control channel. curl talks about disabling "weak" cipher suites that are known-insecure even though the default suites macOS enables are unlikely to enable them. SSLSetProtocolVersionEnabled We do not appear to be getting a protocol version negotiation error, so this seems unlikely, but possible. SSLSetProtocolVersionMax We do not appear to be getting a protocol version negotiation error, so this seems unlikely, but possible. SSLSetProtocolVersionMin We do not appear to be getting a protocol version negotiation error, so this seems unlikely, but possible. SSLSetSessionOption( , kSSLSessionOptionFalseStart) curl does seem to enable this for certain versions of macOS and disables it for others. Possible. Running curl with the --false-start option does not seem to make a difference. SSLSetSessionOption( , kSSLSessionOptionSendOneByteRecord) Corresponds to "*****" which seems defaulted and is related to an SSL security flaw when using CBC-based block encryption ciphers, which is not applicable here. Based on that, further experiments I attempted included: Disable use of kSSLSessionOptionBreakOnServerAuth: No impact Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionFalseStart: No impact Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionSendOneByteRecord: No impact Use SSLSetProtocolVersionMin and SSLSetProtocolVersionMax in various combinations: No impact Use SSLSetProtocolVersionEnabled in various combinations: No impact Forcibly set a single cipher suite (TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384, known to work with a given server): No impact Employ a SetDefaultCipherSuites function similar to what curl does (filtering out “weak” cipher suites): No impact Notably, I can never coax a similar set of cipher suites that macOS curl does with that technique. In fact, it publishes ciphers that aren’t even in <Security/CipherSuite.h> nor referenced by github.com/apple-oss-distributions/curl/curl/lib/vtls/sectransp.c. Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionAllowRenegotiation: No impact Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionEnableSessionTickets: No impact Looking at Wireshark, my ClientHello includes status_request, signed_certificate_timestamp, and extended_master_secret extensions whereas macOS curl's never do--same Secure Transport APIs. None of the above API experiments seem to influence the inclusion / exclusion of those three ClientHello additions. Any suggestions are welcomed that might shine a light on what native curl has access to that allows it to work with ST for these FTP secure-control+data use cases.

Hello, I recently installed an iOS app called SpyBuster by MacPaw. This app shows as list all my installed apps. How is this possible ? As a developer, I know this is prohibited by Apple - third party app to scan application workspace.

I've just implemented Sign-In-With-Apple and everything is working perfectly, but my app seems to be in some strange state where users are unable to remove it from the Sign-In-With-Apple section of their settings. Things I've tried: -- Deleting from Mac. (It just stays in the list) -- Deleting from the iPhone (It stays in the list) -- Deleting from account.apple.com (same issue) -- I've noticed in the browser inspector tools I receive a 200 on the DELETE request, but the app remains. -- Multiple users Also have tried: -- Revoking the token through the REST API -- I get an email saying the token has been revoked, but it's still working -- Same code, different app id (works fine!) It seems like maybe my app is in some sort of weird state? Has anyone come across this before?

In the macOS 14.0 SDK, environment and library constraints were introduced, which made defense against common attack vectors relatively simple (especially with the LightWeightCodeRequirements framework added in 14.4). Now, the application I'm working on must support macOS 13.0 too, so I was looking into alternatives that do work for those operating systems as well. What I found myself is that the SecCode/SecStaticCode APIs in the Security Framework do offer very similar fashion checks as the LightWeightCodeRequirements framework does: SecCodeCopySigningInformation can return values like signing identifier, team identifier, code requirement string and so on. SecStaticCodeCreateWithPath can return a SecStaticCode object to an executable/app bundle on the file system. Let's say, I would want to protect myself against launchd executable swap. From macOS 14.0 onward, I would use a Spawn Constraint for this, directly in the launchd.plist file. Before macOS 14.0, I would create a SecStaticCode object for the executable path found in the launchd.plist, and then examine its SecCodeCopySigningInformation dictionary. If the expectations are met, only then would I execute the launchd.plist-defined executable or connect to it via XPC. Are these two equivalent? If not, what are the differences?

Hello everyone, I’ve been working on ways to implement stricter accountability systems for personal use, especially to prevent access to NSFW content in apps like Reddit and Twitter. The main challenge is that iOS sandboxing and privacy policies block apps from monitoring or interacting with other apps on the system. While Apple’s focus on privacy is important, there’s a clear need for an opt-in exception for accountability tools. These tools could be allowed enhanced permissions under stricter oversight to help users maintain accountability and integrity without compromising safety. Here are a few ideas I’ve been thinking about: 1. Vetted Apps with Enhanced Permissions: Allow trusted applications to bypass sandbox restrictions with user consent and close monitoring by Apple. 2. Improved Parental Controls: Add options to send notifications to moderators (like accountability partners) when restrictions are bypassed or disabled. 3. Custom Keyboard or API Access: Provide a framework for limited system-wide text monitoring for specific use cases, again with user consent. If anyone has ideas for how to address this within current policies—or suggestions for advocating for more flexibility—I’d appreciate the input. I’m curious how others have handled similar challenges or if there are better approaches I haven’t considered.

I managed to lose my password in a mixup with my password manager. It has taken me a few hours to work out how to reset it. Following the forgotten password link on the sign in page only takes you to a point where you are asked to reset the password on your iCloud user id. If they are one and the same that's ok. Mine aren't. I eventually found the answer: in the settings app choose developer 2 scroll to the end and choose the sandbox apple account 3. choose this and reset

Quinn, in your post "App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight!", you mention that an app must meet at least one of four criteria to access an app group container without user intervention: Your app is deployed via the Mac App Store (A). Or via TestFlight when running on macOS 15.1 or later (B). Or the app group ID starts with your app’s Team ID (C). Or your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D) [1]. Our app is distributed directly (Developer ID), so it doesn't meet the first two criteria. We already had the app group ID set up to match the iOS ID (without our Team ID) and changing it now would affect our users already-stored data, so criteria C isn't really an option either. That brings us to criteria D. We've added the App Groups Capability to our App ID on the Developer site and creating a Developer ID provisioning profile with this App ID. However, for some reason the App Group Capability is not included in the provisioning profile. How then do we go about satisfying criteria D ("your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D)")? If this is impossible, how can we migrate our user's data away from the affected container?

Seeing the following error when attempting automatic passkey upgrade - [Warning] NotAllowedError: The request is not allowed by the user agent or the platform in the current context, possibly because the user denied permission. We're trying to enable Automatic passkey upgrade (https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2024/10125/?time=38) for our website but it's not working from our testing on iOS 18.2 and 18.3 Beta Safari. The flow on our website looks like: the customers use autofill to fill out email and password on the sign-in page (abc.com/signin) PublicKeyCredential.getClientCapabilities is called to check if conditionalCreate supported. land on another page of our website (abc.com/pageX), which calls navigator.credentials.create with mediation conditional (Right after sign-in). We checked that we followed the steps in above video: Allow automatic passkey upgrades is enabled, mediation is set to conditional and password autofill is used to signed in. However, Safari threw an error [Warning] NotAllowedError: The request is not allowed by the user agent or the platform in the current context, possibly because the user denied permission. Can Apple help guide us if anything is missed here?

Hello, I have now been looking for a while of a way to get the number of MAU of my appstore app through the apple connect API. I ended up thinking i might actually be able to compute it with https://developer.apple.com/documentation/analytics-reports/app-sessions this App Sessions report. My question is thus the following : Does the Sessions number actually gives me the number of all sessions, or only those from opt-in users ? It says that it is based on users who have agreed to share their data with Apple and developers, so I was wondering whether or not through the use of the methods described on this page https://developer.apple.com/documentation/analytics-reports/privacy, it meant that the data was anonymized/encoded such that it would be close to the actual Sessions number, or if it meant it only counted opt-in users to compute the Sessions numer. Thank you for your time, I hope I made myself as clear as possible. Ask me if you want more precisions or if you don't understand my question.