Hi, we are looking for a solution to install an extension to Microsoft PowerPoint app in a way that's compatible with the new macOS 15 behavior for Group Containers content. PowerPoint extensions Microsoft PowerPoint can be extended by PowerPoint Add-in (.ppam) files. These files must be installed in the app's container at this location: ~/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/User Content.localized/Add-Ins.localized/ The PPAM file must be also registered in the MicrosoftRegistrationDB.reg file which is a sqlite database stored at this location: ~/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/MicrosoftRegistrationDB.reg These locations can be access by non-sandboxed app on macOS 14 and earlier. Slido integration Our Slido app for macOS is distributed outside the Mac App Store, it is not sandboxed and it signed and notarized. The Slido app will install the PPAM file to the documented location and register it in the database. This installation did not require additional user approval on macOS 14 and older. With changes to macOS 15, a new permissions dialog is shown with this text: "Slido" would like to access data from other apps. This will allow Slido to integrate with Microsoft PowerPoint app. [Don't Allow] [Allow] We understand this is a security feature, yet we would like to make the experience for customers much better. As users are able to save PPAM files to the location by themselves without additional permissions, they expect the Slido app would be able to do so as well when run in the user context. Slido installs its files to this location: ~/Library/Group Containers/UBF8T346G9.Office/User Content.localized/Add-Ins.localized/SlidoAddin.localized/ Can we obtain com.apple.security.temporary-exception.files.home-relative-path.read-write to the SlidoAddin.localized folder? Even when we are different TeamID? Can we obtain a user permission which will be persisted so next time the Slido app can verify its files and uninstall them without further prompts? By having access to the SlidoAddin.localized folder our app would not be able to access any other data in Microsoft PowerPoint. We understand accessing the MicrosoftRegistrationDB.reg file is more sensitive and getting exception to access it would not be feasible. But we are trying to find out our options to make the experience seamless as that's what is expected by our customers on Apple platform. I am thankfully for any guidance and constructive feedback. Jozef, Tech Leader at Slido integrations team

In our application, we store user information (Username, Password, accessToken, Refresh token, etc.) in the keychain. However, after performing a hard reboot (unplugging and plugging back in), when we attempt to retrieve the ‘refresh token’ or ‘access token’ from the keychain, we receive the old token instead of the newly saved one.

弹出保存密码到iCloud钥匙串弹窗后立即退到后台再回到前台，搜索框无法弹出键盘

Good day. As part of a business unit separation, we are required to have our product with a different name, bundle IDs and certificates than our current configuration. The product contains network extensions and requires Full Disk Access. We distribute this product to our customers who either support MDM or not. I know from previous experience that a product can be transferred to a different account, which is something we could do only for some parts of our product (only a couple of Bundle IDs). My question is what's the best way to do this. I can imagine that having a scripted scenario where the other business unit's product is removed from customers and ours is installed, in a different folder. The main issue I can foresee is that because our architecture uses several network extensions that are installed as plugins (bad design I know), we would be asking the users for authorisation, again, to use those extensions, plus full disk access. What options do I have?

Since Sun 15th Jun 04:30 (UTC+7) we received lots of following error that causes our device test failure. Could Apple please investigate further? ############################# Operations could not be completed. (com.apple.devicecheck.error error 4.) (serverUnavailable)

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 everyone, I’d like to clarify something regarding the behavior of Team IDs after an app transfer between Apple Developer accounts. I have an app update that enforces a force update for all users. My plan is to release this update under the current developer account, and then proceed with transferring the app to a different developer account shortly afterward. My concern is: once the transfer is complete, will users who download the same app version (released before the transfer) be logged out due to a change in Team ID? Specifically, does the transferred app continue to use the original Team ID (used to sign the last submitted build), or does the Team ID change immediately upon transfer — affecting Keychain access? Any insights or confirmation on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

iOS18.1.1 macOS15.1.1 xcode16.1 Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 "Unable to verify webcredentials association of ********** with domain ******************. Please try again in a few seconds." Our domain must query with VPN, so I set webcredentials:qa.ejeokvv.com?mode=developer following: "If you use a private web server, which is unreachable from the public internet, while developing your app, enable the alternate mode feature to bypass the CDN and connect directly to your server. To do this, add a query string to your associated domains entitlement, as shown in the following example: :?mode= " but it still not working, even after I set mode=developer. Please help!!!!

Attempting to DECRYPT a cipher message using the Apple API SecKeyCreateDecryptedData(privateKey, .rsaEncryptionOAEPSHA256, encryptedMessage). Decryption ALWAYS fails for every algorithm. SecKeyCreateDecryptedDataWithParameters Error: `Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-50 "algid:encrypt:RSA:OAEP:SHA256: algorithm not supported by the key <SecKeyRef:('com.yubico.Authenticator.TokenExtension:5621CDF8560D4C412030886584EC4C9E394CC376DD9738B0CCBB51924FC26EB6') 0x3007fd150>" UserInfo={numberOfErrorsDeep=0, NSDescription=algid:encrypt:RSA:OAEP:SHA256: algorithm not supported by the key <SecKeyRef:('com.yubico.Authenticator.TokenExtension:5621CDF8560D4C412030886584EC4C9E394CC376DD9738B0CCBB51924FC26EB6') 0x3007fd150>}` Decryption failed: SecKeyCreateDecryptedData returned nil. Error: One or more parameters passed to a function were not valid. When checking with SecKeyIsAlgorithmSupported(privateKey, .decrypt, <ANYalgorithm>) all algorithms fail. Btw - The privateKey does support decryption when retrieving the attributes. Important to know: The private key is a reference to an external private key placed in the iOS Keychain via a 3rd party CryptoTokenKit Extension app. When I perform, the SecKeyCreateSignature(...) and pass in the SAME privateKey reference, the OS automatically calls the 3rd party app to perform a successful signing with the private key that reside on a YubiKey. Here's my code for obtaining the private key reference from an Identity: func getKeyPairFromIdentity() -> (privateKey: SecKey, publicKey: SecKey)? { let query = NSDictionary( dictionary: [ kSecClass as String: kSecClassIdentity, kSecAttrTokenID as String: self.tokenID!, kSecReturnRef as String: kCFBooleanTrue as Any ] ) var identityRef: CFTypeRef? let status = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &identityRef) if status == errSecSuccess, let identity = identityRef { var privateKeyRef: SecKey? let keyStatus = SecIdentityCopyPrivateKey(identity as! SecIdentity, &privateKeyRef) if keyStatus == errSecSuccess, let privateKey = privateKeyRef { let publicKey = SecKeyCopyPublicKey(privateKey) if let publicKey = publicKey { print("Private and public keys extracted successfully.") return (privateKey, publicKey) } else { print("Failed to extract public key from private key.") return nil } } else { print("SecIdentityCopyPrivateKey: Private key not found error: \(keyStatus)") return nil } } else { print("SecIdentity not found or error: \(status)") return nil } }

Hi, team. So, I'm working on reading certificates from the keychain that have been stored or saved by other apps into it. I understand that kSecAttrAccessGroupToken allows us to achieve that. It is a requirement to use com.apple.token group in the entitlements file. Having done that, I cannot store SecSertificates into the keychain, and into the security group. I can do it without the security group, but after adding in the dictionary the kSecAttrAccessGroup: kSecAttrAccessGroupToken, I can no longer add certificates. I get the famous -34018. No entitlement found. However, when I try to read certificates in the same access group, I do not get a -34018 error back. I instead get a -25300, which I understand means no keychain item was found in this access group. How can this be happening? Reading, the entitlement works, writing does not. Here are my queries: For adding: let addQuery = [ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecValueRef: secCertificate as Any, kSecAttrLabel: certificateName, kSecAttrAccessGroup: kSecAttrAccessGroupToken ] as [CFString: Any] let status = SecItemAdd(addQuery as CFDictionary, nil) For reading: var item: CFTypeRef? let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecMatchLimit: kSecMatchLimitAll, kSecReturnRef: kCFBooleanTrue as Any, kSecAttrAccessGroup: kSecAttrAccessGroupToken ] as [CFString: Any] let status = SecItemCopyMatching(query as CFDictionary, &item)

When we enable 3rd party authentication plugin using SFAuthorization window, and during unlock the screen, we have observed the widgets are not showing the content. Attaching the screenshot for reference. We are noticing this behavior from macOS 14.7.1 and macOS 15

Hello, These questions are in regard to transferring Sign in With Apple users as part of an app transfer to another developer team. We’ve already read and absorbed the following documents from Apple, but we still have questions that aren’t covered in these documents, due to the unique nature of our use case. Transferring Your Apps and Users to Another Team Bringing New Apps and Users Into Your Team Resolving Sign in with Apple Response Errors Background: We have a suite of three apps that we are tranferring to another developer team. Each app supports Sign In With Apple. Our accounts/users are shared among all three apps. We have all three apps currently grouped together for SIWA. We’re aware that we will need to un-group them before doing the SIWA user transfer. Questions: The API for generating and exchanging transferIDs for users (endpoint /auth/usermigrationinfo) requires a parameter client_id which is described in the docs as "The identifier (App ID or Services ID) for the transferring app." Since we are transferring a set of three apps which share users, we aren’t sure which AppID to use, or whether it matters? We’re assuming we only need to transfer the users once in total (not once-per-app), is this correct? Does it matter which of the three apps’ AppID we use for this? To give more specific context to this question, here’s a more detailed example: For simplicity’s sake, let’s say we have 10 user accounts total, and any of them could sign into any of our three apps. Users 1-7 have signed into all three apps previously User8 has only signed into AppA User9 has only signed into AppB User10 has only signed into AppC Ideally we want to transfer all 10 users all at once. Does it matter which AppID we use for client_id? For example, if we use AppA as the client_id, will we still be able to transfer all 10 users (including User9 and User10)? We’ve tested this on the sender team side, and we’re able to successfully create transferIDs for all 10 users using AppA as client_id. But we’re not sure if this will still work on the recipient side, that we’ll be able to exchange the transferID for all 10 users. . To add another wrinkle, there is a possibility that we won’t be able to transfer one of our three apps (due to one of Apple’s limitations for app transfer). In that case we’ll have to create a new app on the recipient team and shut down the old one on the sender team. But the other two apps in the suite would still be transferred normally. We’d still want all 10 users to be transferred, as the intention is still that all our users can sign into any of their existing accounts in any of the three apps. Would this scenario change the answer to question 1? For example, say we aren’t able to transfer AppC over to the new development team, but instead had to create a new app, AppCNew on the new development team. But we still are able to transfer AppA and AppB. Would we still be able to transfer all 10 users using AppA as the client_id? Including User10 who only ever signed in to AppC (which isn’t being transferred)? We'd really appreciate any answers or guidance that anyone can provide. Thank you, Adam

For testing purposes we have code that calls SecTrustEvaluateAsyncWithError() with a trust object containing a hardcoded leaf certificate and the corresponding intermediate certificate required to form a valid chain. Because the leaf certificate has since expired we pass a date in the past via SecTrustSetVerifyDate() at wich the certificate was still valid, but trust evaluation fails: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67825 "“<redacted>” certificate is not standards compliant" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=“<redacted>” certificate is not standards compliant, NSUnderlyingError=0x600000c282a0 {Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67825 "Certificate 0 “<redacted>” has errors: Certificate Transparency validation required for this use;" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Certificate 0 “<redacted>” has errors: Certificate Transparency validation required for this use;}}} I know that App Transport Security enforces Certificate Transparency by default, but is there a way around that here?

I am developing an Authorisation Plugin which talks to Launch daemons over XPC. Above is working neat, now I have to decide on how to get it installed on a machine. Installation requires. Plugin Installation Launch Daemon Installation Both require Moving binary and text (.plist) file into privileged system managed directory. Firing install/load commands as root (sudo). I have referred this post BSD Privilege Escalation on macOS, but I am still not clear how to approach this. Q: My requirement is: I can use .pkg builder and install via script, however I have some initialisation task that needs to be performed. User will enter some details talk to a remote server and get some keys, all goes well restarts the system and my authorisation plugin will welcome him and get him started. If I cannot perform initialisation I will have to do it post restart on login screen which I want to avoid if possible. I tried unconventional way of using AppleScript from a SwiftUI application to run privileged commands, I am fine if it prompts for admin credentials, but it did not work. I don't want that I do something and when approving it from Apple it gets rejected. Basically, how can I provide some GUI to do initialisation during installation or may be an app which helps in this. Q: Please also guide if I am doing elevated actions, how will it affect app distribution mechanism. In Read Me for EvenBetterAuthorizationSample I read it does. Thanks.

I work for Brave, a browser with ~80M users. We want to introduce a new system for automatic updates called Omaha 4 (O4). It's the same system that powers automatic updates in Chrome. O4 runs as a separate application on users' systems. For Chrome, this works as follows: An app called GoogleUpdater.app regularly checks for updates in the background. When a new version is found, then GoogleUpdater.app installs it into Chrome's installation directory /Applications/Google Chrome.app. But consider what this means: A separate application, GoogleUpdater.app, is able to modify Google Chrome.app. This is especially surprising because, for example, the built-in Terminal.app is not able to modify Google Chrome.app. Here's how you can check this for yourself: (Re-)install Chrome with its DMG installer. Run the following command in Terminal: mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test. This works. Undo the command: rm -rf /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test Start Chrome and close it again. mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test now fails with "Operation not permitted". (These steps assume that Terminal does not have Full Disk Access and System Integrity Protection is enabled.) In other words, once Chrome was started at least once, another application (Terminal in this case) is no longer allowed to modify it. But at the same time, GoogleUpdater.app is able to modify Chrome. It regularly applies updates to the browser. For each update, this process begins with an mkdir call similarly to the one shown above. How is this possible? What is it in macOS that lets GoogleUpdater.app modify Chrome, but not another app such as Terminal? Note that Terminal is not sandboxed. I've checked that it's not related to codesigning or notarization issues. In our case, the main application (Brave) and the updater (BraveUpdater) are signed and notarized with the same certificate and have equivalent requirements, entitlements and provisioning profiles as Chrome and GoogleUpdater. The error that shows up in the Console for the disallowed mkdir call is: kernel (Sandbox) System Policy: mkdir(8917) deny(1) file-write-create /Applications/Google Chrome.app/foo (It's a similar error when BraveUpdater tries to install a new version into /Applications/Brave Browser.app.) The error goes away when I disable System Integrity Protection. But of course, we cannot ask users to do that. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Our app uses Face ID to optionally secure access to the app for device owner. This not the new 'Require Face ID' feature of iOS 18 - this is our own custom implementation that has some other related logic for authentication handling. Starting in iOS 18.3.1, starting the app results in multiple Face Id checks being fired - sometimes just a couple but sometimes many more. Curiously, this is happening even when I completely disable any code we have that prompts for Face ID. It appears to come from nowhere. This does not happen on prior iOS 18 releases so, while I might be doing something improper in the code, something specific has changed in iOS 18.3.1 to cause this issue to manifest. I'm looking for advice as to what could be occurring here, how to debug a Face Id check that appears to come from nowhere, and what, if any, workarounds exist.

Hi everyone, I’ve been working on storing keys and passwords in the macOS Keychain using the Keychain Services API. Specifically, I’m leveraging SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags to bind items to access control flags, and overall, it’s been working smoothly. I have a question regarding the .applicationPassword flag of SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags. While it successfully prompts the user to input a password, there are no apparent password rules, even a simple “1” is accepted. My questions are: Is there a way to enforce strong password requirements when using the .applicationPassword flag? If enforcing strong passwords isn’t possible, is there an alternative approach to provide a predefined strong password during the creation process, bypassing the need for user input? With SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags, I noticed the item isn’t stored in the traditional file-based Keychain but in an iOS-style Keychain, is there a way to store it in a file-based Keychain while marking it as unexportable? I appreciate any insights or suggestions. Thank you! Neil

Hi there, I'm currently working on a compatibility feature for Apple that allows the user to manage their keys and certificates from within our internal API. For this I need to retrieve all the items contained within keychains. I am looking at the documentation for SecItem API but so far I have not really found an obvious way to link these items together. My best guess so far is to perform two queries, grabbing all SecKeys from the keychains, pairing them up with public keys through SecKeyCopyPublicKey, then downloading all CertItems and pairing them with public keys with SecCertificateCopyKey, and then join the two using public keys. This sounds however somewhat involved and I was wondering if there was a better way of going about the process?

I'm building a tool for admins in the enterprise context. The app needs to do some things as root, such as executing a script. I was hoping to implement a workflow where the user clicks a button, then will be shown the authentication prompt, enter the credentials and then execute the desired action. However, I couldn't find a way to implement this. AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges looked promising, but that's deprecated since 10.7. I've now tried to use a launch daemon that's contained in the app bundle with XPC, but that seems overly complicated and has several downsides (daemon with global machservice and the approval of a launch daemon suggests to the user that something's always running in the background). Also I'd like to stream the output of the executed scripts in real time back to the UI which seems very complicated to implement in this fashion. Is there a better way to enable an app to perform authorized privilege escalation for certain actions? What about privileged helper tools? I couldn't find any documentation about them. I know privilege escalation is not allowed in the App Store, but that's not relevant for us.

We are interested in using a hardware-bound key in a launch daemon. In a previous post, Quinn explicitly told me this is not possible to use an SE keypair outside of the system context and my reading of the Apple documentation also supports that. That said, we have gotten the following key-creation and persistence flow to work, so we have some questions as to how this fits in with the above. (1) In a launch daemon (running thus as root), we do: let key = SecureEnclave.P256.Signing.PrivateKey() (2) We then use key.dataRepresentation to store a reference to the key in the system keychain as a kSecClassGenericPassword. (3) When we want to use the key, we fetch the data representation from system keychain and we "rehydrate" the key using: SecureEnclave.P256.Signing.PrivateKey(dataRepresentation: data) (4) We then use the output of the above to sign whatever we want. My questions: in the above flow, are we actually getting a hardware-bound key from the Secure Enclave or is this working because it's actually defaulting to a non-hardware-backed key? if it is an SE key, is it that the Apple documentation stating that you can only use the SE with the Data Protection Keychain in the user context is outdated (or wrong)? does the above work, but is not an approach sanctioned by Apple? Any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.