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.

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, 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 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)?

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!

We recently deployed Attestation on our application, and for a majority of the 40,000 users it works well. We have about six customers who are failing attestation. In digging through debug logs, we're seeing this error "iOS assertion verification failed. Unauthorized access attempted." We're assuming that the UUID is blocked somehow on Apple side but we're stumped as to why. We had a customer come in and we could look at the phone, and best we can tell it's just a generic phone with no jailbroken or any malicious apps. How can we determine if the UUID is blocked?

I have something with a new individual on my team I've never seen before. They checked out our code repository from git and now anytime they try to open a .json file that is legitimately just a text file, GateKeeper tells them it cannot verify the integrity of this file and offers to have them throw this file away. I've seen this with binaries, and that makes sense. I removed the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute from all executable files in our source tree, but I've never seen GateKeeper prompt on text files. I could remove the extended attribute from all files in our source tree, but I fear the next time he pulls from git he'll get new ones flagged. Is there someway around this? I've never personally seen GateKeeper blocking text files.

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

Hello, I’m storing some values in the Keychain with the attribute ‘ksecattraccessibleafterfirstunlockthisdeviceonly’ (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/ksecattraccessibleafterfirstunlockthisdeviceonly). When I migrate user data between iPhones via iCloud, this behaves as expected and the keys are not preserved. However, when I migrate using a direct connection between two devices, the keys are preserved, which seems to contradict the attribute’s intent. Is this a known behavior, and if so, is there a workaround?

Hi Team, We are trying to understand deep sleep behaviour, can you please help us clarifying on the below questions: When will we configure Hibernate 25, is it valid for M series MacBooks? Is Hibernate 25 called deep sleep mode? What are the settings I need to do on Mac, to make my Mac go in to deep sleep? When awakening from deep sleep , what would be macOS system behaviour? If we have custom SFAuthorization plug in at system.login.screensaver, what would be the behaviour with deep sleep?

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'm writing an app on macOS that stores passwords in the Keychain and later retrieves them using SecItemCopyMatching(). This works fine 90% of the time. However, occasionally, the call to SecItemCopyMatching() fails with errSecAuthFailed (-25293). When this occurs, simply restarting the app resolves the issue; otherwise, it will consistently fail with errSecAuthFailed. What I suspect is that the Keychain access permission has a time limitation for a process. This issue always seems to arise when I keep my app running for an extended period.

Hi Apple team, For our iPhone app (App Store build), a small subset of devices report DCAppAttestService.isSupported == false, preventing App Attest from being enabled. Approx. impact: 0.23% (352/153,791) iOS observed: Broadly 15.x–18.7 (also saw a few anomalous entries ios/26.0, likely client logging noise) Device models: Multiple generations (iPhone8–iPhone17); a few iPad7 entries present although the app targets iPhone Questions In iPhone main app context, what conditions can make isSupported return false on iOS 14+? Are there known device/iOS cases where temporary false can occur (SEP/TrustChain related)? Any recommended remediation (e.g., DFU restore)? Could you share logging guidance (Console.app subsystem/keywords) to investigate such cases? What fallback policy do you recommend when isSupported == false (e.g., SE-backed signature + DeviceCheck + risk rules), and any limitations? We can provide sysdiagnose/Console logs and more case details upon request. Thank you, —

Binary code is associated with the NSUserTrackingUsageDescription deleted at present, but in the revised App privacy will contain NSUserTrackingUsageDescription, I feel very confused, don't know should shouldn't solve.

Hi, I'm working on developing my own CryptoTokenKit (CTK) extension to enable codesign with HSM-backed keys. Here's what I’ve done so far: The container app sets up the tokenConfiguration with TKTokenKeychainCertificate and TKTokenKeychainKey. The extension registers successfully and is visible via pluginkit when launching the container app. The virtual smartcard appears when running security list-smartcards. The certificate, key, and identity are all visible using security export-smartcard -i [card]. However, nothing appears in the Keychain. After adding logging and reviewing output in the Console, I’ve observed the following behavior when running codesign: My TKTokenSession is instantiated correctly, using my custom TKToken implementation — so far, so good. However, none of the following TKTokenSession methods are ever called: func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, beginAuthFor operation: TKTokenOperation, constraint: Any) throws -> TKTokenAuthOperation func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, supports operation: TKTokenOperation, keyObjectID: TKToken.ObjectID, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) -> Bool func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, sign dataToSign: Data, keyObjectID: Any, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) throws -> Data func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, decrypt ciphertext: Data, keyObjectID: Any, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) throws -> Data func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, performKeyExchange otherPartyPublicKeyData: Data, keyObjectID objectID: Any, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm, parameters: TKTokenKeyExchangeParameters) throws -> Data The only relevant Console log is: default 11:31:15.453969+0200 PersistentToken [0x154d04850] invalidated because the client process (pid 4899) either cancelled the connection or exited There’s no crash report related to the extension, so my assumption is that ctkd is closing the connection for some unknown reason. Is there any way to debug this further? Thank you for your help.

Hi Apple Team and Community, We encountered a sudden and widespread failure related to the App Attest service on Friday, July 25, starting at around 9:22 AM UTC. After an extended investigation, our network engineers noted that the size of the attestation objects received from the attestKey call grew in size notably starting at that time. As a result, our firewall began blocking the requests from our app made to our servers with the Base64-encoded attestation objects in the payload, as these requests began triggering our firewall's max request length rule. Could Apple engineers please confirm whether there was any change rolled out by Apple at or around that time that would cause the attestation object size to increase? Can anyone else confirm seeing this? Any insights from Apple or others would be appreciated to ensure continued stability. Thanks!

I have a small command-line app I've been using for years to process files. I have it run by an Automator script, so that I can drop files onto it. It stopped working this morning. At first, I could still run the app from the command line, without Automator. But then after I recompiled the app, now I cannot even do that. When I run it, it's saying 'zsh: killed' followed by my app's path. What is that? The app does run if I run it from Xcode. How do I fix this?

In iOS 18, i use CNContactPickerViewController to access to Contacts (i know it is one-time access). After first pick up one contact, the Setting > Apps > my app > Contacts shows Private Access without any option to close it. Is there any way to close it and undisplay it ? I tried to uninstall and reinstall my app, but it didn't work.

Hello, I am currently researching to develop an application where I want to apply the MacOS updates without the password prompt shown to the users. I did some research on this and understand that an MDM solution can apply these patches without user intervention. Are there any other ways we can achieve this? Any leads are much appreciated.

I am developing a macOS application (targeting macOS 13 and later) that is non-sandboxed and needs to install and trust a root certificate by adding it to the System keychain programmatically. I’m fine with prompting the user for admin privileges or password, if needed. So far, I have attempted to execute the following command programmatically from both: A user-level process A root-level process sudo security add-trusted-cert -d -r trustRoot -k /Library/Keychains/System.keychain /path/to/cert.pem While the certificate does get installed, it does not appear as trusted in the Keychain Access app. One more point: The app is not distributed via MDM. App will be distributed out side the app store. Questions: What is the correct way to programmatically install and trust a root certificate in the System keychain? Does this require additional entitlements, signing, or profile configurations? Is it possible outside of MDM management? Any guidance or working samples would be greatly appreciated.