Hello Developers, I have ran into a problem while sending mail to apple private relay email. We have built a mobile application where user can sign up through apple and they can sign up using hide-my-email feature. Which provides private relay address for us. Now we want to communicate with them using private relay mail address. The technology we are using to send emails are amazon SES, have done SPF, DMIK, DMARC and added domains in apple identity services for mail communication, passed an SPF check as well. But still mail is not getting delivered what am i doing wrong or apple doesn't support third party apps for sending emails to private relay? Is there any other way to achieve this please let me know Using the same body as attached in image is working fine for rest emails.

We are experiencing a significant issue with macOS security alerts that began on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. This alert is incorrectly identifying output files from our snippet tests as malware, causing these files to be blocked and moved to the Trash. This is completely disrupting our automated testing workflows. Issue Description: Alert: We are seeing the "Malware Blocked and Moved to Trash" popup window. Affected Files: The security alert triggers when attempting to execute .par files generated as outputs from our snippet tests. These .par files are unique to each individual test run; they are not a single, static tool. System-Wide Impact: This issue is impacting multiple macOS hosts across our testing infrastructure. Timeline: The issue began abruptly on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. Before that time, our tests were functioning correctly. macOS Versions: The problem is occurring on hosts running both macOS 14.x and 15.x. Experimental Host: Even after upgrading an experimental host to macOS 15.6 beta 2, the issue persisted. Local execution: The issue can be reproduced locally. Observations: The security system is consistently flagging these snippet test output files as malware. Since each test generates a new .par file, and this issue is impacting all generated files, the root cause doesn't appear to be specific to the code within the .par files themselves. This issue is impacting all the snippet tests, making us believe that the root cause is not related to our code. The sudden and widespread nature of the issue strongly suggests a change in a security database or rule, rather than a change in our testing code. Questions: Could a recent update to the XProtect database be the cause of this false positive? Are there any known issues or recent changes in macOS security mechanisms that could cause this kind of widespread and sudden impact? What is the recommended way to diagnose and resolve this kind of false positive? We appreciate any guidance or assistance you can provide. Thank you.

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.

Hi, I’d like to confirm something regarding the hosting of the apple-app-site-association (AASA) file. We have a server that publicly hosts the AASA file and is accessible globally. However, this server sits behind an additional security layer (a security server/reverse proxy). My question is: Will this security layer affect Apple’s ability to access and validate the AASA file for Universal Links or App Clips? Are there specific requirements (e.g. headers, redirects, TLS versions, etc.) that we need to ensure the security server does not block or modify? Any guidance or best practices would be appreciated.

First, I do not publish my application to the AppStore, but I need to customize a sandbox environment. It seems that sandbox-exec cannot configure entitlements, so I have used some other APIs, such as sandbox_compile_entitlements and sandbox_apply_container. When encountering the entitlement "com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-only", I am unsure how to correctly write sandbox profile to implement this. Can anyone help me?

I am writing a MacOS app that uses the Apple crypto libraries to create, save, and use an RSA key pair. I am not using a Secure Enclave so that the private key can later the retrieved through the keychain. The problem I am running into is that on my and multiple other systems the creation and retrieval works fine. On a different system -- running MacOS 15.3 just like the working systems -- the SecKeyCreateRandomKey function appears to work fine and I get a key reference back, but on subsequent runs SecItemCopyMatching results in errSecItemNotFound. Why would it appear to save properly on some systems and not others? var error: Unmanaged<CFError>? let access = SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(kCFAllocatorDefault, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, .biometryAny, &error)! let tag = TAG.data(using: .utf8)! // com.example.myapp.rsakey let attributes: [String: Any] = [ kSecAttrKeyType as String: KEY_TYPE, // set to kSecAttrKeyTypeRSA kSecAttrKeySizeInBits as String: 3072, kSecPrivateKeyAttrs as String: [ kSecAttrIsPermanent as String: true, kSecAttrApplicationTag as String: tag, kSecAttrAccessControl as String: access, ], ] guard let newKey = SecKeyCreateRandomKey(attributes as CFDictionary, &error) else { throw error!.takeRetainedValue() as Error } return newKey This runs fine on both systems, getting a valid key reference that I can use. But then if I immediately try to pull the key, it works on my system but not the other. let query = [ kSecClass as String: kSecClassKey, kSecAttrApplicationTag as String: tag, kSecReturnRef as String: true, ] var item: CFTypeRef? let status = SecItemCopyMatching(query as CFDictionary, &item) let msg = SecCopyErrorMessageString(status, nil) if status == errSecItemNotFound { print("key not found") } guard status == errSecSuccess else { print("other retrieval error") } return item as! SecKey I've also tried a separate query using the secCall function from here (https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/710961) that gets ALL kSecClassKey items before and after the "create the key" function and it'll report the same amount of keys before and after on the bugged system. On the other machines where it works, it'll show one more key as expected. In the Signing & Capabilities section of the project config, I have Keychain Sharing set up with a group like com.example.myapp where my key uses a tag like com.example.myapp.rsakey. The entitlements file has an associated entry for Keychain Access Groups with value $(AppIdentifierPrefix)com.example.myapp.

For security reasons, my application needs to prohibit external devices. If it is determined that the current phone is connected to any external devices, including non MFI authenticated devices, the app will exit. Please tell me how to do it? Thanks for your help.

Hi all, I'm using a CryptoTokenKit (CTK) extension to perform code signing without having the private key stored on my laptop. The extension currently only supports the rsaSignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA256 algorithm: func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, supports operation: TKTokenOperation, keyObjectID: TKToken.ObjectID, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) -> Bool { return algorithm.isAlgorithm(SecKeyAlgorithm.rsaSignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA256) } This setup works perfectly with codesign, and signing completes without any issues. However, when I try to use productsign, the system correctly detects and delegates signing to my CTK extension, but it seems to always request rsaSignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA1 instead: productsign --timestamp --sign <identity> unsigned.pkg signed.pkg productsign: using timestamp authority for signature productsign: signing product with identity "Developer ID Installer: <org> (<team>)" from keychain (null) ... Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-50 "algid:sign:RSA:digest-PKCS1v15:SHA1: algorithm not supported by the key" ... productsign: error: Failed to sign the product. From what I understand, older versions of macOS used SHA1 for code signing, but codesign has since moved to SHA256 (at least when legacy compatibility isn't a concern). Oddly, productsign still seems to default to SHA1, even in 2025. Is there a known way to force productsign to use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for the signature digest algorithm? Or is there some flag or configuration I'm missing? Thanks in advance!

When an app is trying to access identities put in the keychain by cryptotokenkit extension, the user gets asked a permission pop-up which reads 'Token Access Request" would like access a token provided by: " with 2 options 'Don't allow' and 'OK' I accidently clicked "Don't allow" and now can't access identities put in crypto token kit. How can I reset the preference?

Hey everyone, I'm working on a password manager app for iOS and I'm trying to implement the new iOS 18 feature that lets users enable autofill directly from within the app. I know this exists because I've seen it in action in another app. They've clearly figured it out, but I'm struggling to find any documentation or info about the specific API. Has anyone else had any luck finding this? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Hi there, I'm trying to use SFAuthorizationPluginView in order to show some fields in the login screen, have the user click the arrow, then continue to show more fields as a second step of authentication. How can I accomplish this? Register multiple SecurityAgentPlugins each with their own mechanism and nib? Some how get MacOS to call my SFAuthorizationPluginView::view() and return a new view? Manually remove text boxes and put in new ones when button is pressed I don't believe 1 works, for the second mechanism ended up calling the first mechanism's view's view() Cheers, -Ken

Hi All, I have a finder sync extension that passes data back to my main app. It currently writes to a plist file in my group container folder. Since updating to macOS 15, I have been getting this pop-up every time I trigger this writing to the plist after the finder sync extension loads. This is how I write to the plist from my finder sync extension: let appGroupDefaults = UserDefaults(suiteName: "group.team_id.Finder-Sync-Extension-Test-Project") let items = FIFinderSyncController.default().selectedItemURLs() DispatchQueue.main.async { let url = items?.first?.absoluteString var file = items?.first?.lastPathComponent if let defaults = appGroupDefaults{ defaults.set(url, forKey: "targetURL") defaults.synchronize() } self.showWindow(with: NSExtensionContext()) } This is how I read the plist from my main app: if let defaults = UserDefaults(suiteName: "group.team_id.Finder-Sync-Extension-Test-Project") { defaults.synchronize() if let clickedUrl = defaults.string(forKey: "targetURL") { window = NSWindow(contentRect: NSScreen.main?.frame ?? .zero, styleMask: [.miniaturizable, .closable, .resizable, .titled], backing: .buffered, defer: false) window?.title = "My App" window?.makeKeyAndOrderFront(nil) textField.stringValue = clickedUrl window?.contentView?.addSubview(textField) } } It is fine if this popup happens once and the user's choice gets remembered. I just don't want it to happen every time. Any help on if this is the correct way to pass data between the finder sync extension and the main app or on how to get macOS to remember the choice of the user would be great. Thanks, James

Hi Forum, We’re building a security-focused SDK for iOS that includes SIM Binding and SIM Swap detection to help prevent fraud and unauthorised device access, particularly in the context of banking and fintech apps. We understand that iOS limits access to SIM-level data, and that previously available APIs (such as those in CoreTelephony, now deprecated from iOS 16 onwards) provide only limited support for these use cases. We have a few questions and would appreciate any guidance from the community or Apple engineers: Q1. Are there any best practices or Apple-recommended approaches for binding a SIM to a device or user account? Q2. Is there a reliable way to detect a SIM swap when the app is not running (e.g., via system callback, entitlement, or background mechanism)? Q3. Are fields like GID1, GID2, or ICCID accessible through any public APIs or entitlements (such as com.apple.coretelephony.IdentityAccess)? If so, what is the process to request access? Q4. For dual SIM and eSIM scenarios, is there a documented approach to identify which SIM is active or whether a SIM slot has changed? Q5. In a banking or regulated environment, is it possible for an app vendor (e.g., a bank) to acquire certain entitlements from Apple and securely expose that information to a security SDK like ours? What would be the compliant or recommended way to structure such a partnership? Thanks in advance for any insights!

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

I’m implementing a custom Authorization right with the following rule: &lt;key&gt;authenticate-user&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;allow-root&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;class&lt;/key&gt; &lt;string&gt;user&lt;/string&gt; &lt;key&gt;group&lt;/key&gt; &lt;string&gt;admin&lt;/string&gt; The currently logged-in user is a standard user, and I’ve created a hidden admin account, e.g. _hiddenadmin, which has UID≠0 but belongs to the admin group. From my Authorization Plug-in, I would like to programmatically satisfy this right using _hiddenadmin’s credentials, even though _hiddenadmin is not the logged-in user. My question: Is there a way to programmatically satisfy an authenticate-user right from an Authorization Plug-in using credentials of another (non-session) user?

Has anyone here encountered this? It's driving me crazy. It appears on launch. App Sandbox is enabled. The proper entitlement is selected (com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write) I believe this is causing an issue with app functionality for users on different machines. There is zero documentation across the internet on this problem. I am on macOS 26 beta. This error appears in both Xcode and Xcode-beta. Please help! Thank you, Logan

Issue Summary I'm encountering a DCError.invalidInput error when calling DCAppAttestService.shared.generateAssertion() in my App Attest implementation. This issue affects only a small subset of users - the majority of users can successfully complete both attestation and assertion flows without any issues. According to Apple Engineer feedback, there might be a small implementation issue in my code. Key Observations Success Rate: ~95% of users complete the flow successfully Failure Pattern: The remaining ~5% consistently fail at assertion generation Key Length: Logs show key length of 44 characters for both successful and failing cases Consistency: Users who experience the error tend to experience it consistently Platform: Issue observed across different iOS versions and device types Environment iOS App Attest implementation Using DCAppAttestService for both attestation and assertion Custom relying party server communication Issue affects ~5% of users consistently Key Implementation Details 1. Attestation Flow (Working) The attestation process works correctly: // Generate key and attest (successful for all users) self.attestService.generateKey { keyId, keyIdError in guard keyIdError == nil, let keyId = keyId else { return completionHandler(.failure(.dcError(keyIdError as! DCError))) } // Note: keyId length is consistently 44 characters for both successful and failing users // Attest key with Apple servers self.attestKey(keyId, clientData: clientData) { result in // ... verification with RP server // Key is successfully stored for ALL users (including those who later fail at assertion) } } 2. Assertion Flow (Failing for ~5% of Users with invalidInput) The assertion generation fails for a consistent subset of users: // Get assertion data from RP server self.assertRelyingParty.getAssertionData(kid, with: data) { result in switch result { case .success(let receivedData): let session = receivedData.session let clientData = receivedData.clientData let hash = clientData.toSHA256() // SHA256 hash of client data // THIS CALL FAILS WITH invalidInput for ~5% of users // Same keyId (44 chars) that worked for attestation self.attestService.generateAssertion(kid, clientDataHash: hash) { assertion, err in guard err == nil, let assertion = assertion else { // Error: DCError.invalidInput if let err = err as? DCError, err.code == .invalidKey { return reattestAndAssert(.invalidKey, completionHandler) } else { return completionHandler(.failure(.dcError(err as! DCError))) } } // ... verification logic } } } 3. Client Data Structure Client data JSON structure (identical for successful and failing users): // For attestation (works for all users) let clientData = ["challenge": receivedData.challenge] // For assertion (fails for ~5% of users with same structure) var clientData = ["challenge": receivedData.challenge] if let data = data { // Additional data for assertion clientData["account"] = data["account"] clientData["amount"] = data["amount"] } 4. SHA256 Hash Implementation extension Data { public func toSHA256() -> Data { return Data(SHA256.hash(data: self)) } } 5. Key Storage Implementation Using UserDefaults for key storage (works consistently for all users): private let keyStorageTag = "app-attest-keyid" func setKey(_ keyId: String) -> Result<(), KeyStorageError> { UserDefaults.standard.set(keyId, forKey: keyStorageTag) return .success(()) } func getKey() -> Result<String?, KeyStorageError> { let keyId = UserDefaults.standard.string(forKey: keyStorageTag) return .success(keyId) } Questions User-Specific Factors: Since this affects only ~5% of users consistently, could there be device-specific, iOS version-specific, or account-specific factors that cause invalidInput? Key State Validation: Is there any way to validate the state of an attested key before calling generateAssertion()? The key length (44 chars) appears normal for both successful and failing cases. Keychain vs UserDefaults: Could the issue be related to using UserDefaults instead of Keychain for key storage? Though this works for 95% of users. Race Conditions: Could there be subtle race conditions or timing issues that only affect certain users/devices? Error Recovery: Is there a recommended way to handle this error? Should we attempt re-attestation for these users? Additional Context & Debugging Attempts Consistent Failure: Users who experience this error typically experience it on every attempt Key Validation: Both successful and failing users have identical key formats (44 character strings) Device Diversity: Issue observed across different device models and iOS versions Server Logs: Our server successfully provides challenges and processes attestation for all users Re-attestation: Forcing re-attestation sometimes resolves the issue temporarily, but it often recurs The fact that 95% of users succeed with identical code suggests there might be some environmental or device-specific factor that we're not accounting for. Any insights into what could cause invalidInput for a subset of users would be invaluable.

I am working on improving Keychain item storage secured with Face ID using SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags. The implementation uses the .biometryAny flag as shown below: SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags( kCFAllocatorDefault, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, .biometryAny, &amp;error ) While this approach generally works as expected, I encountered a specific edge case during testing. On iOS 18.3.1 with Xcode 15.4, the following sequence causes the Keychain item to become inaccessible: Navigate to Settings &gt; Face ID &amp; Passcode and select Reset Face ID. Before setting up a new Face ID, tap the Back button to exit the setup process. Reopen the Face ID setup and complete the enrollment. Return to the app—previously stored Keychain items protected by .biometryAny are no longer available. This behavior appears to be a change introduced in recent iOS versions. In versions prior to iOS 15, resetting or deleting Face ID entries did not invalidate existing Keychain items protected by .biometryAny. This difference in behavior between iOS versions raises questions about the changes to biometric protection handling. Any suggestions are welcomed that might shine a light on what the best practice to use keychain access control and prevent the data to become unavailable.

Hello, I have encountered several challenges related to System Integrity Protection (SIP) state detection and code signing requirements. I would like to seek clarification and guidance on the proper approach to programmatically determine the SIP state. Here are the issues I’ve encountered: XPC Code Signing Check APIs: APIs like setCodeSigningRequirement and setConnectionCodeSigningRequirement do not work when SIP disabled and that's ok given what SIP is. LaunchCodeRequirement API: When using Process.launchRequirement, the LaunchCodeRequirement API does not function anymore when SIP disabled. The IsSIPProtected requirement behaves in a way that is not clearly documented -- it appears to only apply to pre-installed Apple apps. Legacy APIs: Older APIs like SecCodeCheckValidity are likely to be non-functional, though I haven’t had the chance to validate this yet. Private API Concerns: So to mitigate those limitations I prefer my app to not even try to connect to untrusted XPC or launch untrusted Processes when SIP is disabled. The only way to determine SIP state I could find is a low-level C function csr_get_active_config. However, this function is not declared in any publicly available header file, indicating that it is a private API. Since private APIs cannot be used in App Store-distributed apps and are best avoided for Developer ID-signed apps, this does not seem like a viable solution. Given these limitations, what is the recommended and proper approach to programmatically determine the SIP state in a macOS application? Any insights or guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

A client asked why we can't detect other apps installed on a device without an MDM profile, we explained this isn't possible due to privacy and security restrictions on iOS. A regular app cannot find other apps that are installed unless part of the same group. The client then told us to download SpyBuster (on the App Store) which somehow is collecting a list of Bundle IDs or names of all installed apps somehow. We were skeptical, but sure enough, the app showed us a list of apps we had installed. How is it doing this?!?! No MDM profile associated with the app. No special permissions requested. No access to anything shown in privacy &amp; security in settings. Is there a special entitlement we're not aware of? Just seems like they must be using a private API call to get this info but that would of course mean it should be pulled from the App Store. We'd love to have this capability in our apps if it's legit and accepted by App Store review. Thanks!