We are using Apple's PSSO to federate device login to out own IdP. We have developed our own extension app and deployed it using MDM. Things works fine but there are 2 issues that we are trying to get to the root cause - On some devices after restarting we see an error message on the logic screen saying "The registration for this device is invalid and must be repaired" And other error message is "SmartCard configuration is invalid for this account" For the 1st we have figured out that this happens when the registration doesn't happen fully and the key is not tied to the user so when the disk needs to be decrypted at the FileVault screen the issue is raised. For the "SmartCard configuration is invalid for this account" issue also one aspect is invalid registration but there has been other instances as well where the devices were registered completely but then also the the above error was raised. We verified the registration being completed by checking if the SmartCard is visible in the System Report containing the key. Has anyone seen the above issues and any possible resolution around it?

Hi everyone, I’m working an Objective-C lib that performs Keychain operations, such as generating cryptographic keys and signing data. The lib will be used by my team in a Java program for macOS via JNI. When working with the traditional file-based Keychain (i.e., without access control flags), everything works smoothly, no issues at all. However, as soon as I try to generate a key using access control flags SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags, the Data Protection Keychain returns error -34018 (errSecMissingEntitlement) during SecKeyCreateRandomKey. This behavior is expected. To address this, I attempted to codesign my native dynamic library (.dylib) with an entitlement plist specifying various combinations of: keychain-access-groups com.apple.security.keychain etc. with: My Apple Development certificate Developer ID Application certificate Apple Distribution certificate None of these combinations made a difference, the error persists. I’d love to clarify: Is it supported to access Data Protection Keychain / Secure Enclave Keys in this type of use case? If so, what exact entitlements does macOS expect when calling SecKeyCreateRandomKey from a native library? I’d really appreciate any guidance or clarification. Thanks in advance! Best regards, Neil

I was basically saving items into the Keychain with the following query dictionary: let query: [String: Any] = [ kSecClass as String: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrAccount as String: key, kSecValueData as String: value, kSecAttrAccessible as String: kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock ] Where key is a String value and value is a Data that used to be a String. I was getting the following error: code: -25299 description: The specified item already exists in the keychain After a lot of digging in I saw that I needed to add kSecAttrService to the dictionary and after that it all started working. The service value is a String value. let query: [String: Any] = [ kSecClass as String: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService as String: service, kSecAttrAccount as String: key, kSecValueData as String: value, kSecAttrAccessible as String: kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock ] These were the articles that suggested adding the kSecAttrService parameter: https://stackoverflow.com/a/11672200 https://stackoverflow.com/a/58233542 But in the same code base I found that other developers were saving using a dictionary similar to the one I first provided and it works: var query: [String : Any] = [ kSecClass as String : kSecClassGenericPassword as String, kSecAttrAccount as String : key, kSecValueData as String : data ] I don't know how to explain why my first implementation didn't work even though it was similar to what was already in the code base but the second approach worked well. Regardless of the query dictionary, this is how I'm saving things: static func save(value: Data, key: String, service: String) -> KeyChainOperationStatus { logInfo("Save Value - started, key: \(key), service: \(service)") let query: [String: Any] = [ kSecClass as String: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService as String: service, kSecAttrAccount as String: key, kSecValueData as String: value, kSecAttrAccessible as String: kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock ] // Remove any existing key let cleanUpStatus = SecItemDelete(query as CFDictionary) let cleanUpStatusDescription = SecCopyErrorMessageString(cleanUpStatus, nil)?.asString ?? "__cleanup_status_unavailable" logInfo("Save Value - cleanup status: \(cleanUpStatus), description: \(cleanUpStatusDescription)") guard cleanUpStatus == errSecSuccess || cleanUpStatus == errSecItemNotFound else { logError("Save Value - Failed cleaning up KeyChain") return .cleanupFailed(code: cleanUpStatus) } // Add the new key let saveStatus = SecItemAdd(query as CFDictionary, nil) let saveStatusDescription = SecCopyErrorMessageString(saveStatus, nil)?.asString ?? "__save_status_unavailable" logInfo("Save Value - save status [\(saveStatus)] : \(saveStatusDescription)") guard saveStatus == errSecSuccess else { logError("Save Value - Failed saving new value into KeyChain") return .savingFailed(code: saveStatus) } return .successs }

I am developing an Authorization plugin for macOS that should be invoked when a user unlocks their device from the lock screen. Based on advice from the other threads in these forums, I have understood that: The plugin needs to use SFAuthorizationPluginView The auth db entries to modify are system.login.screensaver and authenticate I found the NameAndPassword sample and after making some tweaks to it was able to get it to work from screensaver unlock. I am trying to add Webview-based authentication to the plugin, but have not had any success. The plugin window's width does not change (though the height does) and only a small portion of the HTML gets rendered. Is Webview-based authentication supported with SFAuthorizationPluginView? Are there any alternatives?

Hi everyone, I'm developing a C++ plugin (.bundle) for a third-party host application (Autodesk Maya) on macOS, and I'm finalizing the design for our licensing system. The plugin is distributed outside the Mac App Store. My goal is to securely store a license key in the user's Keychain. After some research, my proposed implementation is as follows: On activation, store the license data in the user's login keychain as a Generic Password (kSecClassGenericPassword) using the SecItem APIs. To ensure the plugin can access the item when loaded by Maya, I will use a specific Keychain Access Group (e.g., MY_TEAM_ID.com.mywebsite). The final .bundle will be code-signed with our company's Developer ID certificate. The signature will include an entitlements file (.entitlements) that specifies the matching keychain-access-groups permission. My understanding is that this combination of a unique Keychain Access Group and a properly signed/entitled bundle is the key to getting reliable Keychain access. This should also correctly trigger the one-time user permission prompt on first use. Does this sound like the correct and most robust approach for this scenario? Are there any common pitfalls with a plugin's Keychain access from within a host app that I should be aware of? Thanks for any feedback!

In our mobile we are using UUID as a device identifier . With this ID we using certain function like Primary device and secondary devices .
Primary device has more control to the app other than secondary device .
In our case user is getting new iPhone and the apps related data are moved to new device from old device from clone option.

While moving the keychain data is also moved , which is causing the new device also has same UUID and the customer are using both the devices in some cases ,

So both devices are considered as primary in our app .
Is there any way to identify the device is cloned ,

Needed suggestion

Hi team, if I log into my app on Safari and try to enroll/challenge MFA security key option, I will be able to see this pop-up that gives me the option to pick either passkeys or external security keys However, my team member who's using the same version of safari, can only see the external security key option Why is this?

Hi... It would be nice if Apple / XCode would be so gracious to explore the possibility of providing the ability to include: Code scrambling / renaming Control-flow obfuscation String encryption Anti-debugging Anti-hooking Jailbreak detection App integrity checks Runtime tamper detection That way, we could eliminate the need to settle for third-party software. Who do we have to bribe to submit such a request and entertain such an idea?

I have a launch daemon that's using the Endpoint Security framework which also is causing high memory usage (in Activity Monitor memory column shows for example 2GB and Real Memory 11MB) when building a big project in Xcode. Is it some kind of memory caching by the system? leaks -forkCorpse seems to not show any leaks. How can I attach with heap or Instruments without the process being killed with "ENDPOINTSECURITY, Code 2 EndpointSecurity client terminated because it failed to respond to a message before its deadline"?

In the hopes of saving others time, the updated demo project (i.e. the new Shiny) can be found from the video 'Resources' section under 'Performing fast account creation with passkeys'. The beta documentation can also be found from there. All of the new functionality is available only on *OS 26 at this time.

Hello, we are using DeviceCheck – App Attest in a production iOS app. The integration has been live for some time and works correctly for most users, but a small subset of users encounter non-deterministic failures that we are unable to reproduce internally. Environment iOS 14+ Real devices only (no simulator) App Attest capability enabled Correct App ID, Team ID and App Attest entitlement Production environment Relevant code let service = DCAppAttestService.shared service.generateKey { keyId, error in // key generation } service.attestKey(keyId, clientDataHash: hash) { attestation, error in // ERROR: com.apple.devicecheck.error 3 / 4 } service.generateAssertion(keyId, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) { assertion, error in // ERROR: com.apple.devicecheck.error 3 / 4 } For some users we intermittently receive: com.apple.devicecheck.error error 3 com.apple.devicecheck.error error 4 Characteristics: appears random affects only some users/devices sometimes resolves after time or reinstall not reproducible on our test devices NSError contains no additional diagnostic info Some questions: What is the official meaning of App Attest errors 3 and 4? Are these errors related to key state, device conditions, throttling, or transient App Attest service issues? Is there any recommended way to debug or gain more insight when this happens in production? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated, as this impacts real users and is difficult to diagnose. Thank you.

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. Thanks!

Hello, I am currently implementing a biometric authentication registration flow using WebAuthn. I am using ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialRegistrationRequest, and I would like to know if there is a way to hide the "Save to another device" option that appears during the registration process. Specifically, I want to guide users to save the passkey only locally on their device, without prompting them to save it to iCloud Keychain or another device. If there is a way to hide this option or if there is a recommended approach to achieve this, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Also, if this is not possible due to iOS version or API limitations, I would be grateful if you could share any best practices for limiting user options in this scenario. If anyone has experienced a similar issue, your advice would be very helpful. Thank you in advance.

I'm working on integrating Passkey functionality into my iOS app (targeting iOS 16.0+), and I'm facing an issue where the system dialog still shows the "Save to another device" option during Passkey registration. I want to hide this option to force users to create Passkeys only on the current device. 1. My Current Registration Implementation Here’s the code I’m using to create a Passkey registration request. I’ve tried to use ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider (which is supposed to target platform authenticators like Face ID/Touch ID), but the "Save to another device" option still appears: `// Initialize provider for platform authenticators let provider = ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider(relyingPartyIdentifier: domain) // Create registration request let registrationRequest = provider.createCredentialRegistrationRequest( challenge: challenge, name: username, userID: userId ) // Optional configurations (tried these but no effect on "another device" option) registrationRequest.displayName = "Test Device" registrationRequest.userVerificationPreference = .required registrationRequest.attestationPreference = .none // Set up authorization controller let authController = ASAuthorizationController(authorizationRequests: [registrationRequest]) let delegate = PasskeyRegistrationDelegate(completion: completion) authController.delegate = delegate // Trigger the registration flow authController.performRequests(options: .preferImmediatelyAvailableCredentials)` 2. Observation from Authentication Flow (Working as Expected) During the Passkey authentication flow (not registration), I can successfully hide the "Use another device" option by specifying allowedCredentials in the ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialAssertionRequest. Here’s a simplified example of that working code: let assertionRequest = provider.createCredentialAssertionRequest(challenge: challenge) assertionRequest.allowedCredentials = allowedCredentials After adding allowedCredentials, the system dialog no longer shows cross-device options—this is exactly the behavior I want for registration. 3. My Questions Is there a similar parameter to allowedCredentials (from authentication) that I can use during registration to hide the "Save to another device" option? Did I miss any configuration in the registration request (e.g., authenticatorAttachment or other properties) that forces the flow to use only the current device’s platform authenticator? Are there any system-level constraints or WebAuthn standards I’m overlooking that cause the "Save to another device" option to persist during registration? Any insights or code examples would be greatly appreciated!

Hello, I have created an app for both iOs and Android where upon speaking two trigger words, the listening app sends a text and then calls to an inputted designated phone contact. The Android version works perfectly. The iOs version also works perfectly but the iOs app emiits a PopUp for each, the text and then the call asking "Do you really want to send the text -or- make the call". Basically, I input the contact info and I spoke the trigger words. So, yes I want to send the text and make the call. So, I have to click the two PopUps then the device sends and calls. Is there a way to suppress the PopUps in any way? The app is designed for emergencies. So, a dely to anser a popup is not at all good. Maybe by telling the device to allow auto calls and texts from my app? Any and all help on this issue will be very welcomed... Thanks :)

Recently, we have adapted the passkey function on the Mac, but we always encounter the error message "Unable to verify the web credentials association of xxx with domain aaa. Please try again in a few seconds." We can confirm that https://aaa/.well-known/apple-app-site-association has been configured and is accessible over the public network. Additionally, the entitlements in the app have also been set with webcredentials:aaa. This feature has been experiencing inconsistent performance. When I restart my computer or reinstall the pkg, this feature may work or it may still not work. I believe this is a system issue. Here is feed back ID: FB20876945 In the feedback, I provided the relevant logs. If you have any suggestions or assistance, please contact me. I would be extremely grateful!

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

I have a project with a single app target that serves two environments, and two schemes, one for each env, using xcconfig files for defining environment-specific stuff. I'm trying to figure this out for months, so I've tried multiple approaches throughout this period: Have a single domain in "Associated domains" in Xcode, defined as webcredentials:X where X gets replaced using a value from xcconfig. Have two domain entries in "Associated domains" webcredentials:PROD_DOMAIN and webcredentials:STAGING_DOMAIN. Have a different order of domains Results are very interesting: whatever I do, whatever approach I take, password autofill works on staging, but doesn't work on production. I'm aware that we need to test production on Test Flight and AppStore builds. That's how we're testing it, and it's not working. Tested on multiple devices, on multiple networks (wifi + mobile data), in multiple countries.. you name it. The server side team has checked their implementation a dozen times; it's all configured properly, in the exact same way across environments (except bundle ID, ofc). We tried a couple websites for validating the apple-app-site-association file, and while all of those are focused on testing universal links, they all reported that the file is configured properly. Still, password autofill doesn't work. I prefer not to share my app's domains publicly here. Ideally I would contact Apple Developer Support directly, but they now require a test project for that, and since 'a test project' is not applicable to my issue, I'm posting here instead.

Hi! Is it possible to disable the option for users to 'Sign in with Another Device'? I encounter this message during the authentication process and I want to prevent it from appearing. I appreciate your help and look forward to your response.

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, &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 > Face ID & 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.