Hello! I do know apple does not support electron, but I do not think this is an electron related issue, rather something I am doing wrong. I'd be curious to find out why the keychain login is happenning after my app has been signed with the bundleid, entitlements, and provision profile. Before using the provision profile I did not have this issue, but it is needed for assessments feature. I'm trying to ship an Electron / macOS desktop app that must run inside Automatic Assessment Configuration. The build signs and notarizes successfully, and assessment mode itself starts on Apple-arm64 machines, but every single launch shows the system dialog that asks to allow access to the "login" keychain. The dialog appears on totally fresh user accounts, so it's not tied to anything I store there. It has happened ever since I have added the provision profile to the electron builder to finally test assessment out. entitlements.inherit.plist keys <key>com.apple.security.cs.allow-jit</key> <true/> <key>com.apple.security.cs.allow-unsigned-executable-memory</key> <true/> entitlements.plist keys: <key>com.apple.security.cs.allow-jit</key> <true/> <key>com.apple.security.cs.allow-unsigned-executable-memory</key> <true/> <key>com.apple.developer.automatic-assessment-configuration</key> <true/> I'm honestly not sure whether the keychain is expected, but I have tried a lot of entitlement combinations to get rid of It. Electron builder is doing the signing, and we manually use the notary tool to notarize but probably irrelevant. mac: { notarize: false, target: 'dir', entitlements: 'buildResources/entitlements.mac.plist', provisioningProfile: 'buildResources/xyu.provisionprofile', entitlementsInherit: 'buildResources/entitlements.mac.inherit.plist', Any lead is welcome!

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

Hello! We have code that extracts macOS Installer package (.pkg, .mpkg) signature information using APIs defined in <xar/xar.h> The code opens the package using ‘xar_open’ API like this. func open(file: String) throws(XarError) { xarfile = xar_open(file, READ) if xarfile == nil { throw .fileOpenError } } This code produces a clang warning in our CI build system when built for macOS 12 and up. 'xar_open' was deprecated in macOS 12.0: xar is a deprecated file format and should not be used. Question #1: What is the appropriate / more preferred way to extract signature information from an Installer package given that xar related APIs are deprecated? We use xar APIs to validate the package signature prior to installation to prevent packagers not signed by our team ID from being installed. Question #2: “xar is a deprecated file format and should not be used.”. Does this phrase refer to the file format that should be avoided or the API that extract signature information? We distribute our product using Developer ID method that using pkg/mpkg formats which I believe internally follow the same structure as xar files. I hope this message does not mean we should rethink the distribution method for our products. Thank you. Filed FB FB17148233 as well.

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.

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!

I'm using Secure Enclave to generate and use a private key like this: let access = SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(nil, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, [.privateKeyUsage, .biometryAny], nil) let attributes: [String: Any] = [ kSecAttrKeyType as String: kSecAttrKeyTypeECSECPrimeRandom, kSecAttrKeySizeInBits as String: 256, kSecAttrTokenID as String: kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave, kSecAttrAccessControl as String: access as Any, kSecAttrApplicationTag as String: "com.example.key".data(using: .utf8)!, kSecReturnRef as String: true ] let privateKey = SecKeyCreateRandomKey(attributes as CFDictionary, nil) Later, I use this key to sign a message: let signature = SecKeyCreateSignature(privateKey, .ecdsaSignatureMessageX962SHA256, dataToSign as CFData, nil) This prompts for biometric authentication, but shows the default system text. How can I customize or localize the biometric prompt (e.g., title, description, button text) shown during SecKeyCreateSignature? Thanks!

Hello, I have a password manager app and would like to help my user's to enable the Safari autofill capability. I've made the password credential extension and that is working great. I just need to help my user's enable the feature. I could point them to Settings-&gt;General-&gt;AutoFill &amp; Password and instruct them to turn the feature on. However, I've noticed that my competitors are able to present an alert directly from their app to turn the feature on (without going to settings at all). I can't find any documentation on how to do this? Thanks for your help! //Ray

Hello, I have a password manager app and have noticed a new feature in AutoFill &amp; Passwords called "Set Up Codes In". I see that my competitors have been able to implement this feature but cannot find any documentation on how to do this. How can I make it so my app can support this feature. Any help to pointing me to the documentation or otherwise would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! //Ray

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!

Regarding the issue of login controls remaining on screen for a few seconds when using a subclass of SFAuthorizationPluginView, I wanted to inquire whether any progress has been made on resolving it. To recap, per notes I found in the QAuthPlugins sample code: Due to a bug (FB12074874), the use of an SFAuthorizationPluginView subclass can cause the login controls to remain onscreen for a significant amount of time (roughly 5 seconds) after login is complete, resulting in them being onscreen at the same time as the Finder’s menu bar and the Dock. The exact circumstances under which this happens are not well understood, but one factor seems to be running on a laptop where the main display is mirrored to an external display. Specifically, I would like to know: If there any other information about how the issue is reproduced? For my part I can say that it reproduces with out the use of a mirrored display. So far it reproduces for all of our developers and testers, all of the time. Are there any known workarounds? Is there any expectation that this issue will be addressed? Thank you so much!

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'm seeking some clarification regarding the use of accessibility and input monitoring APIs in sandboxed apps that are distributed through the App Store. I understand that accessibility permissions are generally restricted for App Store apps. However, I've seen several recently released apps request these permissions directly upon first launch. I'm aware that apps submitted prior to 2012 may have legacy access to certain APIs, but the ones I'm referring to appear to be recent - within the past year. While it's possible these apps were approved despite the restrictions, I want to make sure I'm not overlooking something. I also came across a recent discussion on this topic, and one post in particular stood out: Link I’d really appreciate some clarification on what's officially allowed. Specifically: Are accessibility permissions ever allowed? If so, under what circumstances? Is input monitoring permitted for apps on the App Store? (The referenced post says yes, but since it's from 2022, I just want to confirm) The linked post suggests that event generation might be allowed on the App Store, though the author hadn’t explored that privilege in detail and recommended opening a DTS tech support incident. I’ve done that and have a support case open - would it be possible to take a closer look at this? For context, my app (currently distributed outside the App Store) uses CGEventPost and CGEventCreateMouseEvent to modify mouse behavior. Thank you

Hi team, is there a native way to detect if a change has been made to biometrics using FaceID or TouchID? Thanks in advance.

We’ve noticed an unexpected behavior in our production iOS app where the UIDevice.current.identifierForVendor value occasionally changes, even though: The app is distributed via the App Store (not TestFlight or Xcode builds) We do not switch provisioning profiles or developer accounts No App Clips, App Thinning, or other advanced features are in use There’s no manual reinstall or device reset in the scenarios observed (as per user feedback) Any insights or confirmations would be much appreciated. Thanks!

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.

I'm seeing some odd behavior which may be a bug. I've broken it down to a least common denominator to reproduce it. But maybe I'm doing something wrong. I am opening a file read-write. I'm then mapping the file read-only and private: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_PRIVATE, fd, 0); I then unmap the memory and close the file. After the close, eslogger shows me this: {"close":{"modified":false,[...],"was_mapped_writable":false}} Which makes sense. I then change the mmap statement to: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); I run the new code and and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false, [....], "was_mapped_writable":true}} Which also makes sense. I then run the original again (ie, with MAP_PRIVATE vs. MAP_SHARED) and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false,"was_mapped_writable":true,[...]} Which doesn't appear to be correct. Now if I just open and close the file (again, read-write) and don't mmap anything the close still shows: {"close":{ [...], "was_mapped_writable":true,"modified":false}} And the same is true if I open the file read-only. It will remain that way until I delete the file. If I recreate the file and try again, everything is good until I map it MAP_SHARED. I tried this with macOS 13.6.7 and macOS 15.0.1.

Hello -- I am developing an Authentication Plug-in for the purpose of invoking login with no user interaction (headless). There seems to be sufficient documentation and sample code on how to implement a plug-in and mechanism, and debug the same, which is great. What I am trying to understand is exactly how to modify the login right (system.login.console) in order to accomplish my goal. Question 1: I had the idea of installing my mechanism as the first mechanism of the login right, and when invoked to set the username and password into the engine’s context, in the belief that this would negate the system from needing to display the login screen. I didn’t modify or remove any other mechanisms. This did not work, in the sense that the login screen was still shown. Should this work in theory? Question 2: I then tried modifying the login right to remove anything that interacted with the user, leaving only the following: <array> <string>builtin:prelogin</string> <string>builtin:login-begin</string> <string>builtin:forward-login,privileged</string> <string>builtin:auto-login,privileged</string> <string>MyAuthPlugin:customauth,privileged</string> <string>PKINITMechanism:auth,privileged</string> <string>builtin:login-success</string> <string>HomeDirMechanism:login,privileged</string> <string>HomeDirMechanism:status</string> <string>MCXMechanism:login</string> <string>CryptoTokenKit:login</string> </array> The mechanisms I removed were: <string>builtin:policy-banner</string> <string>loginwindow:login</string> <string>builtin:reset-password,privileged</string> <string>loginwindow:FDESupport,privileged</string> <string>builtin:authenticate,privileged</string> <string>loginwindow:success</string> <string>loginwindow:done</string> In place of builtin:authenticate I supplied my own mechanism to verify the user’s password using OD and then set the username and password in the context. This attempt appears to have failed quite badly, as authd reported an error almost immediately (I believe it was related to the AuthEngine failing to init). There’s very little information to go on as to what each of these mechanisms do, and which are required, etc. Am I on the wrong track in attempting this? What would be the correct approach?

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.

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.

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 &lt;SecKeyRef:('com.yubico.Authenticator.TokenExtension:5621CDF8560D4C412030886584EC4C9E394CC376DD9738B0CCBB51924FC26EB6') 0x3007fd150&gt;" UserInfo={numberOfErrorsDeep=0, NSDescription=algid:encrypt:RSA:OAEP:SHA256: algorithm not supported by the key &lt;SecKeyRef:('com.yubico.Authenticator.TokenExtension:5621CDF8560D4C412030886584EC4C9E394CC376DD9738B0CCBB51924FC26EB6') 0x3007fd150&gt;}` Decryption failed: SecKeyCreateDecryptedData returned nil. Error: One or more parameters passed to a function were not valid. When checking with SecKeyIsAlgorithmSupported(privateKey, .decrypt, &lt;ANYalgorithm&gt;) 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() -&gt; (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, &amp;identityRef) if status == errSecSuccess, let identity = identityRef { var privateKeyRef: SecKey? let keyStatus = SecIdentityCopyPrivateKey(identity as! SecIdentity, &amp;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 } }