how could I remove the key NSMotionUsageDescription? cause it leads some crash problem.But after I remove the key NSMotionUsageDescription, I submit to Apple Store connect,I will receive issue .TMS-90683: Missing purpose string in Info.plist - Your app’s code references one or more APIs that access sensitive user data, or the app has one or more entitlements that permit such access. The Info.plist file for the “ydbus.app” bundle should contain a NSMotionUsageDescription key with a user-facing purpose string explaining clearly and completely why your app needs the data. If you’re using external libraries or SDKs, they may reference APIs that require a purpose string. While your app might not use these APIs, a purpose string is still required. For details, visit: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/protecting_the_user_s_privacy/requesting_access_to_protected_resources. How could I solve the problem? I reviewed my project,I don't use the key NSMotionUsageDescription api.

Hello Apple Developer Community, I'm reaching out to seek clarification on a specific post in the forum, referenced here: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/743295 Lets say our current live App in App Store uses below mentioned third-party SDKs SDKs listed in commonly used SDKs: Firebase GoogleUtilities AppAuth RxSwift RxCocoa SDKs not listed in commonly used SDKs: SDK1 (uses required reason API) SDK2 (uses required reason API) SDK3 (uses required reason API) Note: All the above mentioned SDKs are already integrated in the current live app, not adding for the first time We are going to update our app soon (lets say after May 1, 2024) I have some questions: If I’m updating SDKs listed in commonly used SDKs and updating an old app that already includes these SDKs. Do I need to declare a privacy manifest file for these SDKs? If I’m not updating SDKs listed in commonly used SDKs and updating an old app that already includes these SDKs. Do i need to declare a privacy manifest file for these SDKs? If I’m updating SDKs not listed in commonly used SDKs and updating an old app that already includes these SDKs. Do I need to declare a privacy manifest file for these SDKs? If I’m not updating SDKs not listed in commonly used SDKs and updating an old app that already includes these SDKs. Do I need to declare a privacy manifest file for these SDKs?

Hello, I have a question. Recently, Apple's announcement asks for "Describing use of required reason API". https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/privacy_manifest_files/describing_use_of_required_reason_api?language=objc SDKs that require a privacy file are specified in the "SDKs that require a privacy manifest and signature." https://developer.apple.com/jp/support/third-party-SDK-requirements/ question 1. Should SDKs included in the list of "SDKs that require a privacy manifest and signature" provided by Apple always include a privacy file? Or you can put the privacy file only in your XCode project. Question 2. If I don't use any personal information within the SDK, I don't need to insert a privacy file? thank you.

I thought I read somewhere in the privacy manifest documentation that they were not required for app extensions because extensions will inherit the privacy info from their parent apps and SDKs, but now I can't find a reference for that. If that is the case, I don't think it is working correctly, because we are getting warnings about missing API declarations for things that should be covered by an app or SDK manifest from what I can tell.

From what I've gathered from the (rather old) documentation and sample projects on Authorization Plugins, I understand that those can be used to extend the macOS authorization services with custom (and possibly quite complex) requirements for privilege management. During my testing, I found it to be technically possible to allow a normal (non-admin) user to perform some actions that they normally couldn't by leveraging plugin mechanisms. For instance, if I alter the class of system.preferences.network from user to evaluate-mechanisms I can make it so my custom plugin decides which user is actually able to make modifications to the system through the Network settings pane. However, I've noticed that if I leave the actual authentication to the built-in authentication mechanism and perform my validations after that, the user will face a rather odd message: Clearly, even though this seems to work like I'd expected it to, there's something strange going on here. So my question is, what can I actually achieve with authorization plugins in terms of managing system privileges, and what should I use it for? Are there any alternatives I could consider? And if so, could they offer me the flexibility that implementing my own custom logic as a plugin does? I'm not sure what the best practices and recommendations are in terms of both security and usability regarding these plugins, and would very much appreciate some pointers in the right direction.

Hi, I just received a new email from AppStore Review while submitting our app for review. This time I got informed, that I need to declare two NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypes: NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategorySystemBootTime and NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryFileTimestamp. I tried to find where we make use of APIs falling under these categories, but I couldn't find any in our app code. I searched within our SwiftPM checkout folder too, seeing if there is an SDK missing the PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy file itself or the required declaration, again no luck. In another thread is described how a link map could help to find the source of my problem, but this file doesn't help me at all. I can find occurrences of the API names as string, but not all of them are API calls (e.g. creationDate which is a custom property). So my question is now, how can I find the source of these warnings? I dislike the idea of blindly adding both declarations with all options on. Best, Thomas

If you’re on macOS and targeting the file-based keychain, kSecMatchLimitAll always defaults to kSecMatchLimitOne I regularly help developers with keychain problems, both here on DevForums and for my Day Job™ in DTS. Over the years I’ve learnt a lot about the API, including many pitfalls and best practices. This post is my attempt to collect that experience in one place. If you have questions or comments about any of this, put them in a new thread and apply the Security tag so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices It’s just four functions, how hard can it be? The SecItem API seems very simple. After all, it only has four function calls, how hard can it be? In reality, things are not that easy. Various factors contribute to making this API much trickier than it might seem at first glance. This post explains some of the keychain’s pitfalls and then goes on to explain various best practices. Before reading this, make sure you understand the fundamentals by reading its companion post, SecItem: Fundamentals. Pitfalls Lets start with some common pitfalls. Queries and Uniqueness Constraints The relationship between query dictionaries and uniqueness constraints is a major source of problems with the keychain API. Consider code like this: var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecAttrGeneric: Data("SecItemHints".utf8), ] as NSMutableDictionary let err = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { query[kSecValueData] = Data("opendoor".utf8) let err2 = SecItemAdd(query, nil) if err2 == errSecDuplicateItem { fatalError("… can you get here? …") } } Can you get to the fatal error? At first glance this might not seem possible because you’ve run your query and it’s returned errSecItemNotFound. However, the fatal error is possible because the query contains an attribute, kSecAttrGeneric, that does not contribute to the uniqueness. If the keychain contains a generic password whose service (kSecAttrService) and account (kSecAttrAccount) attributes match those supplied but who’s generic (kSecAttrGeneric) attribute does not, the SecItemCopyMatching calls will return errSecItemNotFound. However, for a generic password item, of the attributes shown here, only the service and account attributes are included in the uniqueness constraint. If you try to add an item where those attributes match an existing item, the add will fail with errSecDuplicateItem even though the value of the generic attribute is different. The take-home point is that that you should study the attributes that contribute to uniqueness and use them in a way that’s aligned with your view of uniqueness. See the Uniqueness section of SecItem: Fundamentals for a link to the relevant documentation. Erroneous Attributes Each keychain item class supports its own specific set of attributes. For information about the attributes supported by a given class, see SecItem: Fundamentals. I regularly see folks use attributes that aren’t supported by the class they’re working with. For example, the kSecAttrApplicationTag attribute is only supported for key items (kSecClassKey). Using it with a certificate item (kSecClassCertificate) will cause, at best, a runtime error and, at worst, mysterious bugs. This is an easy mistake to make because: The ‘parameter block’ nature of the SecItem API means that the compiler won’t complain if you use an erroneous attribute. On macOS, the shim that connects to the file-based keychain ignores unsupported attributes. Imagine you want to store a certificate for a particular user. You might write code like this: let err = SecItemAdd([ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecAttrApplicationTag: Data(name.utf8), kSecValueRef: cert, ] as NSDictionary, nil) The goal is to store the user’s name in the kSecAttrApplicationTag attribute so that you can get back their certificate with code like this: let err = SecItemCopyMatching([ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecAttrApplicationTag: Data(name.utf8), kSecReturnRef: true, ] as NSDictionary, &copyResult) On iOS, and with the data protection keychain on macOS, both calls will fail with errSecNoSuchAttr. That makes sense, because the kSecAttrApplicationTag attribute is not supported for certificate items. Unfortunately, the macOS shim that connects the SecItem API to the file-based keychain ignores extraneous attributes. This results in some very bad behaviour: SecItemAdd works, ignoring kSecAttrApplicationTag. SecItemCopyMatching ignores kSecAttrApplicationTag, returning the first certificate that it finds. If you only test with a single user, everything seems to work. But, later on, when you try your code with multiple users, you might get back the wrong result depending on the which certificate the SecItemCopyMatching call happens to discover first. Ouch! Context Matters Some properties change behaviour based on the context. The value type properties are the biggest offender here, as discussed in the Value Type Subtleties section of SecItem: Fundamentals. However, there are others. The one that’s bitten me is kSecMatchLimit: In a query and return dictionary its default value is kSecMatchLimitOne. If you don’t supply a value for kSecMatchLimit, SecItemCopyMatching returns at most one item that matches your query. In a pure query dictionary its default value is kSecMatchLimitAll. For example, if you don’t supply a value for kSecMatchLimit, SecItemDelete will delete all items that match your query. This is a lesson that, once learnt, is never forgotten! Note Although this only applies to the data-protection keychain. If you’re on macOS and targeting the file-based keychain, kSecMatchLimit always defaults to kSecMatchLimitOne (r. 105800863). Fun times! Digital Identities Aren’t Real A digital identity is the combination of a certificate and the private key that matches the public key within that certificate. The SecItem API has a digital identity keychain item class, namely kSecClassIdentity. However, the keychain does not store digital identities. When you add a digital identity to the keychain, the system stores its components, the certificate and the private key, separately, using kSecClassCertificate and kSecClassKey respectively. This has a number of non-obvious effects: Adding a certificate can ‘add’ a digital identity. If the new certificate happens to match a private key that’s already in the keychain, the keychain treats that pair as a digital identity. Likewise when you add a private key. Similarly, removing a certificate or private key can ‘remove’ a digital identity. Adding a digital identity will either add a private key, or a certificate, or both, depending on what’s already in the keychain. Removing a digital identity removes its certificate. It might also remove the private key, depending on whether that private key is used by a different digital identity. Keys Aren’t Stored in the Secure Enclave Apple platforms let you protect a key with the Secure Enclave (SE). The key is then hardware bound. It can only be used by that specific SE [1]. Earlier versions of the Protecting keys with the Secure Enclave article implied that SE-protected keys were stored in the SE itself. This is not true, and it’s caused a lot of confusion. For example, I once asked the keychain team “How much space does the SE have available to store keys?”, a question that’s complete nonsense once you understand how this works. In reality, SE-protected keys are stored in the standard keychain database alongside all your other keychain items. The difference is that the key is wrapped in such a way that only the SE can use it. So, the key is protected by the SE, not stored in the SE. A while back we updated the docs to clarify this point but the confusion persists. [1] Technically it’s that specific iteration of that specific SE. If you erase the device then the key material needed to use the key is erased and so the key becomes permanently useless. This is the sort of thing you’ll find explained in Apple Platform Security. Careful With that Shim, Mac Developer As explained in TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations, macOS has a shim that connects the SecItem API to either the data protection keychain or the file-based keychain depending on the nature of the request. That shim has limitations. Some of those are architectural but others are simply bugs in the shim. For some great examples, see the Investigating Complex Attributes section below. The best way to avoid problems like this is to target the data protection keychain. If you can’t do that, try to avoid exploring the outer reaches of the SecItem API. If you encounter a case that doesn’t make sense, try that same case with the data protection keychain. If it works there but fails with the file-based keychain, please do file a bug against the shim. It’ll be in good company. Add-only Attributes Some attributes can only be set when you add an item. These attributes are usually associated with the scope of the item. For example, to protect an item with the Secure Enclave, supply the kSecAttrAccessControl attribute to the SecItemAdd call. Once you do that, however, you can’t change the attribute. Calling SecItemUpdate with a new kSecAttrAccessControl won’t work. Lost Keychain Items A common complaint from developers is that a seemingly minor update to their app has caused it to lose all of its keychain items. Usually this is caused by one of two problems: Entitlement changes Query dictionary confusion Access to keychain items is mediated by various entitlements, as described in Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps. If the two versions of your app have different entitlements, one version may not be able to ‘see’ items created by the other. Imagine you have an app with an App ID of SKMME9E2Y8.com.example.waffle-varnisher. Version 1 of your app is signed with the keychain-access-groups entitlement set to [ SKMME9E2Y8.groupA, SKMME9E2Y8.groupB ]. That makes its keychain access group list [ SKMME9E2Y8.groupA, SKMME9E2Y8.groupB, SKMME9E2Y8.com.example.waffle-varnisher ]. If this app creates a new keychain item without specifying kSecAttrAccessGroup, the system places the item into SKMME9E2Y8.groupA. If version 2 of your app removes SKMME9E2Y8.groupA from the keychain-access-groups, it’ll no longer be able to see the keychain items created by version 1. You’ll also see this problem if you change your App ID prefix, as described in App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access. IMPORTANT When checking for this problem, don’t rely on your .entitlements file. There are many steps between it and your app’s actual entitlements. Rather, run codesign to dump the entitlements of your built app: % codesign -d --entitlements - /path/to/your.app Lost Keychain Items, Redux Another common cause of lost keychain items is confusion about query dictionaries, something discussed in detail in this post and SecItem: Fundamentals. If SecItemCopyMatching isn’t returning the expected item, add some test code to get all the items and their attributes. For example, to dump all the generic password items, run code like this: func dumpGenericPasswords() throws { let itemDicts = try secCall { SecItemCopyMatching([ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecMatchLimit: kSecMatchLimitAll, kSecReturnAttributes: true, ] as NSDictionary, $0) } as! [[String: Any]] print(itemDicts) } Then compare each item’s attributes against the attributes you’re looking for to see why there was no match. Best Practices With the pitfalls out of the way, let’s talk about best practices. Less Painful Dictionaries I look at a lot of keychain code and it’s amazing how much of it is way more painful than it needs to be. The biggest offender here is the dictionaries. Here are two tips to minimise the pain. First, don’t use CFDictionary. It’s seriously ugly. While the SecItem API is defined in terms of CFDictionary, you don’t have to work with CFDictionary directly. Rather, use NSDictionary and take advantage of the toll-free bridge. For example, consider this CFDictionary code: CFTypeRef keys[4] = { kSecClass, kSecAttrService, kSecMatchLimit, kSecReturnAttributes, }; static const int kTen = 10; CFNumberRef ten = CFNumberCreate(NULL, kCFNumberIntType, &kTen); CFAutorelease(ten); CFTypeRef values[4] = { kSecClassGenericPassword, CFSTR("AYS"), ten, kCFBooleanTrue, }; CFDictionaryRef query = CFDictionaryCreate( NULL, keys, values, 4, &kCFTypeDictionaryKeyCallBacks, &kCFTypeDictionaryValueCallBacks ); Note This might seem rather extreme but I’ve literally seen code like this, and worse, while helping developers. Contrast this to the equivalent NSDictionary code: NSDictionary * query = @{ (__bridge NSString *) kSecClass: (__bridge NSString *) kSecClassGenericPassword, (__bridge NSString *) kSecAttrService: @"AYS", (__bridge NSString *) kSecMatchLimit: @10, (__bridge NSString *) kSecReturnAttributes: @YES, }; Wow, that’s so much better. Second, if you’re working in Swift, take advantage of its awesome ability to create NSDictionary values from Swift dictionary literals. Here’s the equivalent code in Swift: let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecMatchLimit: 10, kSecReturnAttributes: true, ] as NSDictionary Nice! Avoid Reusing Dictionaries I regularly see folks reuse dictionaries for different SecItem calls. For example, they might have code like this: var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let dict = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecReturnData: true, ] as NSMutableDictionary var err = SecItemCopyMatching(dict, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { dict[kSecValueData] = Data("opendoor".utf8) err = SecItemAdd(dict, nil) } This specific example will work, but it’s easy to spot the logic error. kSecReturnData is a return type property and it makes no sense to pass it to a SecItemAdd call whose second parameter is nil. I’m not sure why folks do this. I think it’s because they think that constructing dictionaries is expensive. Regardless, this pattern can lead to all sorts of weird problems. For example, it’s the leading cause of the issue described in the Queries and the Uniqueness Constraints section, above. My advice is that you use a new dictionary for each call. That prevents state from one call accidentally leaking into a subsequent call. For example, I’d rewrite the above as: var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecReturnData: true, ] as NSMutableDictionary var err = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { let add = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecValueData: Data("opendoor".utf8), ] as NSMutableDictionary err = SecItemAdd(add, nil) } It’s a bit longer, but it’s much easier to track the flow. And if you want to eliminate the repetition, use a helper function: func makeDict() -> NSMutableDictionary { [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", ] as NSMutableDictionary } var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let query = makeDict() query[kSecReturnData] = true var err = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { let add = makeDict() query[kSecValueData] = Data("opendoor".utf8) err = SecItemAdd(add, nil) } Think Before Wrapping A lot of folks look at the SecItem API and immediately reach for a wrapper library. A keychain wrapper library might seem like a good idea but there are some serious downsides: It adds another dependency to your project. Different subsystems within your project may use different wrappers. The wrapper can obscure the underlying API. Indeed, its entire raison d’être is to obscure the underlying API. This is problematic if things go wrong. I regularly talk to folks with hard-to-debug keychain problems and the conversation goes something like this: Quinn: What attributes do you use in the query dictionary? J R Developer: What’s a query dictionary? Quinn: OK, so what error are you getting back? J R Developer: It throws WrapperKeychainFailedError. That’s not helpful )-: If you do use a wrapper, make sure it has diagnostic support that includes the values passed to and from the SecItem API. Also make sure that, when it fails, it returns an error that includes the underlying keychain error code. These benefits will be particularly useful if you encounter a keychain problem that only shows up in the field. Wrappers must choose whether to be general or specific. A general wrapper may be harder to understand than the equivalent SecItem calls, and it’ll certainly contain a lot of complex code. On the other hand, a specific wrapper may have a model of the keychain that doesn’t align with your requirements. I recommend that you think twice before using a keychain wrapper. Personally I find the SecItem API relatively easy to call, assuming that: I use the techniques shown in Less Painful Dictionaries, above, to avoid having to deal with CFDictionary. I use my secCall(…) helpers to simplify error handling. For the code, see Calling Security Framework from Swift. If you’re not prepared to take the SecItem API neat, consider writing your own wrapper, one that’s tightly focused on the requirements of your project. For example, in my VPN apps I use the wrapper from this post, which does exactly what I need in about 100 lines of code. Prefer to Update Of the four SecItem functions, SecItemUpdate is the most neglected. Rather than calling SecItemUpdate I regularly see folks delete and then re-add the item. This is a shame because SecItemUpdate has some important benefits: It preserves persistent references. If you delete and then re-add the item, you get a new item with a new persistent reference. It’s well aligned with the fundamental database nature of the keychain. It forces you to think about which attributes uniquely identify your item and which items can be updated without changing the item’s identity. Understand These Key Attributes Key items have a number of attributes that are similarly named, and it’s important to keep them straight. I created a cheat sheet for this, namely, SecItem attributes for keys. You wouldn’t believe how often I consult this! Investigating Complex Attributes Some attributes have values where the format is not obvious. For example, the kSecAttrIssuer attributed is documented as: The corresponding value is of type CFData and contains the X.500 issuer name of a certificate. What exactly does that mean? If I want to search the keychain for all certificates issued by a specific certificate authority, what value should I supply? One way to figure this out is to add a certificate to the keychain, read the attributes back, and then dump the kSecAttrIssuer value. For example: let cert: SecCertificate = … let attrs = try secCall { SecItemAdd([ kSecValueRef: cert, kSecReturnAttributes: true, ] as NSDictionary, $0) } as! [String: Any] let issuer = attrs[kSecAttrIssuer as String] as! NSData print((issuer as NSData).debugDescription) // prints: <3110300e 06035504 030c074d 6f757365 4341310b 30090603 55040613 024742> Those bytes represent the contents of a X.509 Name ASN.1 structure with DER encoding. This is without the outer SEQUENCE element, so if you dump it as ASN.1 you’ll get a nice dump of the first SET and then a warning about extra stuff at the end of the file: % xxd issuer.asn1 00000000: 3110 300e 0603 5504 030c 074d 6f75 7365 1.0...U....Mouse 00000010: 4341 310b 3009 0603 5504 0613 0247 42 CA1.0...U....GB % dumpasn1 -p issuer.asn1 SET { SEQUENCE { OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) UTF8String 'MouseCA' } } Warning: Further data follows ASN.1 data at position 18. Note For details on the Name structure, see section 4.1.2.4 of RFC 5280. Amusingly, if you run the same test against the file-based keychain you’ll… crash. OK, that’s not amusing. It turns out that the code above doesn’t work when targeting the file-based keychain because SecItemAdd doesn’t return a dictionary but rather an array of dictionaries (r. 21111543). Once you get past that, however, you’ll see it print: <301f3110 300e0603 5504030c 074d6f75 73654341 310b3009 06035504 06130247 42> Which is different! Dumping it as ASN.1 shows that it’s the full Name structure, including the outer SEQUENCE element: % xxd issuer-file-based.asn1 00000000: 301f 3110 300e 0603 5504 030c 074d 6f75 0.1.0...U....Mou 00000010: 7365 4341 310b 3009 0603 5504 0613 0247 seCA1.0...U....G 00000020: 42 B % dumpasn1 -p issuer-file-based.asn1 SEQUENCE { SET { SEQUENCE { OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) UTF8String 'MouseCA' } } SET { SEQUENCE { OBJECT IDENTIFIER countryName (2 5 4 6) PrintableString 'GB' } } } This difference in behaviour between the data protection and file-based keychains is a known bug (r. 26391756) but in this case it’s handy because the file-based keychain behaviour makes it easier to understand the data protection keychain behaviour. App Groups on the Mac Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps explains that three entitlements determine your keychain access: keychain-access-groups application-identifier (com.apple.application-identifier on macOS) com.apple.security.application-groups In the discussion of com.apple.security.application-groups it says: Starting in iOS 8, the array of strings given by this entitlement also extends the list of keychain access groups. That’s true, but it’s also potentially misleading. This affordance only works on iOS and its child platforms. It doesn’t work on macOS. That’s because app groups work very differently on macOS than they do on iOS. For all the details, see App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight!. However, the take-home point is that, when you use the data protection keychain on macOS, your keychain access group list is built from keychain-access-groups and com.apple.application-identifier. Revision History 2024-04-11 Added the App Groups on the Mac section. 2023-10-25 Added the Lost Keychain Items and Lost Keychain Items, Redux sections. 2023-09-22 Made minor editorial changes. 2023-09-12 Fixed various bugs in the revision history. Added the Erroneous Attributes section. 2023-02-22 Fixed the link to the VPNKeychain post. Corrected the name of the Context Matters section. Added the Investigating Complex Attributes section. 2023-01-28 First posted.

in this weeks i received this error: ITMS-91055: Invalid API reason declaration - The PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy for the “VanigliaPro” file contains “App Functionality” as the value for a NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons key instead of a valid reason code for using an API in the NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryFileTimestamp category. While no action is required at this time, starting May 1, 2024, when you upload a new app or app update, values for NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons keys in your app’s privacy manifest must be valid reason codes for the corresponding API category. For more details about this policy, including a list of required reason APIs and approved reasons for usage, visit: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/privacy_manifest_files/describing_use_of_required_reason_api. ITMS-91053: Missing API declaration - Your app’s code in the “xxxx” file references one or more APIs that require reasons, including the following API categories: NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryUserDefaults. While no action is required at this time, starting May 1, 2024, when you upload a new app or app update, you must include a NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypes array in your app’s privacy manifest to provide approved reasons for these APIs used by your app’s code. For more details about this policy, including a list of required reason APIs and approved reasons for usage, visit: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/privacy_manifest_files/describing_use_of_required_reason_api. ITMS-91053: Missing API declaration - Your app’s code in the “xxxx” file references one or more APIs that require reasons, including the following API categories: NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryFileTimestamp. While no action is required at this time, starting May 1, 2024, when you upload a new app or app update, you must include a NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypes array in your app’s privacy manifest to provide approved reasons for these APIs used by your app’s code. For more details about this policy, including a list of required reason APIs and approved reasons for usage, visit: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/privacy_manifest_files/describing_use_of_required_reason_api. any help for make correct privacy file?

Hello, I have a problem. Our app is based on a set of javascript cross-platform development framework, which includes bridging and packaging of the Foundation Framework. This bridging and packaging itself does not make any API calls, but it contains almost all security APIs. This In this case, does this Framework, which is only used as a bridge, need to add a privacy manifest statement? But since it does not make any API calls, how should I fill in the content?

I have an app that creates a private key in the secure enclave with a unique alias. It is created with the kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave flag. According to the docs, such private keys should never leave the enclave under any circumstances and definitely not restored on new devices. After migrating to a new iPhone 15 the app does not offer to create a new private key in the enclave, but rather it is able to find the unique alias of the private key in the new phone. i.e. as if it found the private key on the new phone's secure enclave I believe (/hope) that in practice the object I get in the new iPhone from SecItemCopyMatching is not usable. I assume this is a bug that should be fixed by apple? How can I detect that this SecItemCopyMatching result is stale so I can ignore it and prompt the user to create a new keypair on the secure enclave? Thanks

Does Apple allow extensions to Face ID? I have a problem with the way it often reacts. I also have a simple solution. But does Apple allow extensions to Face ID?

I recently received a notification after my app submission, highlighting missing API declarations in accordance with the new privacy requirements. Following the guidelines, I already updated my pods, which now include their own privacy manifest files. However, I'm still facing issues as detailed in the attached communication from App Store Connect. Anyone know how to done this?

I added a PKCS12 file to the Certificates section of the mobileconfig using Apple Configurator. I've installed the profile on the device but I can't see how I can access this cert. I want to use it to response to a NSURLAuthenticationMethodClientCertificate challenge. Is it possible for an iOS app to get access to the cert this way?

Our website supports Apple login, but after logging in, the server obtains the private mailbox of Apple users, but we found that sending emails to this private mailbox failed. The following is the response result I sent to the privacy mailbox using Google mailbox

I'm developing an authorization plugin to provide 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) for macOS. When FileVault is enabled, macOS Recovery prompts the user for a password to unlock FileVault FDE (Full Disk Encryption) before macOS can startup. The FDE password entered during Recovery is saved somehow so that after macOS starts up it can be used to log the user in without prompting them to re-enter their password. This feature is configurable with setting 'DisableFDEAutoLogin'. We would like our authorization plugin to implement the same behavior. The first place I thought to look for the FDE password (from within our authorization mechanism) is in Context value kAuthorizationEnvironmentPassword but it's not there. Is it possible for an authorization plugin to obtain this password the same as the standard login mechanism and if so how?

How can I differentiate between multiple children in order to display screentime data to the user separately for a parent with multiple children? As far as I can see, the options are .children, and .all? I understand I can retrieve some info from within the extension so I can group data separately, but is there any way to reliably filter between different children from within my app, say using a DeviceActivityFilter? Many thanks!

**We noticed that your app collects information from various public sources to build individual profiles, which is not appropriate for the App Store. Next Steps To resolve this issue, please remove any feature that attempts to build individual profiles based on collected public data. ** I do not understand what information that I collect from various public sources to build individual profiles My app takes the image from user and process it to extract facial features and compare other faces in the app database also the user can create an account if he wants to post a missing report and I ask to input the name and gender and date of birth and other information of missing person and all of this I explain in app review But I still face this replay what to do ?

Hello! the other day I had troubles with running the application to interact with the Secure Enclave. (https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/748611?page=1#783968022) While my program is running perfectly fine now, I still have questions regarding its security. QUESTIONS: Is there any functionality just with the public key to get an evidence of a corresponding private key to be protected by the Secure Enclave without showing the source code? Even with the most recent update of iOS 17.4, there is still no way to directly access the functionality of a Secure Element itself, is that right? So far I found a function SecureElementPass, and it seems like it’s the only interaction possible. What is the difference between using Security API and Apple CryptoKit? I heard some were saying it the matter of habit and device support, but I still would like to hear an opinion of a professional. Any information regarding that will be helpful. Thank you in advance for your time and effort!

How to handle libraries that are not explicitly added by me, but pulled by other SPMs that I use in my project? For example Firebase SPM pulls other packages like Abseil, nanopb etc. Do I need to handle those, and make sure they contain privacy manifests, or is Firebase package "responsible" for those?

We use few third party dependencies that declare API Reasons and we integrate those using SPM. Since SPM will statically link those dependencies in the main binary, we get a report from App Store that we need to declare those reasons in our Privacy manifest file. This is somewhat surprising since third party privacy manifest is bundled within our app, it is just independent of our app's main Privacy manifest file. Is there a way to aggregate all privacy manifest files, or does Apple plan to scan for all privacy manifest files in application bundle?