General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Apple Platform Security support document Developer > Security Enabling enhanced security for your app documentation article Creating enhanced security helper extensions documentation article Security Audit Thoughts forums post Cryptography: Forums tags: Security, Apple CryptoKit Security framework documentation Apple CryptoKit framework documentation Common Crypto man pages — For the full list of pages, run: % man -k 3cc For more information about man pages, see Reading UNIX Manual Pages. On Cryptographic Key Formats forums post SecItem attributes for keys forums post CryptoCompatibility sample code Keychain: Forums tags: Security Security > Keychain Items documentation TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations SecItem Fundamentals forums post SecItem Pitfalls and Best Practices forums post Investigating hard-to-reproduce keychain problems forums post App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access forums post Smart cards and other secure tokens: Forums tag: CryptoTokenKit CryptoTokenKit framework documentation Mac-specific resources: Forums tags: Security Foundation, Security Interface Security Foundation framework documentation Security Interface framework documentation BSD Privilege Escalation on macOS Related: Networking Resources — This covers high-level network security, including HTTPS and TLS. Network Extension Resources — This covers low-level network security, including VPN and content filters. Code Signing Resources Notarisation Resources Trusted Execution Resources — This includes Gatekeeper. App Sandbox Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Privacy Resources Security Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Hello. I want to do the following and need your help. I want to import a certificate (pkcs#12) into my macOS keychain with a setting that prohibits exporting the certificate. I want to import the certificate (pkcs#12) into my login keychain or system keychain. I was able to achieve [1] with the help of the following threads, but have the following problems. https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/677314?answerId=824644022#824644022 how to import into login keychain or system keychain How to achieve this without using the deprecated API To import into the login keychain, I could use the “SecKeychainCopyDefault” function instead of the “SecKeychainCopySearchList” function, However, both of these functions were deprecated APIs. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/seckeychaincopysearchlist(_:) https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/seckeychaincopydefault(_:) I checked the following URL and it seems that using the SecItem API is correct, but I could not figure out how to use it. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3137-on-mac-keychains Is there any way to import them into the login keychain or system keychain without using these deprecated APIs?

Hi, A certificate imported on macOS 15 using the security command with the "non-exportable" option was imported in an exportable state. I would like to know how to change this certificate to be non-exportable. Regards, CTJ

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.

Hello Apple Developer Community, We have been experiencing a persistent notification issue in our application, Flowace, after updating to macOS 15 and above. The issue is affecting our customers but does not occur on our internal test machines. Issue Description When users share their screen using Flowace, they receive a repetitive system notification stating: "Flowace has accessed your screen and system audio XX times in the past 30 days. You can manage this in settings." This pop-up appears approximately every minute, even though screen sharing and audio access work correctly. This behavior was not present in macOS 15.1.1 or earlier versions and appears to be related to recent privacy enhancements in macOS. Impact on Users The frequent pop-ups disrupt workflows, making it difficult for users to focus while using screen-sharing features. No issues are detected in Privacy & Security Settings, where Flowace has the necessary permissions. The issue is not reproducible on our internal test machines, making troubleshooting difficult. Our application is enterprise level and works all the time, so technically this pop only comes after a period of not using the app. Request for Assistance We would like to understand: Has anyone else encountered a similar issue in macOS 15+? Is there official Apple documentation explaining this new privacy behavior? Are there any interim fixes to suppress or manage these notifications? What are Apple's prospects regarding this feature in upcoming macOS updates? A demonstration of the issue can be seen in the following video: https://youtu.be/njA6mam_Bgw Any insights, workarounds, or recommendations would be highly appreciated! Thank you in advance for your help. Best, Anuj Patil Flowace Team

This post is an extension to Importing Cryptographic Keys that covers one specific common case: importing a PEM-based RSA private key and its certificate to form a digital identity. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread in Privacy & Security > General. Tag your thread with Security so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Importing a PEM-based RSA Private Key and its Certificate I regularly see folks struggle to import an RSA private key and its corresponding certificate. Importing Cryptographic Keys outlines various options for importing keys, but in this post I want to cover one specific case, namely, a PEM-based RSA private key and its corresponding certificate. Together these form a digital identity, represented as a SecIdentity object. IMPORTANT If you can repackage your digital identity as a PKCS#12, please do. It’s easy to import that using SecPKCS12Import. If you can switch to an elliptic curve (EC) private key, please do. It’s generally better and Apple CryptoKit has direct support for importing an EC PEM. Assuming that’s not the case, let’s explore how to import a PEM-base RSA private key and its corresponding certificate to form a digital identity. Note The code below was built with Xcode 16.2 and tested on the iOS 18.2 simulator. It uses the helper routines from Calling Security Framework from Swift. This code assumes the data protection keychain. If you’re targeting macOS, add kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain to all the keychain calls. See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more background to that. Unwrap the PEM To start, you need to get the data out of the PEM: /// Extracts the data from a PEM. /// /// As PEM files can contain a large range of data types, you must supply the /// expected prefix and suffix strings. For example, for a certificate these /// are `"-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----` and `-----END CERTIFICATE-----`. /// /// - important: This assumes the simplest possible PEM format. It does not /// handle metadata at the top of the PEM or PEMs with multiple items in them. func dataFromPEM(_ pem: String, _ expectedPrefix: String, _ expectedSuffix: String) -> Data? { let lines = pem.split(separator: "\n") guard let first = lines.first, first == expectedPrefix, let last = lines.last, last == expectedSuffix else { return nil } let base64 = lines.dropFirst().dropLast().joined() guard let data = Data(base64Encoded: base64) else { return nil } return data } IMPORTANT Read the doc comment to learn about some important limitations with this code. Import a Certificate When adding a digital identity to the keychain, it’s best to import the certificate and the key separately and then add them to the keychain. That makes it easier to track down problems you encounter. To import a PEM-based certificate, extract the data from the PEM and call SecCertificateCreateWithData: /// Import a certificate in PEM format. /// /// - important: See ``dataFromPEM(_:_:_:)`` for some important limitations. func importCertificatePEM(_ pem: String) throws -> SecCertificate { guard let data = dataFromPEM(pem, "-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----", "-----END CERTIFICATE-----"), let cert = SecCertificateCreateWithData(nil, data as NSData) else { throw NSError(domain: NSOSStatusErrorDomain, code: Int(errSecParam), userInfo: nil) } return cert } Here’s an example that shows this in action: let benjyCertificatePEM = """ -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- MIIC4TCCAcmgAwIBAgIBCzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQsFADAfMRAwDgYDVQQDDAdNb3Vz ZUNBMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjAeFw0xOTA5MzAxNDI0NDFaFw0yOTA5MjcxNDI0NDFa MB0xDjAMBgNVBAMMBUJlbmp5MQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEB BQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAOQe5ai68FQhTVIgpsDK+UOPIrgKzqJcW+wwLnJRp6GV V9EmifJq7wjrXeqmP1XgcNtu7cVhDx+/ONKl/8hscak54HTQrgwE6mK628RThld9 BmZoOjaWWCkoU5bH7ZIYgrKF1tAO5uTAmVJB9v7DQQvKERwjQ10ZbFOW6v8j2gDL esZQbFIC7f/viDXLsPq8dUZuyyb9BXrpEJpXpFDi/wzCV3C1wmtOUrU27xz4gBzi 3o9O6U4QmaF91xxaTk0Ot+/RLI70mR7TYa+u6q7UW/KK9q1+8LeTVs1x24VA5csx HCAQf+xvMoKlocmUxCDBYkTFkmtyhmGRN52XucHgu0kCAwEAAaMqMCgwDgYDVR0P AQH/BAQDAgWgMBYGA1UdJQEB/wQMMAoGCCsGAQUFBwMCMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBCwUA A4IBAQAyrArH7+IyHTyEOrv/kZr3s3h4HWczSVeiO9qWD03/fVew84J524DiSBK4 mtAy3V/hqXrzrQEbsfyT7ZhQ6EqB/W0flpVYbku10cSVgoeSfjgBJLqgJRZKFonv OQPjTf9HEDo5A1bQdnUF1y6SwdFaY16lH9mZ5B8AI57mduSg90c6Ao1GvtbAciNk W8y4OTQp4drh18hpHegrgTIbuoWwgy8V4MX6W39XhkCUNhrQUUJk3mEfbC/yqfIG YNds0NRI3QCTJCUbuXvDrLEn4iqRfbzq5cbulQBxBCUtLZFFjKE4M42fJh6D6oRR yZSx4Ac3c+xYqTCjf0UdcUGxaxF/ -----END CERTIFICATE----- """ print(try? importCertificatePEM(benjyCertificatePEM)) If you run this it prints: Optional(<cert(0x11e304c10) s: Benjy i: MouseCA>) Import a Private Key To import a PEM-base RSA private key, extract the data from the PEM and call SecKeyCreateWithData: /// Import an 2048-bit RSA private key in PEM format. /// /// Don’t use this code if: /// /// * If you can switch to an EC key. EC keys are generally better and, for /// this specific case, there’s support for importing them in Apple CryptoKit. /// /// * You can switch to using a PKCS#12. In that case, use the system’s /// `SecPKCS12Import` routine instead. /// /// - important: See ``dataFromPEM(_:_:_:)`` for some important limitations. func importRSA2048PrivateKeyPEM(_ pem: String) throws -> SecKey { // Most private key PEMs are in PKCS#8 format. There’s no way to import // that directly. Instead you need to strip the header to get to the // `RSAPrivateKey` data structure encapsulated within the PKCS#8. Doing that // in the general case is hard. In the specific case of an 2048-bit RSA // key, the following hack works. let rsaPrefix: [UInt8] = [ 0x30, 0x82, 0x04, 0xBE, 0x02, 0x01, 0x00, 0x30, 0x0D, 0x06, 0x09, 0x2A, 0x86, 0x48, 0x86, 0xF7, 0x0D, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x05, 0x00, 0x04, 0x82, 0x04, 0xA8, ] guard let pkcs8 = dataFromPEM(pem, "-----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY-----", "-----END PRIVATE KEY-----"), pkcs8.starts(with: rsaPrefix) else { throw NSError(domain: NSOSStatusErrorDomain, code: Int(errSecParam), userInfo: nil) } let rsaPrivateKey = pkcs8.dropFirst(rsaPrefix.count) return try secCall { SecKeyCreateWithData(rsaPrivateKey as NSData, [ kSecAttrKeyType: kSecAttrKeyTypeRSA, kSecAttrKeyClass: kSecAttrKeyClassPrivate, ] as NSDictionary, $0) } } IMPORTANT This code only works with 2048-bit RSA private keys. The comments explain more about that limitation. Here’s an example that shows this in action: let benjyPrivateKeyPEM = """ -----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY----- MIIEvgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCBKgwggSkAgEAAoIBAQDkHuWouvBUIU1S IKbAyvlDjyK4Cs6iXFvsMC5yUaehlVfRJonyau8I613qpj9V4HDbbu3FYQ8fvzjS pf/IbHGpOeB00K4MBOpiutvEU4ZXfQZmaDo2llgpKFOWx+2SGIKyhdbQDubkwJlS Qfb+w0ELyhEcI0NdGWxTlur/I9oAy3rGUGxSAu3/74g1y7D6vHVGbssm/QV66RCa V6RQ4v8MwldwtcJrTlK1Nu8c+IAc4t6PTulOEJmhfdccWk5NDrfv0SyO9Jke02Gv ruqu1FvyivatfvC3k1bNcduFQOXLMRwgEH/sbzKCpaHJlMQgwWJExZJrcoZhkTed l7nB4LtJAgMBAAECggEBAKOPF6ED776SZgrliEog/dmXrhABB6jXybytyw+CRkuP dXhrRmr+isZ9Y0gTzMN4+dILVgW4EozzoP0/sgZ04oWwDqQS30eU2qzRRzMbo+3k oYsZXeu3nhxcYppwXIDsfAEd/ygMFzaadRPKYhrFykR2rA/dpLYCvW2tfm5SuULp RxnKykFlVi8yVT64AovVm0XGOy/QTO5BBbUdftvZY9QCjGn/IEL8QFEz0rxZsb2L s0HgVMUcB1My38RksZQRKLMWCtqLqWnez3oCnPka+dxFQj5RU//vNtRoVh1ExbmW txHz48v00AKQvaudC4ujIspZlY8+UPdYQT0TNjhsfoUCgYEA+7yEvyCgRtYwUNm6 jHTg67LoSldHwENOry63qGZp3rCkWBkPXle7ulgRtuw+e11g4MoMMAgkIGyIGB/Z 6YvnQGmJCTMw+HHIyw3k/OvL1iz4DM+QlxDuD79Zu2j2UIL4maDG0ZDskiJujVAf sFOy4r36TvYedmd7qgh9pgpsFl8CgYEA5/v8PZDs2I1wSDGllGfTr6aeQcxvw98I p8l/8EV/lYpdKQMFndeFZI+dnJCcTeBbeXMmPNTAdL5gOTwDReXamIAdr93k7/x6 iKMHzBrpQZUMEhepSd8zdR1+vLvyszvUU6lvNXcfjwbu7gJQkwbA6kSoXRN+C1Cv i5/w66t0f1cCgYBt02FWwTUrsmaB33uzq4o1SmhthoaXKsY5R3h4z7WAojAQ/13l GwGb2rBfzdG0oJiTeZK3odWhD7iQTdUUPyU0xNY0XVEQExQ3AmjUr0rOte/CJww9 2/UAicrsKG7N0VYEMFCNPVz4pGz22e35T4rLwXZi3J2NqrgZBntK5WEioQKBgEyx L4ii+sn0qGQVlankUUVGjhcuoNxeRZxCrzsdnrovTfEbAKZX88908yQpYqMUQul5 ufBuXVm6/lCtmF9pR8UWxbm4X9E+5Lt7Oj6tvuNhhOYOUHcNhRN4tsdqUygR5XXr E8rXIOXF4wNoXH7ewrQwEoECyq6u8/ny3FDtE8xtAoGBALNFxRGikbQMXhUXj7FA lLwWlNydCxCc7/YwlHfmekDaJRv59+z7SWAR15azhbjqS9oXWJUQ9uvpKF75opE7 MT0GzblkKAYu/3uhTENCjQg+9RFfu5w37E5RTWHD2hANV0YqXUlmH3d+f5uO0xN7 7bpqwYuYzSv1hBfU/yprDco6 -----END PRIVATE KEY----- """ print(try? importRSA2048PrivateKeyPEM(benjyPrivateKeyPEM)) If you run this it prints: Optional(<SecKeyRef algorithm id: 1, key type: RSAPrivateKey, version: 4, 2048 bits (block size: 256), addr: 0x600000c5ce50>) Form a Digital Identity There are two common ways to form a digital identity: SecPKCSImport SecItemCopyMatching SecPKCSImport is the most flexible because it gives you an in-memory digital identity. You can then choose to add it to the keychain or not. However, it requires a PKCS#12 as input. If you’re starting out with separate private key and certificate PEMs, you have to use SecItemCopyMatching. Note macOS also has SecIdentityCreateWithCertificate, but it has some seriously limitations. First, it’s only available on macOS. Second, it requires the key to be in the keychain. If you’re going to add the key to the keychain anyway, you might as well use SecItemCopyMatching. To form a digital identity from a separate private key and certificate: Add the certificate to the keychain. Add the private key to the keychain. Call SecItemCopyMatching to get back a digital identity. Here’s an example of that in action: /// Imports a digital identity composed of separate certificate and private key PEMs. /// /// - important: See ``dataFromPEM(_:_:_:)`` for some important limitations. /// See ``importRSA2048PrivateKeyPEM(_:)`` for alternative strategies that are /// much easier to deploy. func addRSA2048DigitalIdentityPEMToKeychain(certificate: String, privateKey: String) throws -> SecIdentity { // First import the certificate and private key. This has the advantage in // that it triggers an early failure if the data is in the wrong format. let certificate = try importCertificatePEM(certificate) let privateKey = try importRSA2048PrivateKeyPEM(privateKey) // Check that the private key matches the public key in the certificate. If // not, someone has given you bogus credentials. let certificatePublicKey = try secCall { SecCertificateCopyKey(certificate) } let publicKey = try secCall { SecKeyCopyPublicKey(privateKey) } guard CFEqual(certificatePublicKey, publicKey) else { throw NSError(domain: NSOSStatusErrorDomain, code: Int(errSecPublicKeyInconsistent)) } // Add the certificate first. If that fails — and the most likely error is // `errSecDuplicateItem` — we want to stop immediately. try secCall { SecItemAdd([ kSecValueRef: certificate, ] as NSDictionary, nil) } // The add the private key. do { try secCall { SecItemAdd([ kSecValueRef: privateKey, ] as NSDictionary, nil) } } catch let error as NSError { // We ignore a `errSecDuplicateItem` error when adding the key. It’s // possible to have multiple digital identities that share the same key, // so if you try to add the key and it’s already in the keychain then // that’s fine. guard error.domain == NSOSStatusErrorDomain, error.code == errSecDuplicateItem else { throw error } } // Finally, search for the resulting identity. // // I originally tried querying for the identity based on the certificate’s // attributes — the ones that contribute to uniqueness, namely // `kSecAttrCertificateType`, `kSecAttrIssuer`, and `kSecAttrSerialNumber` — // but that failed for reasons I don't fully understand (r. 144152660). So // now I get all digital identities and find the one with our certificate. let identities = try secCall { SecItemCopyMatching([ kSecClass: kSecClassIdentity, kSecMatchLimit: kSecMatchLimitAll, kSecReturnRef: true, ] as NSDictionary, $0) } as! [SecIdentity] let identityQ = try identities.first { i in try secCall { SecIdentityCopyCertificate(i, $0) } == certificate } return try secCall(Int(errSecItemNotFound)) { identityQ } } IMPORTANT This code is quite subtle. Read the comments for an explanation as to why it works the way it does. Further reading For more information about the APIs and techniques used above, see: Importing Cryptographic Keys On Cryptographic Keys Formats SecItem: Fundamentals SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices Calling Security Framework from Swift TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations Finally, for links to documentation and other resources, see Security Resources. Revision History 2025-02-13 Added code to check for mismatched private key and certificate. 2025-02-04 First posted.

we develop extension "Autofill Credential Provider" function for passkey. 1.first step registe passkey 2.second step authenticate with passkey step 1 &amp; step 2 has finished and run success with provideCredentialWithoutUserInteraction. But we want to prepare our interface for use to input password and select passkey what the want. however the func prepareInterfaceToProvideCredential in ASCredentialProviderViewController does call? what i missed? how can i do it?

Hi, We're in the process of implementing Apple's App Integrity, but am getting stalled due to missing documents. Can anyone assist with this? We've been following https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/validating-apps-that-connect-to-your-server to make the necessary updates, but have come up short with where the document references decoding the Attestation Object. Can we get more information here and how the decoding process work?

Hi I'm developing an app that autofills Passkeys. The app allows the user to authenticate to their IdP to obtain an access token. Using the token the app fetches from <server>/attestation/options. The app will generate a Passkey credential using a home-grown module - the extension has no involvement, neither does ASAuthorizationSecurityKeyPublicKeyCredentialProvider. I can confirm the passkey does get created. Next the credential is posted to <server>/attestation/results with the response JSON being parsed and used to create a ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity - a sample of the response JSON is attached. Here is my save function: static func save(authenticator: AuthenticatorInfo) async throws { guard let credentialID = Data(base64URLEncoded: authenticator.attributes.credentialId) else { throw AuthenticatorError.invalidEncoding("Credential ID is not a valid Base64URL string.") } guard let userHandle = authenticator.userId.data(using: .utf8) else { throw AuthenticatorError.invalidEncoding("User handle is not a valid UTF-8 string.") } let identity = ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity( relyingPartyIdentifier: authenticator.attributes.rpId, userName: authenticator.userId, // This is what the user sees in the UI credentialID: credentialID, userHandle: userHandle, recordIdentifier: authenticator.id ) try await ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.saveCredentialIdentities([identity]) } Although no error occurs, I don't get any identities returned when I call this method: let identities = await ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.credentialIdentities( forService: nil, credentialIdentityTypes: [.passkey] ) Here is the Info.plist in the Extension: <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>NSExtension</key> <dict> <key>NSExtensionAttributes</key> <dict> <key>ASCredentialProviderExtensionCapabilities</key> <dict> <key>ProvidesPasskeys</key> <true/> </dict> <key>ASCredentialProviderExtensionShowsConfigurationUI</key> <true/> </dict> <key>NSExtensionPointIdentifier</key> <string>com.apple.authentication-services-credential-provider-ui</string> <key>NSExtensionPrincipalClass</key> <string>$(PRODUCT_MODULE_NAME).CredentialProviderViewController</string> </dict> </dict> </plist> The entitlements are valid and the app and extension both support the same group. I'm stumped as to why the identity is not getting saved. Any ideas and not getting retrieved. attestationResult.json

Hello, I've developed a macOS app with an AutoFill Credential Provider extension that functions as a passkey provider. In the registration flow, I want my app to appear as a passkey provider only when specific conditions are met. Is there a way to inspect the request from the web before the passkey provider selection list is displayed to the user, determine whether my app can handle it, and then use that result to instruct the OS on whether to include my app in the passkey provider selection list? Alternatively, is there a way to predefine conditions that must be met before my app is offered as a passkey provider in the selection list? Thanks!

Hi, I’m currently implementing App Attest attestation validation on the development server. However, I’m receiving a 403 Forbidden response when I POST a CBOR-encoded payload to the following endpoint: curl -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/cbor" --data-binary @payload.cbor 'https://data-development.appattest.apple.com' Here’s how I’m generating the CBOR payload in Java: Map&lt;String, Object&gt; payload = new HashMap&lt;&gt;(); payload.put("attestation", attestationBytes); // byte[] from DCAppAttestService payload.put("clientDataHash", clientDataHash); // SHA-256 hash of the challenge (byte[]) payload.put("keyId", keyIdBytes); // Base64-decoded keyId (byte[]) payload.put("appId", TEAM_ID + "." + BUNDLE_ID); // e.g., "ABCDE12345.com.example.app" ObjectMapper cborMapper = new ObjectMapper(new CBORFactory()); byte[] cborBody = cborMapper.writeValueAsBytes(payload); I’m unsure whether the endpoint is rejecting the payload format or if the endpoint itself is incorrect for this stage. I’d appreciate clarification on the following: 1. Is https://data-development.appattest.apple.com the correct endpoint for key attestation in a development environment? 2. Should this endpoint accept CBOR-encoded payloads, or is it only for JSON-based assertion validation? 3. Is there a current official Apple documentation that lists: • the correct URLs for key attestation and assertion validation (production and development), • or any server-side example code (e.g., Java, Python) for handling attestation/validation on the backend? So far, I couldn’t find an official document that explicitly describes the expected HTTP endpoints for these operations. If there’s a newer guide or updated API reference, I’d appreciate a link. Thanks in advance for your help.

We are using ASWebAuthenticationSession with apps on IoS to achieve SSO between apps. The IdP for authentication (OIDC) is an on-premise and trusted enterprise IdP based on one of the leading products in the market. Our problem is that the user is prompted for every login (and logouts) with a consent dialogue box: “AppName” wants to use “internal domain-name” to Sign In This allows the app and website to share information about you. Cancel Continue” I have read in various places that Apple has a concept of “Trusted domains” where you can put an “Apple certified” static web-page on the IdP. This page needs to contain specific metadata that iOS can verify. Once a user logs in successfully a few times, and if the IdP is verified as trusted, subsequent logins would not prompt the consent screen. Question: I struggle to find Apple documentation on how to go about a process that ends with this “Apple certified web-page” on our IdP”. Anyone who has experience with this process, or who can point me in some direction to find related documentation?

Hi everyone, I’m working on adapting our app to iOS 26’s new passkey feature, specifically Automatic Passkey Upgrades. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2025/279/ Our app already supports passkey registration and authentication, which have been running reliably in production. We’d like to extend passkey coverage to more users. According to the WWDC session, adding the parameter requestStyle: .conditional to createCredentialRegistrationRequest should allow the system to seamlessly upgrade an account with a passkey. However, in my testing, I consistently receive the following error: Error | Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1001 "(null)" Test environment: Xcode 26.0 beta 4 (17A5285i) iPhone 11 running iOS 26.0 (23A5297n) Questions: Is the Automatic Passkey Upgrades feature currently available in iOS 26? I understand that the system may perform internal checks and not all upgrade attempts will succeed. However, during development, is there a way to obtain more diagnostic information? At the moment, it’s unclear whether the failure is due to internal validation or an issue with my code or environment. Thanks.

I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. There have been substantial changes in this space recently. While much of this is now covered in the official docs (r. 92322409), I’ve updated this post to go into all the gory details. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the App & System Services > Core OS topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if your question is about app group containers, also include Files and Storage. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony There are two styles of app group ID: iOS-style app group IDs start with group., for example, group.eskimo1.test. macOS-style app group IDs start with your Team ID, for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. This difference has been the source of numerous weird problems over the years. Starting in Feb 2025, iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on macOS for all product types [1]. If you’re writing new code that uses app groups, use an iOS-style app group ID. If you have existing code that uses a macOS-style app group ID, consider how you might transition to the iOS style. IMPORTANT The Feb 2025 changes aren’t tied to an OS release but rather to a Developer website update. For more on this, see Feb 2025 Changes, below. [1] If your product is a standalone executable, like a daemon or agent, wrap it in an app-like structure, as explained in Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement. iOS-Style App Group IDs An iOS-style app group ID has the following features: It starts with the group. prefix, for example, group.eskimo1.test. You allocate it on the Developer website. This assigns the app group ID to your team. You then claim access to it by listing it in the App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. That claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile [1]. The Developer website will only let you include your team’s app group IDs in your profile. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. iOS-style app group IDs originated on iOS with iOS 3.0. They’ve always been supported on iOS’s child platforms (iPadOS, tvOS, visionOS, and watchOS). On the Mac: They’ve been supported by Mac Catalyst since that technology was introduced. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Starting in Feb 2025, they’re supported for other Mac products. [1] Strictly speaking macOS does not require that, but if your claim is not authorised by a profile then you might run into other problems. See Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. macOS-Style App Group IDs A macOS-style app group ID has the following features: It should start with your Team ID [1], for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. It can’t be explicitly allocated on the Developer website. Code that isn’t sandboxed doesn’t need to claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. [2] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted on macOS, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile [3]. However, if you claim an app group ID that’s not authorised in some way, you might run into problems. More on that later in this post. If you submit an app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense, that is, they either start with your Team ID (macOS style) or are assigned to your team (iOS style). [1] This is “should” because, historically, macOS has not actually required it. However, that’s now changing, with things like app group container protection. [2] This was true prior to macOS 15. It may still technically be true in macOS 15 and later, but the most important thing, access to the app group container, requires the entitlement because of app group container protection. [3] Technically it’s a validation-required entitlement, something that we’ll come back to in the Entitlements-Validated Flag section. Feb 2025 Changes On 21 Feb 2025 we rolled out a change to the Developer website that completes the support for iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Specifically, it’s now possible to create a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group ID. Note This change doesn’t affect Mac Catalyst or iOS Apps on Mac, which have always been able to use iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Prior to this change it was possible to use an iOS-style app group ID on the Mac but that might result in some weird behaviour. Later sections of this post describe some of those problems. Of course, that information is now only of historical interest because, if you’re using an iOS-style app group, you can and should authorise that use with a provisioning profile. We also started seeding Xcode 16.3, which has since been release. This is aware of the Developer website change, and its Signing & Capabilities editor actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. Note This Xcode behaviour is the only option for iOS and its child platforms. With Xcode 16.3, it’s now the default for macOS as well. If you have existing project, enable this behaviour using the Register App Groups build setting. Finally, we updated a number of app group documentation pages, including App Groups entitlement and Configuring app groups. Crossing the Streams In some circumstances you might need to have a single app that accesses both an iOS- and a macOS-style app group. For example: You have a macOS app. You want to migrate to an iOS-style app group ID, perhaps because you want to share an app group container with a Mac Catalyst app. But you also need to access existing content in a container identified by a macOS-style app group ID. Historically this caused problems (FB16664827) but, as of Jun 2025, this is fully supported (r. 148552377). When the Developer website generates a Mac provisioning profile for an App ID with the App Groups capability, it automatically adds TEAM_ID.* to the list of app group IDs authorised by that profile (where TEAM_ID is your Team ID). This allows the app to claim access to every iOS-style app group ID associated with the App ID and any macOS-style app group IDs for that team. This helps in two circumstances: It avoids any Mac App Store Connect submission problems, because App Store Connect can see that the app’s profile authorises its use of all the it app group IDs it claims access to. Outside of App Store — for example, when you directly distribute an app using Developer ID signing — you no longer have to rely on macOS granting implicit access to macOS-style app group IDs. Rather, such access is explicitly authorised by your profile. That ensures that your entitlements remain validated, as discussed in the Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. A Historical Interlude These different styles of app group IDs have historical roots: On iOS, third-party apps have always used provisioning profiles, and thus the App Groups entitlement is restricted just like any other entitlement. On macOS, support for app groups was introduced before macOS had general support for provisioning profiles [1], and thus the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted. The unrestricted nature of this entitlement poses two problems. The first is accidental collisions. How do you prevent folks from accidentally using an app group ID that’s in use by some other developer? On iOS this is easy: The Developer website assigns each app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. macOS achieved a similar result by using the Team ID as a prefix. The second problem is malicious reuse. How do you prevent a Mac app from accessing the app group containers of some other team? Again, this isn’t an issue on iOS because the App Groups entitlement is restricted. On macOS the solution was for the Mac App Store to prevent you from publishing an app that used an app group ID that’s used by another team. However, this only works for Mac App Store apps. Directly distributed apps were free to access app group containers of any other app. That was considered acceptable back when the Mac App Store was first introduced. That’s no longer the case, which is why macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. See App Group Container Protection, below. [1] I’m specifically talking about provisioning profiles for directly distributed apps, that is, apps using Developer ID signing. Entitlements-Validated Flag The fact that the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted on macOS is, when you think about it, a little odd. The purpose of entitlements is to gate access to functionality. If an entitlement isn’t restricted, it’s not much of a gate! For most unrestricted entitlements that’s not a problem. Specifically, for both the App Sandbox and Hardened Runtime entitlements, those are things you opt in to, so macOS is happy to accept the entitlement at face value. After all, if you want to cheat you can just not opt in [1]. However, this isn’t the case for the App Groups entitlement, which actually gates access to functionality. Dealing with this requires macOS to walk a fine line between security and compatibility. Part of that solution is the entitlements-validated flag. When a process runs an executable, macOS checks its entitlements. There are two categories: Restricted entitlements must be authorised by a provisioning profile. If your process runs an executable that claims a restricted entitlement that’s not authorised by a profile, the system traps. Unrestricted entitlements don’t have to be authorised by a provisioning profile; they can be used by any code at any time. However, the App Groups entitlement is a special type of unrestricted entitlement called a validation-required entitlement. If a process runs an executable that claims a validation-required entitlement and that claim is not authorised by a profile, the system allows the process to continue running but clears its entitlements-validated flag. Some subsystems gate functionality on the entitlements-validated flag. For example, the data protection keychain uses entitlements as part of its access control model, but refuses to honour those entitlements if the entitlement-validated flag has been cleared. Note If you’re curious about this flag, use the procinfo subcommand of launchctl to view it. For example: % sudo launchctl procinfo `pgrep Test20230126` … code signing info = valid … entitlements validated … If the flag has been cleared, this line will be missing from the code signing info section. Historically this was a serious problem because it prevented you from creating an app that uses both app groups and the data protection keychain [2] (r. 104859788). Fortunately that’s no longer an issue because the Developer website now lets you include the App Groups entitlement in macOS provisioning profiles. [1] From the perspective of macOS checking entitlements at runtime. There are other checks: The App Sandbox is mandatory for Mac App Store apps, but that’s checked when you upload the app to App Store Connect. Directly distributed apps must be notarised to pass Gatekeeper, and the notary service requires that all executables enable the hardened runtime. [2] See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain a historical oddity associated with keychain access. The Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps article says: Application groups When you collect related apps into an application group using the App Groups entitlement, they share access to a group container, and gain the ability to message each other in certain ways. You can use app group names as keychain access group names, without adding them to the Keychain Access Groups entitlement. On iOS this makes a lot of sense: The App Groups entitlement is a restricted entitlement on iOS. The Developer website assigns each iOS-style app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. The required group. prefix means that these keychain access groups can’t collide with other keychain access groups, which all start with an App ID prefix (there’s also Apple-only keychain access groups that start with other prefixes, like apple). However, this didn’t work on macOS [1] because the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted there. However, with the Feb 2025 changes it should now be possible to use an iOS-style app group ID as a keychain access group on macOS. Note I say “should” because I’ve not actually tried it (-: Keep in mind that standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on all platforms, using the restricted Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for Mac Catalyst apps and iOS Apps on Mac. Not Entirely Unsatisfied When you launch a Mac app that uses app groups you might see this log entry: type: error time: 10:41:35.858009+0000 process: taskgated-helper subsystem: com.apple.ManagedClient category: ProvisioningProfiles message: com.example.apple-samplecode.Test92322409: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups Note The exact format of that log entry, and the circumstances under which it’s generated, varies by platform. On macOS 13.0.1 I was able to generate it by running a sandboxed app that claims a macOS-style app group ID in the App Groups entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. It means that the App Groups entitlement claims an entitlement that’s not authorised by a provisioning profile. On iOS this would trap, but on macOS the system allows the process to continue running. It does, however, clear the entitlements-validate flag. See Entitlements-Validated Flag for an in-depth discussion of this. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to authorise your app group ID claims with a provisioning profile. If there’s some reason you can’t do that, watch out for potential problems with: The data protection keychain — See the discussion of that in the Entitlements-Validated Flag and App Groups and the Keychain sections, both above. App group container protection — See App Group Container Protection, below. App Group Container Protection macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. To access an app group container without user intervention: Claim access to the app group by listing its ID in the App Groups entitlement. Locate the container by calling the containerURL(forSecurityApplicationGroupIdentifier:) method. Ensure that at least one of the following criteria are met: 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]. If your app doesn’t follow these rules, the system prompts the user to approve its access to the container. If granted, that consent applies only for the duration of that app instance. For more on this, see: The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15 Release Notes The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15.1 Release Notes WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy, starting at 12:23 The above criteria mean that you rarely run into the app group authorisation prompt. If you encounter a case where that happens, feel free to start a thread here on DevForums. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Note Prior to the Feb 2025 change, things generally worked out fine when you app was deployed but you might’ve run into problems during development. That’s no longer the case. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Revision History 2025-08-12 Added a reference to the Register App Groups build setting. 2025-07-28 Updated the Crossing the Streams section for the Jun 2025 change. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-04-16 Rewrote the document now that iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on the Mac. Changed the title from App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight! to App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony 2025-02-25 Fixed the Xcode version number mentioned in yesterday’s update. 2025-02-24 Added a quick update about the iOS-style app group IDs on macOS issue. 2024-11-05 Further clarified app group container protection. Reworked some other sections to account for this new reality. 2024-10-29 Clarified the points in App Group Container Protection. 2024-10-23 Fleshed out the discussion of app group container protection on macOS 15. 2024-09-04 Added information about app group container protection on macOS 15. 2023-01-31 Renamed the Not Entirely Unsatisfactory section to Not Entirely Unsatisfied. Updated it to describe the real impact of that log message. 2022-12-12 First posted.

I am using Auth0 as a login manager for our app. The way Auth0 handles login is that their SDK will create a web view where the login is actually handled. Once the login is finished the session will end and the app will gain control. We are not set up for passkeys in their system and can't set up quickly to do that. Unfortunately with the new iOS "passkey is the primary login" way iOS is set up now, users are asked to use passkey when it's not supported on the backend. I don't have direct control of the login screens. Is there any way, at the app level, to tell the app to not use passkeys so that it quits showing up as an option for the users? I can't find any documentation on doing this. How can I stop passkey in my app entirely?

Please correct the following issues and upload a new binary to App Store Connect. ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest - Your app includes “Frameworks/FirebaseCoreDiagnostics.framework/FirebaseCoreDiagnostics”, which includes FirebaseCoreDiagnostics, an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a commonly used third-party SDK. If a new app includes a commonly used third-party SDK, or an app update adds a new commonly used third-party SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest - Your app includes “Frameworks/FBLPromises.framework/FBLPromises”, which includes FBLPromises, an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a commonly used third-party SDK. If a new app includes a commonly used third-party SDK, or an app update adds a new commonly used third-party SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest - Your app includes “Frameworks/GoogleDataTransport.framework/GoogleDataTransport”, which includes GoogleDataTransport, an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a commonly used third-party SDK. If a new app includes a commonly used third-party SDK, or an app update adds a new commonly used third-party SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. our app is .NET MAUI app so we already addressed this by adding privacyinfo.xcprivacy privacy manifest under platform/ios/resources but still get flagged for this <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyTracking</key> <false/> <key>NSPrivacyTrackingDomains</key> <array/> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypes</key> <array> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryFileTimestamp</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>C617.1</string> </array> </dict> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategorySystemBootTime</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>35F9.1</string> </array> </dict> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryDiskSpace</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>E174.1</string> </array> </dict> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryUserDefaults</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>CA92.1</string> </array> </dict> </array> <key>NSPrivacyCollectedDataTypes</key> <array/> </dict> </plist>

In a project I was using Local Authentication to authenticate a user. When I got a request to support smartcard/PIV token authentication (which Local Authentication does not support), I had to switch to Authorization Services, which works pretty. There's only one issue I have. Local Authentication's evaluatePolicy:localizedReason:reply: requires a reason in the form "&lt;appname&gt;" is trying to &lt;localized reason&gt;. The app is currently translated into 41 languages and I would like to use the localized strings for the AuthorizationEnvironment of Authorization Services as well. The problem is that Local Authentication prefixes the localized string with something like "&lt;appname&gt;" is trying to and Authorization Services does not do this. Is there a way to get this prefix from somewhere so I can manually add it to the (partially) localized string? Any help would be highly appreciated. Thank you, Marc

An ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest rejection email looks as follows: ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest- Your app includes "<path/to/SDK>", which includes , an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a privacy-impacting third-party SDK. Starting February 12, 2025, if a new app includes a privacy-impacting SDK, or an app update adds a new privacy-impacting SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. Glossary ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest: An email that includes the name and path of privacy-impacting SDK(s) with no privacy manifest files in your app bundle. For more information, see https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. : The specified privacy-impacting SDK that doesn't include a privacy manifest file. If you are the developer of the rejected app, gather the name of the SDK from the email you received from Apple, then contact the SDK's provider for an updated version that includes a valid privacy manifest. After receiving an updated version of the SDK, verify the SDK includes a valid privacy manifest file at the expected location. For more information, see Adding a privacy manifest to your app or third-party SDK. If your app includes a privacy manifest file, make sure the file only describes the privacy practices of your app. Do not add the privacy practices of the SDK to your app's privacy manifest. If the email lists multiple SDKs, repeat the above process for all of them. If you are the developer of an SDK listed in the email, publish an updated version of your SDK that includes a privacy manifest file with valid keys and values. Every privacy-impacting SDK must contain a privacy manifest file that only describes its privacy practices. To learn how to add a valid privacy manifest to your SDK, see the Additional resources section below. Additional resources Privacy manifest files Describing data use in privacy manifests Describing use of required reason API Adding a privacy manifest to your app or third-party SDK TN3182: Adding privacy tracking keys to your privacy manifest TN3183: Adding required reason API entries to your privacy manifest TN3184: Adding data collection details to your privacy manifest TN3181: Debugging an invalid privacy manifest

Hi everyone, I'm working on an app that stores multiple secrets in the Keychain, each protected with .userPresence. My goal is to authenticate the user once via FaceID/TouchID and then read multiple Keychain items without triggering subsequent prompts. I am reusing the same LAContext instance for these operations, and I have set: context.touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration = LATouchIDAuthenticationMaximumAllowableReuseDuration However, I'm observing that every single SecItemCopyMatching call triggers a new FaceID/TouchID prompt, even if they happen within seconds of each other using the exact same context. Here is a simplified flow of what I'm doing: Create a LAContext. Set touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration to max. Perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item A, passing [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID. Success. Immediately perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item B, passing the same [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID again. My question is: Does the .userPresence access control flag inherently force a new user interaction for every Keychain access, regardless of the LAContext reuse duration? Is allowableReuseDuration only applicable for LAContext.evaluatePolicy calls and not for SecItem queries? If so, is there a recommended pattern for "unlocking" a group of Keychain items with a single biometric prompt? Environment: iOS 17+, Swift. Thanks!

Dear Apple Developer Support Team, We are experiencing a recurring issue with the DeviceCheck API where the following error is being returned: com.apple.devicecheck.error 0 Upon analyzing our logs, we have noticed that this error occurs significantly more often when users are connected to Wi-Fi networks, compared to mobile networks. This leads us to suspect that there might be a relationship between Wi-Fi configuration and the DeviceCheck service’s ability to generate or validate tokens. We would like to know: Is this error code (0) known to be caused by specific types of network behavior or misconfigurations on Wi-Fi networks (e.g., DNS filtering, firewall restrictions, proxy servers)? Are there any recommended best practices for ensuring reliable DeviceCheck API communication over Wi-Fi networks? Additionally, could you please clarify what general conditions could trigger this com.apple.devicecheck.error 0? The lack of specific documentation makes debugging this issue difficult from our side. Any guidance or internal documentation on this error code and its potential causes would be greatly appreciated. IDE: Xcode 16.3 Looking forward to your support. Best regards,