Prioritize user privacy and data security in your app. Discuss best practices for data handling, user consent, and security measures to protect user information.

Post

Replies

Boosts

Views

Activity

IOS 18.3 does not accept the trusted CA's certificate after changed the website cert
Hello, wehave some Iphone in the family and noticed a strange issue: On a website the site admins renewed the webserver cert, and now most of the IOS devices( Iphone 15 / 15 Pro Max / Ipad 10) doesnot trust in the new cert, while the apple trustsin the rootCA webste: https://etitan.hu RootCA CN = NetLock Arany (Class Gold) Főtanúsítvány ios 18 trusted CAs:https://support.apple.com/en-us/121672 So any idea whats wrong ? On windows everything is OK !
0
0
25
2h
Gate Keeper Issue
Hi, I develop a Mac application, initially on Catalina/Xcode12, but I recently upgrade to Monterey/Xcode13. I'm about to publish a new version: on Monterey all works as expected, but when I try the app on Sequoia, as a last step before uploading to the App Store, I encountered some weird security issues: The main symptom is that it's no longer possible to save any file from the app using the Save panel, although the User Select File entitlement is set to Read/Write. I've tried reinstalling different versions of the app, including the most recent downloaded from TestFlight. But, whatever the version, any try to save using the panel (e.g. on the desktop) results in a warning telling that I don't have authorization to record the file to that folder. Moreover, when I type spctl -a -t exec -v /Applications/***.app in the terminal, it returns rejected, even when the application has been installed by TestFlight. An EtreCheck report tells that my app is not signed, while codesign -dv /Applications/***.app returns a valid signature. I'm lost... It suspect a Gate Keeper problem, but I cannot found any info on the web about how this system could be reset. I tried sudo spctl --reset-default, but it returns This operation is no longer supported... I wonder if these symptoms depend on how the app is archived and could be propagated to my final users, or just related to a corrupted install of Sequoia on my local machine. My feeling is that a signature problem should have been detected by the archive validation, but how could we be sure? Any idea would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
3
0
80
9h
Different PRF output when using platform or cross-platform authentication attachement
Hello, I am using the prf extension for passkeys that is available since ios 18 and macos15. I am using a fixed, hardcoded prf input when creating or geting the credentials. After creating a passkey, i try to get the credentials and retrieve the prf output, which works great, but i am getting different prf outputs for the same credential and same prf input used in the following scenarios: Logging in directly (platform authenticator) on my macbook/iphone/ipad i get "prf output X" consistently for the 3 devices When i use my iphone/ipad to scan the qr code on my macbook (cross-platform authenticator) i get "prf output Y" consistently with both my ipad and iphone. Is this intended? Is there a way to get deterministic prf output for both platform and cross-platform auth attachements while using the same credential and prf input?
9
0
484
Sep ’24
Using Device Data for Finger Printing
Our business model is to identify Frauds using our advanced AI/ML model. However, in order to do so we need to collect many device information which seems to be ok according to https://developer.apple.com/app-store/user-privacy-and-data-use/ But it's also prohibited to generate a fingerprint, so I need more clarification here. Does it mean I can only use the data to identify that a user if either fraud or not but I cannot generate a fingerprint to identify the device? If so, I can see many SKD in the market that generates Fingerprints like https://fingerprint.com/blog/local-device-fingerprint-ios/ and https://shield.com/?
0
0
65
1d
suddenly 'zsh: killed' my Xcode-based console app
I have a small command-line app I've been using for years to process files. I have it run by an Automator script, so that I can drop files onto it. It stopped working this morning. At first, I could still run the app from the command line, without Automator. But then after I recompiled the app, now I cannot even do that. When I run it, it's saying 'zsh: killed' followed by my app's path. What is that? The app does run if I run it from Xcode. How do I fix this?
3
0
185
3d
App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight!
IMPORTANT It’s now possible to create a macOS provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group. This works in both Xcode 16.3 beta and when you manually create a profile on the Developer website. This change means that much of the following is no longer relevant. I plan to update this post with more details at some point, but I wanted to start with a quick update to highlight this important development. I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. One day I’ll have time to write this up for the official docs (r. 92322409) but, in the meantime, here’s a quick overview. [Well, it was a quick overview. Things have got considerably more complicated in recent years.] If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the Privacy & Security > General topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if this is about app group container protection, 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: Fight! The app groups mechanism works differently on macOS and iOS. On iOS: App group IDs start with the group. prefix. To use an app group ID, first allocate it on the Developer website. This associates the app group ID with your team. Then claim the app group ID in your app’s App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. Like all entitlements on iOS, that claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile. A profile will only authorise an app group ID that’s allocated by your team. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. In contrast, on macOS: App group IDs typically start with your Team ID. They 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. [1] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile. The App Store submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense. IMPORTANT In this context I’m using macOS to refer to a standard macOS app. In Mac Catalyst things behave as they do on iOS. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Also, anything I say about iOS also applies to tvOS, watchOS, and visionOS. This difference is a product of the way that each platform protects app group content. On iOS the Developer website enforces group uniqueness, that is, the site prevents team B from using an app group ID that’s assigned to team A. In contrast, on macOS: App group IDs are prefixed with the Team ID solely to prevent collisions. The Mac App Store prevents you from publishing an app that uses an app group ID that’s used by another team. In macOS 15 and later, all apps are subject to app group container protection. [1] 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. Crossing the Streams [… and mixing my pop culture metaphors!] In some circumstances you might need to share an app group between iOS and macOS code. For example, you might have a Mac app that needs to share an app group with: A Mac Catalyst app An iOS app that runs on macOS via iOS Apps on Mac The solution is to use an iOS-style app group ID in your Mac app. To do this: Confirm that the app group ID is registered to your team on the Developer website. Claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. If you submit that app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group ID claims make sense, that is, they either follow the macOS convention (use a prefix of the Team ID) or the iOS convention (allocate a group ID, with the group. prefix, on the Developer website). IMPORTANT Due to app group container protection, this approach is only viable for Mac App Store apps. For more details, see App Group Container Protection, below. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain an oddity associated with keychain access. Consider this quote from Sharing Access to Keychain Items Among a Collection of Apps: 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. Starting in iOS 8, the array of strings given by this entitlement also extends the list of keychain access groups. There are three things to note here: Using an app group ID as a keychain access group only works on iOS; it’s not supported on macOS [1] because doing so would be insecure. The App Groups entitlement must be authorised by a provisioning profile on iOS, and that process is what protects the keychain from unauthorised access. 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). In contrast, standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on both platforms, using the Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for 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 the App Group entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. You see this error when you have a sandboxed app that uses an app group. In a sandboxed app your use of the app group must be authorised by the App Groups entitlement. This message is telling you that your use of the App Groups entitlement is not authorised by your provisioning profile. On iOS this would be a show stopper. The trusted execution system would prevent your app from launching at all. On macOS that’s not the case. The trusted execution system knows that there’s no way to get a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the App Groups entitlement, and thus it allows the app to launch anyway. However, that’s not the end of the story. You might run into problems with: macOS 15’s app group container protection The entitlements validated flag 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 when your app is deployed. 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. However, you might run into some issues during development: If you have a multiplatform app built from a single target — for example, if you created the project from the Multiplatform > App template — Xcode’s Signing & Capabilities editor doesn’t understand all of these app group nuances. To work around this, conditionalise the entitlements file build setting. See this thread for more. If you use an iOS-style app group ID in a macOS app, you might run into the authorisation prompt during day-to-day development. One way around this is to use a macOS-style app group ID during development and switch to the iOS-style app group ID for production. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Entitlements Validated Flag If your app claims the app group entitlement but that claim isn’t authorised by a provisioning profile, the trusted execution system allows the app to launch but it clears its entitlements validated flag. Some subsystems that rely on entitlements will fail in this case. The most notable example of this is the data protection keychain. 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. The practical impact of this is that, for a sandboxed app on macOS, you can either use app groups or use the data protection keychain, but not both. Needless to say, this is less than ideal (r. 104859788). IMPORTANT This doesn’t stop you using the keychain in general. You can still use the file-based keychain. For more information about these terms, see TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations. One place this often crops up is with Network Extension (NE) framework system extensions. These must be sandboxed and often use an app group as part of their IPC story. Specifically, they might want to publish an XPC named endpoint and, when doing that, the name listed in NEMachServiceName must be a ‘child’ of an app group. Fortunately, system extensions are effectively daemons and so can’t use the data protection keychain anyway. So, if you’re building an NE system extension, this message is probably nothing to be worried about. If you’re building some other program that’s affected by this, open a thread here on DevForums and let’s talk. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Revision History 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.
0
0
3k
Dec ’22
Missing privacy manifest
Hi, The email attached states that we need to add GoogleToolboxForMac's missing privacy manifest. I received the attached report after running my app privacy report, however it is different and does not include GoogleToolboxForMac. I'm not sure if we need to add the privacy manifest for GoogleToolboxForMac alone or for both of them. If yes, what should I put in my privacy manifest for GoogleToolboxForMac? IS IT BELOW CODE NEED TO ADD IN PRIVACY MANIFEST OR IS IT BELOW CODE NEED TO ADD IN PRIVACY MANIFEST Please reply ASAP Regards, Viharshitha
10
1
316
1w
Handling ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest
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
0
0
706
4d
iOS 18.3.1 - App shows multiple Face ID checks issue when launched
Our app uses Face ID to optionally secure access to the app for device owner. This not the new 'Require Face ID' feature of iOS 18 - this is our own custom implementation that has some other related logic for authentication handling. Starting in iOS 18.3.1, starting the app results in multiple Face Id checks being fired - sometimes just a couple but sometimes many more. Curiously, this is happening even when I completely disable any code we have that prompts for Face ID. It appears to come from nowhere. This does not happen on prior iOS 18 releases so, while I might be doing something improper in the code, something specific has changed in iOS 18.3.1 to cause this issue to manifest. I'm looking for advice as to what could be occurring here, how to debug a Face Id check that appears to come from nowhere, and what, if any, workarounds exist.
3
0
223
5d
App Closes After Apple Sign-In on Vision Pro When Launched Directly
I am experiencing an issue with Apple Sign-In on Vision Pro. When I build and run the app from Xcode, everything works fine—after signing in, the app returns to the foreground as expected. However, when I launch the app directly on Vision Pro (not from Xcode), after completing the sign-in process, the app does not reopen from the background automatically. Instead, it closes, and I have to manually tap the app icon to reopen it. Has anyone else encountered this issue? Is there a way to ensure the app properly resumes after sign-in without requiring manual intervention?
0
0
134
1d
Impact of Security Vulnerabilities Caused by Enabling "Generate Debug Symbols"
We are working with an iOS app where we have enabled the “Generate Debug Symbols” setting to true in Xcode. As a result, the .dSYM files are generated and utilized in Firebase Crashlytics for crash reporting. However, we received a note in our Vulnerability Assessment report indicating a potential security concern. The report mentions that the .ipa file could be reverse-engineered due to the presence of debug symbols, and that such symbols should not be included in a released app. We could not find any security-related information about this flag, “Generate Debug Symbols,” in Apple’s documentation. Could you please clarify if enabling the “Generate Debug Symbols” flag in Xcode for a production app creates any security vulnerabilities, such as the one described in the report? The report mentions the following vulnerability: TEST-0219: Testing for Debugging Symbols The concern raised is that debugging symbols, while useful for crash symbolication, may be leveraged to reverse-engineer the app and should not be present in a production release. Your prompt confirmation on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
0
0
158
1d
Issue with "NSUserTrackingUsageDescription" Blocking App Update Submission
Hi everyone, I’m currently facing an issue while trying to submit an update for my app to the App Store. The review process is blocking the update due to a "Privacy - Data Use and Sharing" warning, stating that our app requests "tracking purchase history for tracking purposes." However, we have already removed this functionality and deleted the NSUserTrackingUsageDescription key from our latest build. Despite this, the warning persists, and we are unable to proceed with the update. I have already contacted Apple Support, but in the meantime, I wanted to ask the community: Has anyone else encountered this issue, and if so, how did you resolve it? Is there a way to force a refresh of privacy-related settings in App Store Connect? Are there any additional steps we need to take to completely remove this tracking flag from our app submission? Any insights or guidance would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance for your help.
0
0
143
4d
Sign in with Apple Sync Issues Across Teams
We have 2 developers: Developer A created a Bundle ID and configured Sign in with Apple, but didn't create a corresponding App. This Bundle ID is only used for login on our official website. Developer B created a Bundle ID, configured Sign in with Apple, and has a corresponding App. The issue we're encountering is that because these two Bundle IDs are under different teams, when using the same Apple ID to log into these two applications, different accounts are generated. (We've tested that when creating Service IDs under the same team, logging in with Bundle IDs under the same team generates the same account.) Since Developer A's Bundle ID doesn't have a created app, it cannot be transferred to Developer B. Therefore, we'd like to know if there's any way to make the accounts generated from logging in with the same Apple ID be identical across these two teams?
0
0
113
5d
Understanding Sandbox Violations for system services
According to https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/app_sandbox/discovering_and_diagnosing_app_sandbox_violations it is possible to view detailed violation reports for non-system services. Is it possible to do something similar for system services? I have encountered an issue where several (all?) of my Macbooks get into a sandbox violation situation (I assume). Below is in excerpt from logs focusing just on the sandbox violation. The errors are surrounded by XPC failures and errors. error 23:23:21.382263+0100 kernel Sandbox: Family(1316) deny(1) mach-lookup com.apple.contactsd.persistence error 23:23:24.385962+0100 kernel Sandbox: Family(1316) deny(1) mach-lookup com.apple.contactsd.persistence error 23:23:27.389910+0100 kernel Sandbox: Family(1316) deny(1) mach-lookup com.apple.contactsd.persistence error 23:23:36.408940+0100 kernel Sandbox: Family(1316) deny(1) mach-lookup com.apple.contactsd.persistence error 23:23:45.419593+0100 kernel Sandbox: Family(1316) deny(1) mach-lookup com.apple.contactsd.persistence error 23:23:54.432109+0100 kernel Sandbox: Family(1316) deny(1) mach-lookup com.apple.contactsd.persistence The above is just an except, and it seems that Family, imagent and searchpartyuseragent are trying to access com.apple.contactsd.persistance once per second or so and failing (there are also some attempts to reach com.apple.timed.xpc, but an insignificant amount in comparison to com.apple.contactsd.persistance). This in turn causes Diagnostics Reporter to start, and then end hastily almost every ten seconds. fault 23:23:05.903908+0100 Diagnostics Reporter Invalid launch. fault 23:23:16.038017+0100 Diagnostics Reporter Invalid launch. fault 23:23:26.136348+0100 Diagnostics Reporter Invalid launch. fault 23:23:36.274543+0100 Diagnostics Reporter Invalid launch. fault 23:23:46.414546+0100 Diagnostics Reporter Invalid launch. I have no idea how I did this, but I seemed to have messed up sandbox access rights to contacts for some system services?
11
5
4.2k
Jan ’24
Keychain Item Invalidation After Interrupted Face ID Reset on iOS 18.3.1
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.
1
0
181
6d
Issues after app transfer
We recently transferred two applications to a different account, both of which utilize Keychain and shared app containers. Before transferring the first application, we anticipated losing access to the Keychain and took proactive measures by backing up data to the app’s private container in the final release prior to the transfer. During the app transfer process, we removed the shared container group ID from the old account and recreated it under the new account. In our testing, Keychain restoration from the local backup was successful, and users experienced no disruptions. However, after releasing the application, we observed that approximately 25% of our users not only lost their Keychain data as expected but also their shared app container data. As we have been unable to reproduce this issue internally, we are seeking your guidance on how to prevent a similar situation when transferring our second application. At this stage, we have not yet released any updates from the new account, and the Keychain data remains backed up in the app’s private container. We would appreciate any insights or recommendations you can provide to ensure a smooth transition for our users and make sure we can keep the data in shared container.
1
0
196
6d
App auto PopUps stopping a text out and call out
Hello, I have created an app for both iOs and Android where upon speaking two trigger words, the listening app sends a text and then calls to an inputted designated phone contact. The Android version works perfectly. The iOs version also works perfectly but the iOs app emiits a PopUp for each, the text and then the call asking "Do you really want to send the text -or- make the call". Basically, I input the contact info and I spoke the trigger words. So, yes I want to send the text and make the call. So, I have to click the two PopUps then the device sends and calls. Is there a way to suppress the PopUps in any way? The app is designed for emergencies. So, a dely to anser a popup is not at all good. Maybe by telling the device to allow auto calls and texts from my app? Any and all help on this issue will be very welcomed... Thanks :)
1
0
204
5d
How to modify the login right for headless login
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?
1
0
180
6d