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"

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

Hi, In our app we are using DeviceCheck (App Attest) in a production environment iOS. The service works correctly for most users, but a user reported failure in a flow that use device check service. This failure is not intermittently, it is constant. We are unable to reproduce this failure and we are believing that this failure occurred by new version ios 26.3 because for others users using early versions the service is normally. Environment iOS 26.3 Real device App Attest capability enabled Correct App ID, Team ID and App Attest entitlement Production environment Characteristics: appears constantly affects only unique user -Don't resolves after time or reinstall not reproducible on our test devices NSError contains no additional diagnostic info (Error Domain=com.apple.devicecheck.error Code=3 "(null)") We saw about this error code 3 in this post 812308, but it's not our case because the ios version in this case is not iOS 17.0 or earlier. Please, help us any guidance for solution. Thank you

Hello, I would like to seek clarification regarding the availability of the NFC Secure Element (SE) / ISO7816 entitlement by region, specifically for Indonesia. I recently contacted Apple Developer Support regarding the use of NFC for reading ISO7816-compatible cards. I was informed that, at this time, the NFC & Secure Element entitlement is not available in Indonesia. For technical planning and compliance purposes, I would like to confirm the following: Is the NFC Secure Element / ISO7816 entitlement currently restricted by region, and is Indonesia officially unsupported at this time? For apps distributed on the App Store in Indonesia, is Core NFC limited to NDEF and non–Secure Element tag reading only? Are there any publicly supported alternatives or recommended architectural approaches for NFC-based workflows in regions where the Secure Element entitlement is unavailable? Is there any public documentation or guidance that outlines regional availability for NFC Secure Element features? I understand that entitlement approvals and availability may vary by region and are handled on a case-by-case basis. Any clarification from Apple engineers or developers with experience in this area would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards.

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!

On iOS 26, QuickLookAR (ARQuickLookPreviewItem) shares the actual .usdz file via the system Share Sheet instead of the original website URL. This is a regression from iOS 17–18, where sharing correctly preserved and sent only the source URL. Repro steps: 1. Open a web-hosted USDZ model in QuickLookAR (Safari). 2. Tap Share. 3. Share via any messenger. 4. The full .usdz file is sent. Expected: Share Sheet sends only the original URL. Actual: Share Sheet sends the USDZ file. Impact: Uncontrolled distribution of proprietary 3D assets. Critical IP / data leak. Blocks production AR deployments relying on QuickLook. Environment: iOS 26.0–26.1, iPhone 14 / 15. Works as expected on iOS 17–18. Test case: https://admixreality.com/ios26/

QuickLookAR shares the actual USDZ model instead of the original website URL — critical copyright and data leak issue on iOS 26 Since iOS 26, QuickLookAR (or ARQuickLookPreviewItem) no longer preserves the original web URL when sharing a model. Instead of sending the link to the hosted file, the system directly shares the actual USDZ model file with the recipient. This is a critical regression and a severe breach of intellectual property protection, as it exposes proprietary 3D models that must never be distributed outside of the controlled web environment. In earlier iOS versions (tested up to iOS 18), QuickLookAR correctly handled sharing — the share sheet would send the website link where the model is hosted, not the file itself. Starting with iOS 26, this behavior has changed and completely breaks the intended secure flow for AR experiences. Our project relies on allowing users to view models in AR via QuickLook, without ever transferring the underlying 3D assets. Now, the share operation forces full file sharing, giving end users unrestricted access to the model file, which can be copied, rehosted, or reverse-engineered. This issue critically affects production environments and prevents us from deploying our AR-based solutions. Implement a standard QuickLookAR preview with a USDZ file hosted on your web server (e.g., via ARQuickLookPreviewItem). 2. Open the AR view on iOS 26. 3. Tap the Share icon from QuickLookAR. 4. Send via any messenger (Telegram, WhatsApp, etc.). 5. Observe that the actual .usdz model is sent instead of the original website URL. ⸻ Expected behavior: QuickLookAR should share only the original URL (as in iOS 17–18), not the file itself. This ensures that intellectual property and licensed 3D models remain protected and controlled by the content owner. ⸻ Actual behavior: QuickLookAR shares the entire USDZ file, leaking the model content outside of the intended environment. ⸻ Impact: • Violation of copyright and confidential data policies • Loss of control over proprietary 3D assets • Breaking change for all existing web-based AR integrations • Critical blocker for AR production deployment ⸻ Environment: • iOS 26.0 and 26.1 (tested on iPhone 14, iPhone 15) • Safari + QuickLookAR integration • Works correctly on iOS 17 / iOS 18 ⸻ Notes: This regression appears to have been introduced in the latest iOS 26 system handling of QuickLookAR sharing. Please escalate this issue to the ARKit / QuickLook engineering team as it directly affects compliance, IP protection, and usability of AR features across production applications. Additional Notes / Verification: Please test this behavior yourself using the CheckAR test model on my website: https://admixreality.com/ios26/ • If the login page appears, click “Check AR” and then “View in Your Space”. • On iOS 18 and earlier, sharing correctly sends the website URL. • On iOS 26, sharing sends the actual USDZ model file. This clearly demonstrates the regression and the security/IP issue.

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

I can't find any information about why this is happening, nor can I reproduce the 'successful' state on this device. My team needs to understand this behavior, so any insight would be greatly appreciated! The expected behavior: If I delete both apps and reinstall them, attempting to open the second app from my app should trigger the system confirmation dialog. The specifics: I'm using the MSAL library. It navigates the user to the Microsoft Authenticator app and then returns to my app. However, even after resetting the phone and reinstalling both apps, the dialog never shows up (it just opens the app directly). Does anyone know the logic behind how iOS handles these prompts or why it might be persistent even after a reset? Thanks in advance!

(Xcode 26.2, iPhone 17 Pro) I can't seem to get hardware tag checks to work in an app launched without the special "Hardware Memory Tagging" diagnostics. In other words, I have been unable to reproduce the crash example at 6:40 in Apple's video "Secure your app with Memory Integrity Enforcement". When I write a heap overflow or a UAF, it is picked up perfectly provided I enable the "Hardware Memory Tagging" feature under Scheme Diagnostics. If I instead add the Enhanced Security capability with the memory-tagging related entitlements: I'm seeing distinct memory tags being assigned in pointers returned by malloc (without the capability, this is not the case) Tag mismatches are not being caught or enforced, regardless of soft mode The behaviour is the same whether I launch from Xcode without "Hardware Memory Tagging", or if I launch the app by tapping it on launchpad. In case it was related to debug builds, I also tried creating an ad hoc IPA and it didn't make any difference. I realise there's a wrinkle here that the debugger sets MallocTagAll=1, so possibly it will pick up a wider range of issues. However I would have expected that a straight UAF would be caught. For example, this test code demonstrates that tagging is active but it doesn't crash: #define PTR_TAG(p) ((unsigned)(((uintptr_t)(p) >> 56) & 0xF)) void *p1 = malloc(32); void *p2 = malloc(32); void *p3 = malloc(32); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p1 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p1, PTR_TAG(p1)); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p2 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p2, PTR_TAG(p2)); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p3 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p3, PTR_TAG(p3)); free(p2); void *p2_realloc = malloc(32); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p2 after free+malloc = %p (tag: %u)\n", p2_realloc, PTR_TAG(p2_realloc)); // Is p2_realloc the same address as p2 but different tag? os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Same address? %s\n", ((uintptr_t)p2 & 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFF) == ((uintptr_t)p2_realloc & 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFF) ? "YES" : "NO"); // Now try to use the OLD pointer p2 os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Attempting use-after-free via old pointer p2...\n"); volatile char c = *(volatile char *)p2; // Should this crash? os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Read succeeded! Value: %d\n", c); Example output: p1 = 0xf00000b71019660 (tag: 15) p2 = 0x200000b711958c0 (tag: 2) p3 = 0x300000b711958e0 (tag: 3) p2 after free+malloc = 0x700000b71019680 (tag: 7) Same address? NO Attempting use-after-free via old pointer p2... Read succeeded! Value: -55 For reference, these are my entitlements. [Dict] [Key] application-identifier [Value] [String] … [Key] com.apple.developer.team-identifier [Value] [String] … [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.checked-allocations [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.checked-allocations.enable-pure-data [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.dyld-ro [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version [Value] [Int] 1 [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.hardened-heap [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions [Value] [Int] 2 [Key] get-task-allow [Value] [Bool] true What do I need to do to make Memory Integrity Enforcement do something outside the debugger?

I've made my first app and encountered an unexpected (potentially existential) issue. The Manager app is designed to tag 3rd party "plugins" used by a DAW, storing metadata in a local SQLite database, and move them between Active and Inactive folders. This allows management of the plugin collection - the DAW only uses what's in the Active folder. Permissions are obtained via security-scoped bookmarks on first launch. The app functions as intended: plugin bundles move correctly and the database tracks everything. No information is written to the plugins themselves. The Problem:
When moving plugins using fs.rename() , the MAS sandbox automatically adds the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute to moved files. When the DAW subsequently rebuilds its plugin cache, it interprets quarantined plugins as "corrupt" or potentially malicious and refuses to load them. Technical Details: Moving files with NSFileManager or Node.js fs APIs within sandbox triggers quarantine Sandboxed apps cannot call xattr -d com.apple.quarantine or use removexattr() The entitlement com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write doesn't grant xattr removal rights User workaround: run xattr -cr /path/to/plugins in Terminal - not acceptable for professional users Question:
Is there any MAS-compliant way to move files without triggering quarantine, or to remove the quarantine attribute within the sandbox? The hardened-runtime DMG build works perfectly (no sandbox = no quarantine added). Any insight appreciated!

冷启动后我们读文件，发现："error_msg":"未能打开文件“FinishTasks.plist”，因为你没有查看它的权限。 是否有这些问题： 「iOS 26 iPhone 16,2 cold launch file access failure」） 核心内容：多名开发者反馈 iPhone 15 Pro（iOS 26.0/26.1）冷启动时读取 Documents 目录下的 plist 文件提示权限拒绝，切后台再切前台恢复，苹果员工回复「建议延迟文件操作至 applicationDidBecomeActive 后」。

Is there any way for an iOS app to get a log of all Airdrop transfers originating in all apps on the iOS device e.g. from the last week?

Hi, I have an application that uses SecureEnclave keys to protect secrets. By passing an LAContext object to the Secure Enclave operations, authentication state can be preserved across decrypt operations, and you do not need to re-authenticate for doing different operations. However, for security reasons, I would like to avoid that it is possible to do operations in batch with certain keys generated by the Secure Enclave, by any application. This would avoid malicious binaries to batch-extract all the secrets that are protected by a key from my Secure Enclave, and force to re-authenticate on every operation. Is there a way to prevent batch operations without re-authenticating for Secure Enclave keys? thanks, Remko

Hi Apple Developers, I'm having a problem with evaluatedPolicyDomainState: on the same device, its value keeps changing and then switching back to the original. My current iOS version is 26.1. I upgraded my iOS from version 18.6.2 to 26.1. What could be the potential reasons for this issue? { NSError *error; BOOL success = YES; char *eds = nil; int edslen = 0; LAContext *context = [[LAContext alloc] init]; // test if we can evaluate the policy, this test will tell us if Touch ID is available and enrolled // success = [context canEvaluatePolicy: LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics error:&error]; if (SystemVersion > 9.3) { // test if we can evaluate the policy, this test will tell us if Touch ID is available and enrolled success = [context canEvaluatePolicy: LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthentication error:&error]; } else{ // test if we can evaluate the policy, this test will tell us if Touch ID is available and enrolled success = [context canEvaluatePolicy: LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics error:&error]; } if (success) { if (@available(iOS 18.0, *)) { NSData *stateHash = nil; if ([context respondsToSelector:@selector(domainState)]) { stateHash = [[context performSelector:@selector(domainState)] performSelector:@selector(stateHash)]; }else{ stateHash = [context evaluatedPolicyDomainState]; } eds = (char *)stateHash.bytes; edslen = (int)stateHash.length; } else { eds = (char *)[[context evaluatedPolicyDomainState] bytes]; edslen = (int)[[context evaluatedPolicyDomainState] length]; } CC_SHA256(eds, edslen, uviOut); *poutlen = CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH; } else { *poutlen = 32; gm_memset(uviOut, 0x01, 32); } }

Hello, I’m working on an authorization plugin which allows users to login and unlock their computer with various methods like a FIDO key. I need to add smart cards support to it. If I understand correctly, I need to construct a URLCredential object with the identity from the smart card and pass it to the completion handler of URLSessionDelegate.urlSession(_:didReceive:completionHandler:) method. I’ve read the documentation at Using Cryptographic Assets Stored on a Smart Card, TN3137: On Mac keychain APIs and implementations, and SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices and created a simple code that reads the identities from the keychain: CFArrayRef identities = nil; OSStatus status = SecItemCopyMatching((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)@{ (id)kSecClass: (id)kSecClassIdentity, (id)kSecMatchLimit: (id)kSecMatchLimitAll, (id)kSecReturnRef: @YES, }, (CFTypeRef *)&identities); if (status == errSecSuccess && identities) { os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Found identities: %{public}ld\n", CFArrayGetCount(identities)); } else { os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Error: %{public}ld\n", (long)status); } When I use this code in a simple demo app, it finds my Yubikey identities without problem. When I use it in my authorization plugin, it doesn’t find anything in system.login.console right and finds Yubikey in authenticate right only if I register my plugin as non-,privileged. I tried modifying the query in various ways, in particular by using SecKeychainCopyDomainSearchList with the domain kSecPreferencesDomainDynamic and adding it to the query as kSecMatchSearchList and trying other SecKeychain* methods, but ended up with nothing. I concluded that the identities from a smart card are being added to the data protection keychain rather than to a file based keychain and since I’m working in a privileged context, I won’t be able to get them. If this is indeed the case, could you please advise how to proceed? Thanks in advance.

We recently upgraded OpenSSL from version 1.1.1 to 3.4.0. After this upgrade, we observed that PKCS#12 files generated using OpenSSL 3.4.0 fail to import into the macOS Keychain with the following error: Failed to import PKCS#12 data: -25264 (MAC verification failed during PKCS12 import (wrong password?)) This issue is reproducible on macOS 14.8.2. The same PKCS#12 files import successfully on other macOS versions, including 15.x and 26.x. Additionally, PKCS#12 files that fail to import on macOS 14.8 work correctly when copied and imported on other macOS versions without any errors. PKCS#12 Creation The PKCS#12 data is created using the following OpenSSL API: const char* platformPKCS12SecureKey = _platformSecureKey.has_value() ? _platformSecureKey.value().c_str() : NULL; PKCS12* p12 = PKCS12_create( platformPKCS12SecureKey, NULL, keys, _cert, NULL, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ); if (!p12) { throw std::runtime_error("Failed to create PKCS#12 container"); } PKCS#12 Import The generated PKCS#12 data is imported into the macOS Keychain using the following code: NSString *certPassKey = [NSString stringWithUTF8String:getCertPassKey()]; NSDictionary *options = @{ (__bridge id)kSecImportExportPassphrase: certPassKey, (__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessible: (__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly, (__bridge id)kSecAttrIsExtractable: @YES, (__bridge id)kSecAttrIsPermanent: @YES, (__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessGroup: APP_GROUP }; CFArrayRef items = NULL; OSStatus status = SecPKCS12Import( (__bridge CFDataRef)pkcs12Data, (__bridge CFDictionaryRef)options, &items );

Hello, I am developing a macOS menu bar window-management utility (similar in functionality to Magnet / Rectangle) that relies on the Accessibility (AXUIElement) API to move and resize windows and on global hotkeys. I am facing a consistent issue when App Sandbox is enabled. Summary: App Sandbox enabled Hardened Runtime enabled Apple Events entitlement enabled NSAccessibilityDescription present in Info.plist AXIsProcessTrustedWithOptions is called with prompt enabled Observed behavior: When App Sandbox is enabled, the Accessibility permission prompt never appears. The app cannot be manually added in System Settings → Privacy & Security → Accessibility. AXIsProcessTrusted always returns false. As a result, window snapping does not work. When App Sandbox is disabled: The Accessibility prompt appears correctly. The app functions as expected. This behavior occurs both: In local builds In TestFlight builds My questions: Is this expected behavior for sandboxed macOS apps that rely on Accessibility APIs? Are window-management utilities expected to ship without App Sandbox enabled? Is there any supported entitlement or configuration that allows a sandboxed app to request Accessibility permission? Thank you for any clarification.

During internal testing, we observed the following behavior and would appreciate clarification on whether it is expected and supported in production environments. When generating an elliptic-curve cryptographic key pair using "kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave", and explicitly specifying a "kSecAttrAccessGroup", we found that cryptographic operations (specifically encryption and decryption) could be successfully performed using this key pair from two distinct applications. Both applications had the Keychain Sharing capability enabled and were signed with the same provisioning profile identity. Given the documented security properties of Secure Enclave, backed keys, namely that private key material is protected by hardware and access is strictly constrained by design, we would like to confirm whether the ability for multiple applications (sharing the same keychain access group and signing identity) to perform cryptographic operations with the same Secure Enclave–backed key is expected behavior on iOS. Specifically, we are seeking confirmation on: Whether this behavior is intentional and supported in production. Whether the Secure Enclave enforces access control primarily at the application-identifier (App ID) level rather than the individual app bundle level in this scenario. Whether there are any documented limitations or guarantees regarding cross-application usage of Secure Enclave keys when keychain sharing is configured. Any guidance or references to official documentation clarifying this behavior would be greatly appreciated.

The One-time codes documentation details how to enable autofill for SMS based codes. However, there is no details about how to correctly implement autofill for email based codes. I am observing the email based autofill works inconsistently when using email based OTC. In my application: There is latency of 10-15 seconds from when the email arrives to when it is available for autofill. After the autofill feature is used, the OTC email is not being deleted from the inbox automatically. Without documentation, it's unclear to me what I might be doing wrong that is causing these side effects. I found an ietf proposal for how autofill with email based codes might work, but it’s unclear if this is how Apple has implemented the feature: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wells-origin-bound-one-time-codes-00.html#name-email Existing docs for Autofill using SMS: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/enabling-autofill-for-domain-bound-sms-codes

Hi, I am in need of your help with publishing my game. I got the following explanation for the negative review of my app/game. Issue Description One or more purpose strings in the app do not sufficiently explain the use of protected resources. Purpose strings must clearly and completely describe the app's use of data and, in most cases, provide an example of how the data will be used. Next Steps Update the local network information purpose string to explain how the app will use the requested information and provide a specific example of how the data will be used. See the attached screenshot. Resources Purpose strings must clearly describe how an app uses the ability, data, or resource. The following are hypothetical examples of unclear purpose strings that would not pass review: "App would like to access your Contacts" "App needs microphone access" See examples of helpful, informative purpose strings. The problem is that they say my app asks to allow my app to find devices on local networks. And that this needs more explanation in the purpose strings. Totally valid to ask, but the problem is my app doesn't need local access to devices, and there shouldn't be code that asks this?? FYI the game is build with Unity. Would love some help on how to turn this off so that my app can get published.