My app has been rejected by App Store review because the sign in with Apple functionality is not working properly. I'm able to reproduce the issue on my end but I don't understand why it's happening. I have two other apps that implement the same OAuth flow in an identical manner, and those apps have no issues signing in with Apple. I've copied my OAuth flow to a fresh project to see if that would make a difference, and it gives me the exact same error. In the simulator I get "invalid_request, invalid web redirect URL", and on-device the FaceID authentication fails with a very non-specific "Sign Up Not Completed" error. I'm completely out of ideas here, so any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks!

Hey everyone, I'm working on a password manager app for iOS and I'm trying to implement the new iOS 18 feature that lets users enable autofill directly from within the app. I know this exists because I've seen it in action in another app. They've clearly figured it out, but I'm struggling to find any documentation or info about the specific API. Has anyone else had any luck finding this? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

I have these two pods: Frameworks/GTMSessionFetcher.framework/GTMSessionFetcher Frameworks/GoogleToolboxForMac.framework/GoogleToolboxForMac they are showing this error: ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest I've tried manually making privacy files, I've tried updating the SDK's too. I cant update them because firebase depends on GTM Session at a lower version and if I update, MLKit depends on toolbox (even though its deprecating) If I upgrade then the whole project explodes. What do I do. I need help. this is all I get and it doesn't help: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements

I am currently working on Fraud System Detection that will be used by one of the financial institutions. Those tools are related to ensuring user security. Our goal is to identify features that can trigger an early warning system for attempted fraud. We have identified three uncertain variables: Whether the user is having a conversation while using our app, Whether the user has specific screen sharing apps on their phone, Whether the user has enabled VPN connection. Here my doubts appear: Can we check the presence of a telephone conversation if we are not a VOIP application? Can we check the presence of installed programs using Universal Link and canOpenUrl(_:) method? Can we read "SCOPED" key from CFNetworkCopySystemProxySettings() dictionary? I will be glad for any advice and help.

I am working on adding RFC4217 Secure FTP with TLS by extending Mike Gleason's classic libncftp client library. I refactored the code to include an FTP channel abstraction with FTP channel abstraction types for TCP, TLS, and TCP with Opportunistic TLS types. The first implementation of those included BSD sockets that libncftp has always supported with the clear TCP channel type. I first embarked on extending the sockets implementation by adding TCP, TLS, and TCP with Opportunistic TLS channel abstraction types against the new, modern Network.framework C-based APIs, including using the “tricky” framer technique to employ a TCP with Opportunistic TLS FTP channel abstraction type to support explicit FTPS as specified by RFC4217 where you have to connect first in the clear with TCP, request AUTH TLS, and then start TLS after receiving positive confirmation. That all worked great. Unfortunately, at the end of that effort, I discovered that many modern FTPS server implementations (vsftpd, pure-ftpd, proftpd) mandate TLS session reuse / resumption across the control and data channels, specifying the identical session ID and cipher suites across the control and data channels. Since Network.framework lacked a necessary and equivalent to the Secure Transport SSLSetPeerID, I retrenched and rewrote the necessary TLS and TCP with Opportunistic TLS FTP channel abstraction types using the now-deprecated Secure Transport APIs atop the Network.framework-based TCP clear FTP channel type abstraction I had just written. Using the canonical test server I had been using throughout development, test.rebex.net, this Secure Transport solution seemed to work perfectly, working in clear, secure-control-only, and secure-control+data explicit FTPS operation. I then proceeded to expand testing to include a broad set of Microsoft FTP Service, pure-ftpd, vsftpd, proftpd, and other FTP servers identified on the Internet (a subset from this list: https://gist.github.com/mnjstwins/85ac8348d6faeb32b25908d447943300). In doing that testing, beyond test.rebex.net, I was unable to identify a single (among hundreds), that successfully work with secure-control+data explicit FTPS operation even though nearly all of them work with secure-control-only explicit FTPS operation. So, I started regressing my libncftp + Network.framework + Secure Transport implementation against curl 8.7.1 on macOS 14.7.2 “Sonoma": % which curl; `which curl` --version /usr/bin/curl curl 8.7.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin23.0) libcurl/8.7.1 (SecureTransport) LibreSSL/3.3.6 zlib/1.2.12 nghttp2/1.61.0 Release-Date: 2024-03-27 Protocols: dict file ftp ftps gopher gophers http https imap imaps ipfs ipns ldap ldaps mqtt pop3 pop3s rtsp smb smbs smtp smtps telnet tftp Features: alt-svc AsynchDNS GSS-API HSTS HTTP2 HTTPS-proxy IPv6 Kerberos Largefile libz MultiSSL NTLM SPNEGO SSL threadsafe UnixSockets I find that curl (also apparently written against Secure Transport) works in almost all of the cases my libncftp does not. This is a representative example: % ./samples/misc/ncftpgetbytes -d stderr --secure --explicit --secure-both ftps://ftp.sjtu.edu.cn:21/pub/README.NetInstall which fails in the secure-control+data case with errSSLClosedAbort on the data channel TLS handshake, just after ClientHello, attempts whereas: % curl -4 --verbose --ftp-pasv --ftp-ssl-reqd ftp://ftp.sjtu.edu.cn:21/pub/README.NetInstall succeeds. I took an in-depth look at the implementation of github.com/apple-oss-distributions/curl/ and git/github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Security/ to identify areas where my implementation was, perhaps, deficient relative to curl and its curl/lib/vtls/sectransp.c Secure Transport implementation. As far as I can tell, I am doing everything consistently with what the Apple OSS implementation of curl is doing. The analysis included: SSLSetALPNProtocols Not applicable for FTP; only used for HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. SSLSetCertificate Should only be relevant when a custom, non-Keychain-based certificate is used. SSLSetEnabledCiphers This could be an issue; however, the cipher suite used for the data channel should be the same as that used for the control channel. curl talks about disabling "weak" cipher suites that are known-insecure even though the default suites macOS enables are unlikely to enable them. SSLSetProtocolVersionEnabled We do not appear to be getting a protocol version negotiation error, so this seems unlikely, but possible. SSLSetProtocolVersionMax We do not appear to be getting a protocol version negotiation error, so this seems unlikely, but possible. SSLSetProtocolVersionMin We do not appear to be getting a protocol version negotiation error, so this seems unlikely, but possible. SSLSetSessionOption( , kSSLSessionOptionFalseStart) curl does seem to enable this for certain versions of macOS and disables it for others. Possible. Running curl with the --false-start option does not seem to make a difference. SSLSetSessionOption( , kSSLSessionOptionSendOneByteRecord) Corresponds to "*****" which seems defaulted and is related to an SSL security flaw when using CBC-based block encryption ciphers, which is not applicable here. Based on that, further experiments I attempted included: Disable use of kSSLSessionOptionBreakOnServerAuth: No impact Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionFalseStart: No impact Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionSendOneByteRecord: No impact Use SSLSetProtocolVersionMin and SSLSetProtocolVersionMax in various combinations: No impact Use SSLSetProtocolVersionEnabled in various combinations: No impact Forcibly set a single cipher suite (TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384, known to work with a given server): No impact Employ a SetDefaultCipherSuites function similar to what curl does (filtering out “weak” cipher suites): No impact Notably, I can never coax a similar set of cipher suites that macOS curl does with that technique. In fact, it publishes ciphers that aren’t even in <Security/CipherSuite.h> nor referenced by github.com/apple-oss-distributions/curl/curl/lib/vtls/sectransp.c. Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionAllowRenegotiation: No impact Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionEnableSessionTickets: No impact Looking at Wireshark, my ClientHello includes status_request, signed_certificate_timestamp, and extended_master_secret extensions whereas macOS curl's never do--same Secure Transport APIs. None of the above API experiments seem to influence the inclusion / exclusion of those three ClientHello additions. Any suggestions are welcomed that might shine a light on what native curl has access to that allows it to work with ST for these FTP secure-control+data use cases.

Hi, We are using the following API from sys/random.h to generate entropy in our module. int getentropy(void* buffer, size_t size); Could you confirm if this API internally uses a non-physical entropy source and adhere to SP800-90B as the following document says: https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/entropy/E181_PublicUse.pdf

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?

I'm looking for confirmation on the security aspects of fdesetup authrestart when used on a FileVault-enabled Mac. As I understand it, this command temporarily stores the decryption key in memory to allow the system to restart without requiring manual entry of the FileVault password. However, I have a few security-related concerns: Storage of the Decryption Key: Where exactly is the key stored during an authenticated restart? Is it protected within the Secure Enclave (for Apple Silicon Macs) or the T2 Security Chip on Intel Macs? Key Lifetime & Wiping: At what point is the decryption key erased from memory? Does it persist in any form after the system has fully rebooted? Protection Against Physical Attacks: If an attacker gains physical access to the machine before the restart completes, is there any possibility that they could extract the decryption key from memory? Cold Boot Attack Resistance: Is there any risk that advanced forensic techniques (such as freezing RAM to retain data) could be used to recover the decryption key after issuing an authenticated restart? Malware Resistance: Could a compromised system (e.g., root access by an attacker) intercept or misuse the decryption key before the restart? I understand that on Apple Silicon and T2-equipped Macs, FileVault keys are tied to hardware-based encryption, making unauthorized access difficult. However, I'd like to confirm whether Authenticated Restart introduces any new risks compared to a standard FileVault-enabled boot process.

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?

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 :)

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

I have my custom Authplugin implemented at login (system.login.console), and I want to remove password requirement validation/authentication from system.login.console authorization right. Do you see any functionality loss in completely removing password need at login. And is there any reference which can help me here to acheive this?

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

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?

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!