I've just implemented Sign-In-With-Apple and everything is working perfectly, but my app seems to be in some strange state where users are unable to remove it from the Sign-In-With-Apple section of their settings. Things I've tried: -- Deleting from Mac. (It just stays in the list) -- Deleting from the iPhone (It stays in the list) -- Deleting from account.apple.com (same issue) -- I've noticed in the browser inspector tools I receive a 200 on the DELETE request, but the app remains. -- Multiple users Also have tried: -- Revoking the token through the REST API -- I get an email saying the token has been revoked, but it's still working -- Same code, different app id (works fine!) It seems like maybe my app is in some sort of weird state? Has anyone come across this before?

We are implementing Platform SSO with Secure Enclave–based authentication. In a standard (post-enrollment) flow, everything behaves as expected: Authentication uses urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer The Secure Enclave–backed credential is used correctly However, when using Automated Device Enrollment (ADE) with Simplified Setup, we observe different behavior: After device registration, Platform SSO triggers a login request to our IdP That request uses grant_type=password Instead of the expected urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer This occurs even though: The configuration specifies Secure Enclave as the authentication method The same configuration works as expected outside ADE Questions: Is this password grant during ADE / Simplified Setup an expected bootstrap flow? Is there any official documentation describing this? This behavior is currently undocumented, and clarification would help ensure correct IdP implementation.

Hello, I'm receiving an unknown error instead of the excluded credentials error when using the "Save on another device" option for Passkey creation. When creating the ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider request to pass to the ASAuthorizationController. The excludedCredentials property is used to add a list of credentials to exclude in the registration process. This is to prevent duplicate passkeys from being created if one already exists for the user. When trying to create a duplicate passkey using the same device, the ASAuthorizationControllerDelegate method authorizationController(controller, didCompleteWithError:) is called. The error received has localized description “At least one credential matches an entry of the excludeCredentials list in the platform attached authenticator." When trying to create a duplicate passkey using the “Save on another device” option. The delegate method is called, but the error received has code 1000 ("com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError" - code: 1000). Which maps to the unknown error case in ASAuthorization error type.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apptrackingtransparency/attrackingmanager/authorizationstatus/notdetermined Note: Discussion If you call ATTrackingManager.trackingAuthorizationStatus in macOS, the result is always ATTrackingManager.AuthorizationStatus.notDetermined. So, does macOS support getting ATT?

Hello, When using ASWebAuthenticationSession with an HTTPS callback URL (Universal Link), I receive the following error: Authorization error: The operation couldn't be completed. Application with identifier jp.xxxx.yyyy.dev is not associated with domain xxxx-example.go.link. Using HTTPS callbacks requires Associated Domains using the webcredentials service type for xxxx-example.go.link. I checked Apple’s official documentation but couldn’t find any clear statement that webcredentials is required when using HTTPS callbacks in ASWebAuthenticationSession. What I’d like to confirm: Is webcredentials officially required when using HTTPS as a callback URL with ASWebAuthenticationSession? If so, is there any official documentation or technical note that states this requirement? Environment iOS 18.6.2 Xcode 16.4 Any clarification or official references would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hi everyone, I’ve been working on an experimental prototype called FaceBridge that explores whether Secure Enclave–backed biometric authorization can be delegated between macOS and iPhone using only public Apple APIs. The goal of the project was to better understand the architectural boundaries of cross-device trust and approval flows that resemble Apple’s built-in Touch ID / Continuity authorization experiences. FaceBridge implements a local authorization pipeline where: macOS generates a signed authorization request the request is delivered to a trusted nearby iPhone over BLE / Network framework the iPhone verifies sender identity Face ID approval is requested using LocalAuthentication the iPhone signs the approval response using Secure Enclave–backed keys macOS validates the response and unlocks a protected action Security properties currently implemented: • Secure Enclave–backed signing identities per device • cryptographic device pairing and trust persistence • replay protection using nonce + timestamp binding • structured authorization request/response envelopes • signed responder identity verification • trusted-device registry model • local encrypted transport over BLE and local network This is intentionally not attempting to intercept or replace system-level Touch ID dialogs (App Store installs, Keychain prompts, loginwindow, etc.), but instead explores what is possible within application-level authorization boundaries using public APIs only. The project is open source: https://github.com/wesleysfavarin/facebridge Technical architecture write-up: https://medium.com/@wesleysfavarin/facebridge I’m particularly interested in feedback around: • recommended Secure Enclave identity lifecycle patterns • best practices for cross-device trust persistence • LocalAuthentication usage in delegated approval scenarios • whether similar authorization models are expected to become more formally supported across Apple platforms in the future Thanks in advance for any guidance or suggestions.

Recently I am trying to implement apple oauth in expo web version, I created the service id and other related info, i have issue @PostMapping("/callback") public ResponseEntity handleAppleCallback(@RequestParam Map<String, String> body) { String code = body.get("code"); String idToken = body.get("id_token"); if (code == null) { return ResponseEntity.badRequest().build(); } // Redirect to your Expo Web app with the code in query String frontendUrl = "https://mobile-dot-dev-epicportal.uc.r.appspot.com/apple-callback?code=" + code; return ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.FOUND) .header("Location", frontendUrl) .build(); } when i pass the code recived from apple to this route i am getting invalid_grant i am not sure what is wrong here

PLATFORM AND VERSION iOS Development environment: Xcode 26.2, macOS x Run-time configuration: iOS The issue does not seem to be limited to a specific version. DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM We are reaching out to request in-depth technical assistance regarding an intermittent issue with Sign in with Apple implementation in our application. [Technical Status] We have confirmed that our technical implementation is correct. All necessary code and Xcode Capabilities are properly configured, and the service is working perfectly for the vast majority of our users. However, a small subset of users is consistently encountering "Unknown" Error (Error Code 1000), which prevents them from logging in entirely. [Identified Scenario] Currently, the only reproducible case we have found involves Child Accounts (protected accounts) under Family Sharing, specifically when the user's age is set below the regional requirement for a standalone Apple ID. However, we are receiving reports from other users who do not seem to fall into this category. [Requests for Clarification] To resolve this issue and support our users, we would like to obtain clear answers to the following questions: Root Cause: Why does Error 1000 occur specifically for a small number of users while the service works for most others? Other Scenarios: Are there any known cases or conditions other than the "Child Account" age restriction that trigger this specific error? Account-side Issues: If our code and configurations are verified to be correct, should we conclude that this is an issue specific to the individual's Apple ID/Account status? If so, could you provide a troubleshooting guide or official recommendation that we can share with these users to help them resolve their account-related issues? We are committed to providing a seamless authentication experience and would appreciate your expert insight into these edge cases. Thank you for your support. - (void) quickLogin:(uint)requestId withNonce:(NSString *)nonce andState:(NSString *)state { #if AUTHENTICATION_SERVICES_AVAILABLE if (@available(iOS 13.0, tvOS 13.0, macOS 10.15, *)) { ASAuthorizationAppleIDRequest *appleIDRequest = [[self appleIdProvider] createRequest]; [appleIDRequest setNonce:nonce]; [appleIDRequest setState:state]; ASAuthorizationPasswordRequest *keychainRequest = [[self passwordProvider] createRequest]; ASAuthorizationController *authorizationController = [[ASAuthorizationController alloc] initWithAuthorizationRequests:@[appleIDRequest, keychainRequest]]; [self performAuthorizationRequestsForController:authorizationController withRequestId:requestId]; } else { [self sendsLoginResponseInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; } #else [self sendsLoginResponseInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; #endif } - (void) loginWithAppleId:(uint)requestId withOptions:(AppleAuthManagerLoginOptions)options nonce:(NSString *)nonce andState:(NSString *)state { #if AUTHENTICATION_SERVICES_AVAILABLE if (@available(iOS 13.0, tvOS 13.0, macOS 10.15, *)) { ASAuthorizationAppleIDRequest *request = [[self appleIdProvider] createRequest]; NSMutableArray *scopes = [NSMutableArray array]; if (options & AppleAuthManagerIncludeName) [scopes addObject:ASAuthorizationScopeFullName]; if (options & AppleAuthManagerIncludeEmail) [scopes addObject:ASAuthorizationScopeEmail]; [request setRequestedScopes:[scopes copy]]; [request setNonce:nonce]; [request setState:state]; ASAuthorizationController *authorizationController = [[ASAuthorizationController alloc] initWithAuthorizationRequests:@[request]]; [self performAuthorizationRequestsForController:authorizationController withRequestId:requestId]; } else { [self sendsLoginResponseInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; } #else [self sendsLoginResponseInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; #endif } - (void) getCredentialStateForUser:(NSString *)userId withRequestId:(uint)requestId { #if AUTHENTICATION_SERVICES_AVAILABLE if (@available(iOS 13.0, tvOS 13.0, macOS 10.15, *)) { [[self appleIdProvider] getCredentialStateForUserID:userId completion:^(ASAuthorizationAppleIDProviderCredentialState credentialState, NSError * _Nullable error) { NSNumber *credentialStateNumber = nil; NSDictionary *errorDictionary = nil; if (error) errorDictionary = [AppleAuthSerializer dictionaryForNSError:error]; else credentialStateNumber = @(credentialState); NSDictionary *responseDictionary = [AppleAuthSerializer credentialResponseDictionaryForCredentialState:credentialStateNumber errorDictionary:errorDictionary]; [self sendNativeMessageForDictionary:responseDictionary forRequestId:requestId]; }]; } else { [self sendsCredentialStatusInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; } #else [self sendsCredentialStatusInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; #endif }

Hello, I am currently implementing a biometric authentication registration flow using WebAuthn. I am using ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialRegistrationRequest, and I would like to know if there is a way to hide the "Save to another device" option that appears during the registration process. Specifically, I want to guide users to save the passkey only locally on their device, without prompting them to save it to iCloud Keychain or another device. If there is a way to hide this option or if there is a recommended approach to achieve this, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Also, if this is not possible due to iOS version or API limitations, I would be grateful if you could share any best practices for limiting user options in this scenario. If anyone has experienced a similar issue, your advice would be very helpful. Thank you in advance.

I'm currently reviewing the various DCError cases defined in Apple’s DeviceCheck framework (reference: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/dcerror-swift.struct). To better understand how to handle these in production, I’m looking for a clear breakdown of: Which specific DCError values can occur during service.generateKey, service.attestKey, and service.generateAssertion The realworld scenarios or conditions that typically cause each error for each method. If anyone has insight on how these errors arise and what conditions trigger them, I’d appreciate your input.

I am asking about the apple Sign in implementation. ▫️ problems eas local build or test flight, I get a “Could not complete registration” message. When I check the console, I see the following error message. akd SRP authentication with server failed! Error: Error Domain=com.apple.AppleIDAuthSupport Code=2 UserInfo={NSDescription=<private>, Status=<private>} ▫️ Assumption ・Developed with Expo ・"expo-apple-authentication":"^7.2.4" ・Two apps are developed at the same time, using supabase, firebase, but both have the same error ・On Xcode, on app ids, apple sign in capability is turned on ・Service ids is set to domain, return url ・keys is created ・Internal test of testfligt is set to deliver

I'm testing app transferring, before, I have migrate user from teamA to teamB, including subA->transferSub->subB process, now I'm transfer the app from teamB to teamC, after the transfer requested, I can't get transfer_id by /usermigrationinfo api, which response 400 invalid request. the question is I can still get transfer sub by the auth/token api(grant_type: authorization_code) with teamB parameters(teamIdB/clientIdB/appSecretB/redirectUrlB/subB)，but the value is same as first time transfer_id which get during teamA to teamB. when use parameters above with target(teamIdC) to request /usermigrationinfo, invalid request was responsed. im sure that all parameters is correct, dose it cause by teamB still in 60-days first transferring(sure already accepted)?

Hi, I am developing a Platform SSO in order to have integrated with our IdP, which I am also adapting to provide the right endpoints for Platform SSO. I have a few questions about the implementation: does the client-request-id need to be present on all requests? Is it unique per request, or requests that are bound together like those requesting a nonce and those who will use that nonce should use the same client-request-id? I am not sure how the loginManager.presentRegistrationViewController works. I'd like to get the user to authenticate to my IdP before device registration. So I am not sure if I should provide my own Webview or something similar or if this method should do something for me; My idea is to request user authentication once, save the state when performing device registration, so that I avoid asking for user authentication twice when performing user registration. Is this the right way to do it? How does platform SSO handles tokens? If one application of my IdP requests the authentication on a common OIDC/OAuth2 flow, should I perform some sort of token exchange? How about SAML? Platform SSO seems to be token-centric, but how does one handle SAML flows? Is it by using WebView as well?

Trusted execution is a generic name for a Gatekeeper and other technologies that aim to protect users from malicious code. General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums tag: Gatekeeper Developer > Signing Mac Software with Developer ID Apple Platform Security support document Safely open apps on your Mac support article Hardened Runtime document WWDC 2022 Session 10096 What’s new in privacy covers some important Gatekeeper changes in macOS 13 (starting at 04: 32), most notably app bundle protection WWDC 2023 Session 10053 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 14 (starting at 17:46), namely, app container protection WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 15 (starting at 12:23), namely, app group container protection Updates to runtime protection in macOS Sequoia news post Testing a Notarised Product forums post Resolving Trusted Execution Problems forums post App Translocation Notes (aka Gatekeeper path randomisation) forums post Most trusted execution problems are caused by code signing or notarisation issues. See Code Signing Resources and Notarisation Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Without developer mode, I was able to get Password AutoFill to work in my SwiftUI app with my local Vapor server using ngrok and adding the Associated Domains capability with the value webcredentials:....ngrok-free.app and the respective apple-app-site-association file on my local server in /.well-known/. (works on device, but not in the simulator). However, if I use the developer mode (webcredentials:....ngrok-free.app?mode=developer) it only works halfway when running from Xcode: I get asked to save the password, but the saved passwords are not picked up, when I try to login again. Neither on device, nor in the simulator. If I remove the ?mode=developer it seems to work as expected. Is this by design, or am I missing something? var body: some View { ... Section(header: Text("Email")) { TextField("Email", text: $viewModel.credentials.username) .textContentType(.username) .autocapitalization(.none) .keyboardType(.emailAddress) } Section(header: Text("Passwort")) { SecureField("Passwort", text: $viewModel.credentials.password) .textContentType(.password) } ... }

I'm trying to setup device attestation. I believe I have everything setup correctly but the final step of signature validation never succeeds. I've added validation on the client side for debugging and it doesn't validate using CryptoKit. After the assertion is created, I try to validate it: assertion = try await DCAppAttestService.shared.generateAssertion(keyId, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) await validateAssertionLocallyForDebugging(keyId: keyId, assertionObject: assertion, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) In the validateAssertionLocallyForDebugging method, I extract all the data from the CBOR assertionObject and then setup the parameters to validate the signature, using the key that was created from the original attestation flow, but it fails every time. I'm getting the public key from the server using a temporary debugging API. let publicKeyData = Data(base64Encoded: publicKeyB64)! let p256PublicKey = try P256.Signing.PublicKey(derRepresentation: publicKeyData) let ecdsaSignature = try P256.Signing.ECDSASignature(derRepresentation: signature) let digestToVerify = SHA256.hash(data: authenticatorData + clientDataHash) print(" - Recreated Digest to Verify: \(Data(digestToVerify).hexDescription)") if p256PublicKey.isValidSignature(ecdsaSignature, for: digestToVerify) { print("[DEBUG] SUCCESS: Local signature validation passed!") } else { print("[DEBUG] FAILED: Local signature validation failed.") } I have checked my .entitlements file and it is set to development. I have checked the keyId and verified the public key. I have verified the public key X,Y, the RP ID Hash, COSE data, and pretty much anything else I could think of. I've also tried using Gemini and Claude to debug this and that just sends me in circles of trying hashed, unhashed, and double hashed clientData. I'm doing this from Xcode on an M3 macbook air to an iPhone 16 Pro Max. Do you have any ideas on why the signature is not validating with everything else appears to be working? Thanks

Hi, I’ve added attestation to my app, and everything worked as expected during setup. However, after deployment, I noticed some unknownSystemFailure entries in the production logs on New Relic. Could you help me understand what typically causes this error? The documentation suggests issues such as failing to generate a token. What scenarios could lead to that?

I have two applications, and I recently decided to add the Apple Sign In feature. Initially, I configured it for one of the apps as the Primary ID for this feature. Everything worked well, and I decided to add it to the second app. I made a mistake and used the First app as Primary ID using the "Group with an existing primary App ID" flag. Now, when I sign in using the second app, I don't see it in the list of apps in iPhone Settings for Apple Sign In; I only see the primary app. And with that, I no longer see a prompt for sharing/hiding email, and I am unable to revoke credentials correctly. I decided to change the Second app's Sign-in config and set it as the Primary ID for the feature. I was hoping to get two apps independent for the SignIn. However, it doesn't seem to make a difference. The second app behaves the same way, as long as the first app used SignIn, the second one always thinks that the user has already used that feature and never shows the correct prompt. Is there something I missed after changing the Configuration?

Hi all, We are developing an iOS app that includes private user-to-user chats, commercial offer details with monetary value, and customer identification data. In line with OWASP MASVS-PLATFORM-3 requirements regarding unintentional sensitive data exposure, we need to protect these specific screens from screenshots and screen recording. We have carefully reviewed the relevant App Review Guidelines (2.5.1 on public APIs, 2.5.2 on self-contained bundles, 5.1.1 on privacy) and the related Human Interface Guidelines. From this analysis we have observed the following: iOS does not expose a public API to globally disable screen capture (no direct equivalent of Android's FLAG_SECURE). The SwiftUI .privacySensitive() modifier is effective for Lock Screen widgets and Always-On Display, but it does not appear to prevent screenshots or screen recording of an app's main UI while in the foreground. A number of widely distributed App Store apps (banking, authenticator, secure messaging) implement some form of screenshot protection on sensitive screens. Several established open-source libraries leverage the system behavior of UITextField with isSecureTextEntry as a wrapping container for arbitrary views, in order to achieve pixel-level protection for sensitive content. We would appreciate clarification on the following points: For privacy-driven protection of sensitive screens (private chats, customer data, monetized offers), is there an officially recommended approach we may have missed? Are there public APIs intended specifically for this use case beyond .privacySensitive()? Is the practice of leveraging UITextField with isSecureTextEntry as a wrapping container for arbitrary views considered an acceptable use of public APIs under Guideline 2.5.1, or does it carry App Review risk? Are there official recommendations or documentation for apps handling sensitive personal data that wish to align with industry standards such as OWASP MASVS-PLATFORM-3 for screenshot and screen recording leakage prevention? The intended use is strictly limited to a small number of screens marked as containing sensitive data (private messages, deal details, customer information). The protection would be selective and clearly communicated to the user via in-app messaging, not global to the app. Thanks in advance for any clarification, including pointers to existing documentation or threads we may have missed. Deployment target: iOS 15+

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.