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 -- Multiple users Also have tried: -- Revoking the token through the REST API -- I get an email saying the token has been revoked, but it's still working -- Same code, different app id (works fine!)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?

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

Hi,is there an option to mark the file or folder or item stored in user defaults ... not to be backed up when doing unencrypted backup in iTunes?We are developing iOS app that contains sensitive data. But even if we enable Data Protection for the iOS app it can be backed up on mac unencrypted using iTunes. Is there a way to allow backing up content only if the backup is encrypted?

Hi, I’d like to confirm something regarding the hosting of the apple-app-site-association (AASA) file. We have a server that publicly hosts the AASA file and is accessible globally. However, this server sits behind an additional security layer (a security server/reverse proxy). My question is: Will this security layer affect Apple’s ability to access and validate the AASA file for Universal Links or App Clips? Are there specific requirements (e.g. headers, redirects, TLS versions, etc.) that we need to ensure the security server does not block or modify? Any guidance or best practices would be appreciated.

WebAuthn Level 3 § 6.3.2 Step 2 states the authenticator must : Check if at least one of the specified combinations of PublicKeyCredentialType and cryptographic parameters in credTypesAndPubKeyAlgs is supported. If not, return an error code equivalent to "NotSupportedError" and terminate the operation. On my iPhone 15 Pro Max running iOS 18.5, Safari + Passwords does not exhibit this behavior; instead an error is not reported and an ES256 credential is created when an RP passes a non-empty sequence that does not contain {"type":"public-key","alg":-7} (e.g., [{"type":"public-key","alg":-8}]). When I use Chromium 138.0.7204.92 on my laptop running Arch Linux in conjunction with the Passwords app (connected via the "hybrid" protocol), a credential is not created and instead an error is reported per the spec.

Title: Sporadical - Permissions Not Cleared After App Uninstallation on iOS18 I install and launch my private MAUI App I ask for example Bluetooth permissions (can be any other permission) I tap Allow button on native settings (or Don't Allow) I unistall app from real phone (we can wait for a while) I install and launch My Private MAUI App I ask for example Bluetooth permissions <- here is an issue. Bluetooth is already granted, so I cannot ask for it again. Occurrence: This issue occurs inconsistently: On iOS 18.5: approximately 5 out of 10 times On iOS 17: approximately 1 out of 50 times Tested using my automated system using Appium latest. After each scenario I unistall app using: "mobile: removeApp" with bundleId

I am new to swift development, and it's possible that I'm missing something fundamental/obvious. If so, I apologize in advance. My team is developing an application for iPadOS using SwiftUI, and I'm trying to accomplish something similar to what the original inquirer is asking for in this thread: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/725152. The only difference is that I'm trying to use a PIV smart card to achieve authentication to a server rather than digitally sign a document. Unfortunately, I'm getting stuck when attempting to run the list() function provided in the accepted answer to the post mentioned above. When attempting to call SecItemCopyMatching(), I'm getting a -34018 missing entitlement error. I've attempted to add the com.apple.token to my app's keychain-access-groups entitlements, but this does not resolve the issue. I have checked the entitlements in my built app, per the recommendation in the troubleshooting guide here: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/114456. The entitlement for com.apple.token is indeed present in the plist. Based on other documentation I've read, however, it seems that the explicit declaration of com.apple.token should not even be required in the entitlements. Is there something obvious that I'm missing here that would prevent my app from accessing the token access group?

I hope this problem could be solved, also in case any other one strugling the same issue could be helpful. We are developing an iOS App which use "sign in with Apple" feature. We found we can not login with this feature, the "sign in with Apple" dialog box always flash an error info "Sign-Up Not Complete". We have double checked configuration of Bundle ID, and xcode capabilities, info.plist, entitlements, etc. We have even changed the developer team, using other bundle ID and demo code to testify this, also got failure of "Sign-Up Not Complete" error. We did even just use Apple official demo code (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/AuthenticationServices/implementing-user-authentication-with-sign-in-with-apple), also got the same failure. Interestingly, we found that using some old Bundle IDs which created before (even we did not use it for App yet), we could get "sign in with Apple" success logged in. Therefore we now can not include "sign in with Apple" feature in our App today, and this is the key feature in our App. Please help. Since there is very little information we could collect, I just put the debug error here: Authorization failed: Error Domain=AKAuthenticationError Code=-7003 "(null)" UserInfo={AKClientBundleID=com.nethawk.flutter.battlebuddy} LaunchServices: store (null) or url (null) was nil: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "process may not map database" UserInfo={NSDebugDescription=process may not map database, _LSLine=72, _LSFunction=_LSServer_GetServerStoreForConnectionWithCompletionHandler} Attempt to map database failed: permission was denied. This attempt will not be retried. Failed to initialize client context with error Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "process may not map database" UserInfo={NSDebugDescription=process may not map database, _LSLine=72, _LSFunction=_LSServer_GetServerStoreForConnectionWithCompletionHandler} Failed to get application extension record: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1001 "(null)"

Hi all, I’m building a macOS-native C++ trading bot, compiled via Xcode. It sends REST API requests to a crypto exchange (Bitvavo) that require HMAC-SHA256 signatures using a pre-sign string (timestamp + method + path + body) and an API secret. Here’s the issue: • The exact same pre-sign string and API secret produce valid responses when signed using Python (hmac.new(secret, msg, hashlib.sha256)), • But when I generate the HMAC signature using C++ (HMAC(EVP_sha256, ...) via OpenSSL), the exchange returns an invalid signature error. Environment: • Xcode 15.3 / macOS 14.x • OpenSSL installed via Homebrew • HMAC test vectors match Python’s output for basic strings (so HMAC lib seems correct) Yet when using the real API keys and dynamic timestamped messages, something differs enough to break verification — possibly due to UTF-8 encoding, memory alignment, or newline handling differences in the Xcode C++ runtime? Has anyone experienced subtle differences between Python and C++ HMAC-SHA256 behavior when compiled in Xcode? I’ve published a GitHub repo for reproducibility: 🔗 https://github.com/vanBaardewijk/bitvavo-cpp-signature-test Thanks in advance for any suggestions or insights. Sascha

First, I do not publish my application to the AppStore, but I need to customize a sandbox environment. It seems that sandbox-exec cannot configure entitlements, so I have used some other APIs, such as sandbox_compile_entitlements and sandbox_apply_container. When encountering the entitlement "com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-only", I am unsure how to correctly write sandbox profile to implement this. Can anyone help me?

For context, my company develops a data loss prevention (DLP) product. Part of our functionality is the ability to detect sensitive data being pasted into a web browser or cloud-based app. The AppKit release notes for April 2025 document an upcoming “macOS pasteboard privacy” feature, which will presumably ship in macOS 26. Using the user default setting “EnablePasteboardPrivacyDeveloperPreview” documented in the release notes, I tested our agent under macOS 15.5, and encountered a modal alert reading " is trying to access the pasteboard" almost immediately, when the program reads the General pasteboard to scan its contents. Since our product is aimed at enterprise customers (and not individual Mac users), I believed Apple would implement a privacy control setting for this new feature. This would allow our customers to push a configuration profile via MDM, with the “Paste from Other Apps” setting for our application preset to “Allow”, so that they can install our product on their endpoints without manual intervention. Unfortunately, as of macOS 26 beta 4 (25A5316i), there does not seem to be any such setting documented under Device Management — for example in PrivacyPreferencesPolicyControl.Services, which lists a number of similar settings. Without such a setting available, a valuable function of our product will be effectively crippled when macOS 26 is released. Is there such a setting (that I've overlooked)? If not, allow me to urge Apple to find the resources to implement one, so that our customers can preset “Paste from Other Apps” to “Allow” for our application.

Since a few days, we are hitting AuthorizationError 1000 / 1001 whenever we try to use Sign in with Apple for a new app. We have added entitlements to the app in both release and debug, and setup the services id. Many other devs are complaining about the same issue lately, and it's possible to reproduce on a fresh app id, see this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/flutterhelp/comments/1lf6kmq/sign_in_with_apple_signup_not_completed

I have been implementing an sdk for authenticating a user. I have noticed that on iOS 18.5, whether using SFSafariViewController, or the sdk (built on ASWebAuthenticationSession), password autofill does not work. I have confirmed it works on a different device running iOS 18.0.1. Are there any work arounds for this at this time? Specifically for ASWebAuthenticationSession?

In the hopes of saving others time, the updated demo project (i.e. the new Shiny) can be found from the video 'Resources' section under 'Performing fast account creation with passkeys'. The beta documentation can also be found from there. All of the new functionality is available only on *OS 26 at this time.

In some crashlog files, there are additional pieces of information related to codesigning. I can understand what most of themcorresponds to (ID, TeamID, Flags, Validation Category). But there is one I have some doubt about: Trust Level. As far as I can tell (or at least what Google and other search engines say), this is an unsigned 32 bit integer that defines the trust level with -1 being untrusted, 0, being basically an Apple executable and other potential bigger values corresponding to App Store binaries, Developer ID signature, etc. Yet, I'm not able to find a corresponding detailed documentation about this on Apple's developer website. I also had a look at the LightweightCodeRequirements "include" file and there does not seem to be such a field available. [Q] Is there any official documentation listing the different values for this trust level value and providing a clear description of what it corresponds to?

Hey there, im getting Sign up not complete! even with the official template https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationservices/implementing-user-authentication-with-sign-in-with-apple my developer account is recently renewed, which it has expired for a bit i am using automatic managed signing I have a feel something went wrong my apple developer account id, and also this cause me getting invalid client when sign in with app on web app.

Hi everyone, I have a macOS application that uses Screen Recording permission. I build my app with an adhoc signature (not with a Developer ID certificate). For example, in version 1.0.0, I grant Screen Recording permission to the app. Later, I build a new version (1.1.0) and update by dragging the new app into the Applications folder to overwrite the previous one. However, when I launch the updated app, it asks for Screen Recording permission again, even though I have already granted it for the previous version. I don’t fully understand how TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control) determines when permissions need to be re-granted. Can anyone explain how TCC manages permissions for updated builds, especially with adhoc signatures? Is there any way to retain permissions between updates, or any best practices to avoid having users re-authorize permissions after every update?

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?

Hello. I have issue with implementing "Sign in with Apple" on my website. As folow, I have created: App ID identifier: com.livnobus.app (G2F5N5UHYZ) Service ID identifier: com.livnobus.client (B25ZN8P84U) with option enabled "Sign in with Apple" and configuration (Primary App ID and Webiste URLs) Key ID: 43N8XKUW7S with option enabled "Sign in with Apple" and configuration (Primary App ID and Grouped App Ids) When I click "Sign in with Apple" on my website (https://dev.livnobus.com/auth/login), system redirect me to https://appleid.apple.com/ and error show "invalid_client". Redirect URL on my web site is: https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?client_id=com.livnobus.client&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fdev.livnobus.com%2Fauth%2Fapple%2Fcallback&scope=name%20email&response_type=code&response_mode=form_post&state=eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO&nonce=e7c7a242-1977-47ea-9013-98820c24bfba.eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO There was old Service ID identifier com.livnobus.app-client, for which I lost private KEY, so I have created new one: com.livnobus.client With old Service ID com.livnobus.app-client, https://appleid.apple.com/ shows me Apple form for sign in, but with new Service ID com.livnobus.client there is error "invalid_client" https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?client_id=com.livnobus.app-client&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fdev.livnobus.com%2Fauth%2Fapple%2Fcallback&scope=name%20email&response_type=code&response_mode=form_post&state=eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO&nonce=e7c7a242-1977-47ea-9013-98820c24bfba.eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO These changes I have made last Friday, and since then I can't use "Sign in with Apple" on my website. Thanks!

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