We have successfully deployed our Qt C++ application on Windows and Android using OpenSSL with TLS Pre-Shared Key (PSK) authentication to connect to our servers. However, I understand that apps submitted to the App Store must use SecureTransport as the TLS backend on iOS. My understandiunig is that SecureTransport does not support PSK ciphersuites, which is critical for our security architecture. Questions: Does SecureTransport support TLS PSK authentication, or are there plans to add this feature? If PSK is not supported, what is Apple's recommended alternative for applications that require PSK-based authentication? Is there an approved exception process that would allow me to use OpenSSL for TLS connections on iOS while still complying with App Store guidelines? The application requires PSK for secure communication with our infrastructure, and we need guidance on how to maintain feature parity across all platforms while meeting App Store requirements

I downloaded a P12 file (containing a private key) from the company server, and retrieved the private key from this P12 file using a password : private func loadPrivateKeyFromPKCS12(path: String, password: String) throws -> SecKey? { let p12Data: Data do { p12Data = try Data(contentsOf: fileURL) } catch let readError { ... } let options: [CFString: Any] = [ kSecImportExportPassphrase: password as CFString ] var items: CFArray? let status = SecPKCS12Import(p12Data as CFData, options as CFDictionary, &items) guard status == errSecSuccess else { throw exception } var privateKey: SecKey? let idd = identity as! SecIdentity let _ = SecIdentityCopyPrivateKey(idd, &privateKey) return privateKey } However, when I use this private key to call SecKeyCreateSignature for data signing, a dialog box always pops up to ask user to input the Mac admin password. What confuses me is that this private key is clearly stored in the local P12 file, and there should be no access to the keychain involved in this process. Why does the system still require the user's login password for signing? Is it possible to perform silent signing (without the system dialog popping up) in this scenario?

Could you tell me about account security and passkeys? Our service is considering implementing passkeys, and these questions are to understand how Apple protects accounts from third parties. ① Apple website states that two-factor authentication is mandatory for newly created Apple Accounts. When did this requirement come into effect? What are the conditions for users who do not have two-factor authentication enabled? ② Apple website mentions that a verification code may be required when signing into an Apple Account from a new device or browser. Is my understanding of the situations where a verification code is requested accurate, as listed below? Are there any other situations? Completely signing out of the Apple Account on that device. Erasing the device. Needing to change the password for security reasons. ③ If a user is already using a passkey on an Apple device, and then upgrades to a new device, will additional authentication, such as entering a PIN code, be required to use the passkey on the new device?

Hello, We are building a new app that would be kinda extension of the other and we want to let our community share the same account in between. We use Apple Sign in and we want Appel sign in system to give the same identity when people use apple relay. One of our app is alreadey released, can we still do it to share the same Apple login?

a I am submitting this appeal because we believe our app was misunderstood and the review outcome and follow-up communication have been unfair and mechanically handled. 1) What happened / Outcome we disagree with Our submission was rejected under Guideline 4.8 – Design – Login Services, with the reviewer stating that our app uses a third-party login service but does not provide an equivalent login option that meets Apple’s requirements (limited data collection, private email option, no advertising tracking without consent). However, our game does not require or force any third-party login. The feature being treated as “login” is not a login service at all—it is Mainland China real-name / anti-addiction compliance verification. 2) Why we believe we comply with the App Review Guidelines A. The feature in question is compliance verification, not login Players do not need to create or log into any in-game account to play. The flow exists solely to satisfy Mainland China real-name/anti-addiction compliance requirements. Verification can be completed by either: Using TapTap only as a real-name verification authorization option, or Manually entering a Chinese ID number + legal name to pass verification and play. Because this is verification, not an account login, Guideline 4.8 “Login Services” should not apply in the way the rejection message assumes. B. There is no “playable account” to provide After we clarified the above, we continued to receive repeated, template-like requests to provide a “playable account.” This request does not match our product design: there is no account system required for gameplay, so there is no “review account” to provide. We have already provided the information needed to complete the verification path (ID + name for the compliance flow), yet the responses remained repetitive and did not reflect that the reviewer checked our explanation. 3) Why we believe the handling was unfair Even after clearly explaining that this is not a login system, the review communication continued with mechanical responses that did not address the clarification. This caused significant delays to our release timeline and appears to be unfair treatment compared with many existing App Store apps that use similar compliance verification flows. 4) What we are requesting from the Appeals Team Please investigate and correct the misclassification of our real-name compliance verification as a “login service” under Guideline 4.8. If the team still believes Guideline 4.8 applies, please provide: The specific guideline rationale, and The exact screen/step in our app that is being interpreted as “login.” Please advise what specific materials you need to proceed efficiently (e.g., screen recording of the verification flow, step-by-step review instructions, configuration notes). We are ready to provide them immediately.

I am developing a macOS system service (standalone binary running as a LaunchDaemon) that requires the ability to sign data using a private key which will be deployed via MDM. The Setup: Deployment: A .mobileconfig pushes a PKCS12 identity to the System Keychain. Security Requirement: For compliance and security reasons, we cannot set AllowAllAppsAccess to <true/>. The key must remain restricted. The Goal: I need to use the private key from the identity to be able to sign the data The Problem: The Certificate Payload does not support a TrustedApplications or AccessControl array to pre-authorize binary paths. As a result, when the process tries to use the private key for signing (SecKeyCreateSignature), it prompts the user to allow this operation which creates a disruption and is not desired. What i've tried so far: Manually adding my process to the key's ACL in keychain access obviously works and prevents any prompts but this is not an "automatable" solution. Using security tool in a script to attempt to modify the ACL in an automated way, but that also asks user for password and is not seamless. The Question: Is there a documented, MDM-compatible way to inject a specific binary path into the ACL of a private key? If not, is there a better way to achieve the end goal?

We need to transfer an App to other developer account, both the account are belong to our company. As we know, our app is using the Sign in with Apple function that we need to do some transfer job and we refer to this document: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3159-migrating-sign-in-with-apple-users-for-an-app-transfer. There is a lot of users using the Sign in with Apple in our app, totally serval millions. To avoid risks as much as possible that we have to make the work flow very clearly, so we're seeking help here. I have serval questions, some I've got the answers from Google gemini and this Forums, I will list them below, please take a look what I understanding is correct or not, thanks. A. From the document above, can I performed the Steps 1&2 before the app transfer? if so, is there a maximum lead time for these transfer_subs? B. Regarding Step 5(Team B exchanging transfer identifiers via https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo) are there specific rate limits (requests per second/minute) for this endpoint? Cause we have a huge number of user whose using the Sign in with Apple, we have to transfer the sub values as soon as possible. C. Cause we have a huge number of user whose using the Sign in with Apple again, This transfer job involves huge risks. So, is there any way to simulate these whole operations? Answer by my self: NO.

I'm trying to confirm the correct URL for Apple Attest development. There seems to be a fraud metric risk section that uses this: https://data-development.appattest.apple.com/v1/attestationData However the key verification seems to use this: https://data-development.appattest.apple.com/v1/attestation Currently I'm attempting to verify the key, so the second one seems likely. However I keep receiving a 404 despite vigorous validation of all fields included in the JSON as well as headers. Can anyone confirm please, which URL I should be sending my AppleAttestationRequest to?

Our organization operates a web platform that hosts numerous newspaper properties. We recently acquired a new newspaper and are in the process of integrating it into our platform. As part of this transition, we’ve successfully transferred the App and App ID for the acquired newspaper into our Apple Developer portal. However, no Service ID associated with Sign in with Apple was included in the transfer. Our current implementation uses a single, unified Service ID for all existing newspaper properties. This Service ID facilitates OAuth via a centralized Identity Server. The organization we acquired provided a CSV file containing a list of transport_ids, and based on our understanding, we’re expected to use the Apple endpoint: https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo to initiate a registration process by submitting our Service ID (client_id) along with each transport ID. This step is required before users can sign in, and it should return the existing relay email address. We have a few key concerns: Service ID Compatibility It appears that users cannot be transferred between Service IDs. In our case, there are now two: a.) Our existing Service ID (used across all current newspaper properties) b.) A separate Service ID previously associated with the acquired newspaper 3.) Due to architectural constraints, our platform cannot dynamically toggle between multiple Apple Service IDs. All properties authenticate through our unified Identity Server bound to our existing Service ID. 4.) Is it possible to call /usermigrationinfo using our existing Service ID rather than the one originally used by the acquired property? 5.) Relay Email and Apple ID Consistency 6.) We’re seeing conflicting information about whether the Apple relay email address (@privaterelay.appleid.com) and the Apple user ID are preserved during this migration. Some sources suggest that the relay email and Apple ID are tightly coupled to both the Service ID and Team ID. 7.) If we call /usermigrationinfo with our existing Service ID, will the same relay email be returned, or will Apple issue a new one?

I can see the user’s real daily Screen Time perfectly inside a DeviceActivityReport extension on a physical device. It’s right there. But the moment I try to use that exact total inside my main app (for today’s log and a leaderboard), it dosnt work. I’ve tried, App Groups, Shared UserDefaults, Writing to a shared container file, CFPreferences Nothing makes it across. The report displays fine, but the containing app never receives the total. If this is sandboxed by design, I’d love confirmation. Thanks a lot

I’m looking for clarification on how rate limiting works for the App Attest service, especially in production environments. According to the entitlement documentation (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/BundleResources/Entitlements/com.apple.developer.devicecheck.appattest-environment), iOS ignores the environment setting once an app is distributed through TestFlight, the App Store, or Enterprise distribution, and always contacts the production App Attest endpoint. With that context, I have two questions: Rate‑Limiting Thresholds How exactly does rate limiting work for App Attest? Is there a defined threshold beyond which attestation requests begin to fail? The "Preparing to Use the App Attest Service" documentation (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/preparing-to-use-the-app-attest-service) recommends ramping up no more than 10 million users per day per app, but I’m trying to understand what practical limits or failure conditions developers should expect. Per‑AppID Budgeting If multiple apps have different App IDs, do they each receive their own independent attestation budget/rate limit? Or is the rate limiting shared across all apps under the same developer account?

Hello, I am currently process of migrating an app from Team A to Team B and attempting to generate transfer identifiers using the migration endpoint: POST https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo. Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded However, I am consistently receiving an { "error": "access_denied" } response. [Current Configuration] Team A (Source): Primary App ID: com.example.primary Grouped App IDs: com.example.service (Services ID for Web) com.example.app (App ID for iOS - The one being transferred) All identifiers are under the same App Group. Team B (Destination): New App ID and Key created. [Steps Taken] Created a Client Secret (JWT) using Team A's Key ID and Team ID. The sub (subject) in the JWT is set to the Primary App ID of Team A. Requesting with client_id (Primary App ID), client_secret (JWT), and user_token. [Questions] 1. App Group Impact: Does the fact that the App being transferred is a Grouped App ID (not the Primary) affect the usermigrationinfo request? Should I use the Primary App ID or the specific Grouped App ID as the client_id? 2. Ungrouping Safety: If I need to ungroup the App ID from the Primary App ID to resolve this: Will existing users still be able to sign in without issues? Is there any risk of changing the sub (user identifier) that the app receives from Apple? Will this cause any immediate service interruption for the live app? Any insights on why access_denied occurs in this Primary-Grouped configuration would be greatly appreciated.

I have a user (myself, during development) who originally signed in with Apple successfully. I attempted to revoke access via Settings > Apple ID > Sign-In & Security > Sign in with Apple, but the app appears stuck in the list and cannot be fully removed. Now when attempting to sign in again, the identity token contains the correct sub but email is undefined. According to Apple's documentation, "Apple provides the user's email address in the identity token on all subsequent API responses." I've tried programmatically revoking via the /auth/revoke endpoint (received 200 OK), and I've implemented the server-to-server notification endpoint to handle consent-revoked events, but subsequent sign-in attempts still return no email. The same Apple ID works fine with other apps. Is there a way to fully reset the credential state for a specific app, or is this a known issue with partially-revoked authorizations?

I have a user (myself, during development) who originally signed in with Apple successfully. I attempted to revoke access via Settings > Apple ID > Sign-In & Security > Sign in with Apple, but the app appears stuck in the list and cannot be fully removed. Now when attempting to sign in again, the identity token contains the correct sub but email is undefined. According to Apple's documentation, "Apple provides the user's email address in the identity token on all subsequent API responses." I've tried programmatically revoking via the /auth/revoke endpoint (received 200 OK), and I've implemented the server-to-server notification endpoint to handle consent-revoked events, but subsequent sign-in attempts still return no email. The same Apple ID works fine with other apps. Is there a way to fully reset the credential state for a specific app, or is this a known issue with partially-revoked authorizations?

Hello, We are experiencing an issue related to Sign in with Apple Server-to-Server (S2S) notifications, specifically involving repeated delivery of the account-deleted event, and would like to ask whether this behavior is expected or known. Background We have configured an S2S notification endpoint for Sign in with Apple in accordance with Apple’s requirements for account status change notifications. Our endpoint: Is reachable over HTTPS Consistently returns HTTP 200 OK Successfully receives other S2S events, including: email-enabled email-disabled consent-revoked Issue: Repeated 'account-deleted' events for the same Apple ID For most users, the account-deleted event is delivered only once, as expected. However, for a specific Apple ID used with Sign in with Apple, we are observing repeated deliveries of the same account-deleted event, arriving at regular intervals (approximately every 5 minutes). The payload contents are identical between deliveries and include the same user identifier (sub) and event timestamp. Notably: The Apple ID deletion itself completed successfully The payload does not change between deliveries Our endpoint continues to return HTTP 200 OK for every request Questions We would appreciate clarification on the following points: Is repeated delivery of the same account-deleted event expected behavior in any scenario? Is there a retry or redelivery mechanism for this event type, even when HTTP 200 is returned? Could repeated deliveries indicate that the deletion process is still considered “in progress” on Apple’s side? Are developers expected to treat account-deleted events as at-least-once delivery and handle them idempotently? Additional context While researching this issue, we found a forum thread describing a very similar case: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/735674 In that discussion, Apple staff advised submitting the issue via Feedback Assistant, which suggests that this behavior may already be understood internally. We have also submitted a Feedback Assistant report with detailed logs and timestamps. Any clarification on the expected behavior or recommended handling for this scenario would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and support.

Hi I am experiencing a persistent 'invalid_client' error when attempting to exchange the authorization code for an access token using Sign in with Apple for my website (https://www.vitamarinaweb.com). Current Setup & Steps Taken: Identifier: I am using the Service ID com.vitamarinaweb.web1, which is correctly linked to the Primary App ID com.vitamarinaweb.web. Client Secret: I have generated a fresh Client Secret (JWT) using a valid Key (.p8) and confirmed the Team ID (29J763Q88J) and Key ID (RRW6536D27) are correct. Redirect URIs: My Return URL is set to https://www.vitamarinaweb.com/login.php and I have verified there are no trailing spaces or mismatches. Manual Test (CURL): When I perform a manual POST request via CURL using the generated Client Secret, I receive an 'invalid_grant' response (meaning the Client Secret and Client ID are accepted, and only the temporary code is rejected as expected). The Issue: Despite the CURL success, every request initiated through the web browser/PHP application returns {"error":"invalid_client"}. Verification Requested: Could you please verify if there is a synchronization delay or a specific block on Service ID com.vitamarinaweb.web1? Is there any internal mismatch between the Key ID RRW6536D27 and its association with the newly created Service ID? I have already cleared browser caches and tried multiple devices (different IP addresses) with the same result. Thank you for your assistance."

Hi, we were recently approved for the com.apple.developer.web-browser.public-key-credential entitlement and have added it to our app. It initially worked as expected for a couple of days, but then it stopped working. We're now seeing the same error as before adding the entitlement: Told not to present authorization sheet: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServicesCore.AuthorizationError Code=1 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 "(null)" Do you have any insights into what might be causing this issue? Thank you!

From watching the video on App Attest the answer would appear to be no, but the video is a few years old so in hope, I thought I would post this question anyway. There's several scenarios where I would like a notification service extension to be able to use App Attest in communications with the back end(for example to send a receipt to the backend acknowledging receipt of the push, fetching an image from a url in the push payload, a few others). Any change App Attest can be used in by a notification service extension?

We have a custom SecurityAgentPlugin that is triggered by multiple authorizationdb entries. Some customers report that the SecurityAgent process takes window focus even though no UI or windows are displayed. Our plugin explicitly ignores the _securityAgent user and does not show any UI for that user. However, in macOS 26.1, it appears that the plugin still causes the SecurityAgent to take focus as soon as it is triggered. Is this a change in macOS 26.1 or a bug? Can we do anything to prevent "focus stealing"?

To use passkeys, you need to place the correct AASA file on the web server and add an entry in the Entitlements.plist, for example webcredentials:mydomain.com. This is clear so far, but I would like to ask if it's possible to set this webcredentials in a different way in the app? The reason for this is that we are developing a native app and our on-premise customers have their own web servers. We cannot know these domains in advance so creating a dedicated app for each customer is not option for us. Thank you for your help!