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?

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?

Our app uses Sign in with Apple. In recent weeks (or months), we've noticed that emails sent to @privaterelay.appleid.com addresses are not being delivered. We're not receiving any bouncebacks or error messages from the mail server, but the emails never reach the user's mailbox. We've also checked spam folders, with no luck. We have verified that our Email Sources are configured correctly in Apple Developer settings. Is there any way to debug or trace what might be happening with these messages? Thanks in advance!

I'm developing an Authorization Plug-In and have stumbled upon a concerning behavior regarding credential caching that may have security implications. Consider this scenario: I'm working on a Mac without admin privileges, and I need to temporarily disable the Firewall for some testing. An administrator physically comes to my machine, inputs their credentials to disable the Firewall, and then leaves. What follows is that, for a short period after this action, the administrator's credentials remain cached in Authorization Services. During this window, I can perform some additional privileged operations without any re-authentication. For example, I can open Activity Monitor and send SIGKILL signals to arbitrary privileged processes (!!). From what I could gather, this happens because system.preferences.network shares cached credentials with other authorization rights. Even more concerning, even when I explicitly modify the authorization database to prevent credential sharing for this specific right, the behavior persists! I suspect the issue relates to the underlying shared authentication rules (such as authenticate-admin-30, which com.apple.activitymonitor.kill uses), but I've been unable to modify these rules to test this theory. From my understanding, the most concerning aspect is that even if all system Authorization Rights were configured to not share credentials, third-party applications could still create proprietary rights that might end up sharing credentials anyway. From my Auth Plug-In, I've tried unsetting the kAuthorizationEnvironmentShared context value (even though the documentation in AuthorizationTags.h tells me that the value is ignored), and looking for ways to override the timeout for shared credentials, both without success. Finally, I'm looking to answer some questions that have been raised: I understand that this credential sharing is a feature, but isn't the behavior I described actually a security vulnerability? I worry that other (potentially more dangerous) operations may be able to exploit this. Is there a recommended way to prevent privileged credentials from being reused across arbitrary authorization rights if the original process does not destroy the auth reference? Are there any options from within an Authorization Plug-In to ensure more strict authentication boundaries? What exactly is the authorization "session" mentioned in /System/Library/Security/authorization.plist? Does this concept imply that System Settings.app and Activity Monitor.app share the same session in my previous example? This post ended up being quite long, but unfortunately, documentation on the subject seems incredibly scarce. For reference, the little information I could find came from: QA 1277 The Credentials Cache and the Authentication Dialog Comments on /System/Library/Security/authorization.plist

Hi! I'm trying to add Sign in with Apple to my macOS app. I enabled this capability from the developer portal and created the corresponding certificate & provisioning profile (both of type Developer ID Application.) However, Xcode keeps prompting me that the profile doesn't support Sign in with Apple. If I enable Automatically manage signing from Xcode, I can build and run the app but not distribute. If I turn it off and use the profile I got, it just keeps showing the errors below and doesn't even let me build.

WebAuthn Level 3 § 5.1.3 Step 22 Item 4 states the steps a user agent MUST follow when "conditional" mediation is used in conjunction with required user verification: Let userVerification be the effective user verification requirement for credential creation, a Boolean value, as follows. If pkOptions.authenticatorSelection.userVerification is set to required If options.mediation is set to conditional and user verification cannot be collected during the ceremony, throw a ConstraintError DOMException. Let userVerification be true. On my iPhone 15 Pro Max running iOS 18.5, Safari + Passwords does not exhibit this behavior; instead an error is not reported and user verification is not performed (i.e., the UV bit is 0). Per the spec this results in a registration ceremony failure on the server which is made all the more "annoying" since the credential was created in Passwords forcing a user to then delete the credential. : If the Relying Party requires user verification for this registration, verify that the UV bit of the flags in authData is set. In contrast when I use Google Password Manager + Chrome on a Samsung Galaxy S24 running Android 15, user verification is enforced and the UV bit is 1. Either the UV bit should be 1 after enforcing user verification or an error should be thrown since user verification cannot be performed.

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.

Has anyone here encountered this? It's driving me crazy. It appears on launch. App Sandbox is enabled. The proper entitlement is selected (com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write) I believe this is causing an issue with app functionality for users on different machines. There is zero documentation across the internet on this problem. I am on macOS 26 beta. This error appears in both Xcode and Xcode-beta. Please help! Thank you, Logan

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.

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. Thanks!

We implemented a feature to receive name and email address after Sign in with Apple, and it works perfectly in our testing. However, during the app review, they says it doesn't work, and the app is rejected. Why does it work differently?

I keep getting invalid_client, here is a test login: https://www.bella-booking.ch/_get_incl/test_apple_login.cfm Any help appreciated. NOTE: Everey other error, like wrong reroute or wrong client id, a different error will be sent frpm apple, after I checked all and crosschecked with jwt.io, it keep getting invalid_client. Any clue? If the response is correct, the token should be displayed on the page. Thx

We are experiencing a significant issue with macOS security alerts that began on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. This alert is incorrectly identifying output files from our snippet tests as malware, causing these files to be blocked and moved to the Trash. This is completely disrupting our automated testing workflows. Issue Description: Alert: We are seeing the "Malware Blocked and Moved to Trash" popup window. Affected Files: The security alert triggers when attempting to execute .par files generated as outputs from our snippet tests. These .par files are unique to each individual test run; they are not a single, static tool. System-Wide Impact: This issue is impacting multiple macOS hosts across our testing infrastructure. Timeline: The issue began abruptly on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. Before that time, our tests were functioning correctly. macOS Versions: The problem is occurring on hosts running both macOS 14.x and 15.x. Experimental Host: Even after upgrading an experimental host to macOS 15.6 beta 2, the issue persisted. Local execution: The issue can be reproduced locally. Observations: The security system is consistently flagging these snippet test output files as malware. Since each test generates a new .par file, and this issue is impacting all generated files, the root cause doesn't appear to be specific to the code within the .par files themselves. This issue is impacting all the snippet tests, making us believe that the root cause is not related to our code. The sudden and widespread nature of the issue strongly suggests a change in a security database or rule, rather than a change in our testing code. Questions: Could a recent update to the XProtect database be the cause of this false positive? Are there any known issues or recent changes in macOS security mechanisms that could cause this kind of widespread and sudden impact? What is the recommended way to diagnose and resolve this kind of false positive? We appreciate any guidance or assistance you can provide. Thank you.

When presenting a cookie banner for GDPR purposes, should ATT precede the cookie banner? It seems that showing a Cookie Banner and then showing the ATT permission prompt afterwards (if a user elects to allow cookies/tracking) would be more appropriate. Related question: Should the “Allow Tracking” toggle for an app in system settings serve as a master switch for any granular tracking that might be managed by a 3rd party Consent Management Platform? If ATT is intended to serve as a master switch for tracking consent, if the ATT prompt is presented before a cookie banner, should the banner even appear if a user declines tracking consent? I’m not finding any good resources that describe this flow in detail and I’m seeing implementations all over the place on this. Help! Thanks!!!

My existing iOS app has a legacy App ID prefix which does not match my Team ID. I am planning on migrating it to my Team ID. I am aware of the potential issues with keychain access groups, however I wanted to double check that there are no issues related to "Sign in with Apple". My app is currently the "Primary App ID" in the "Sign in with Apple" settings. The full App ID is listed there, including the prefix. Can someone from the relevant team at Apple confirm that changing the App ID prefix to Team ID has no effect related to "Sign in with Apple"?

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 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"

General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Privacy Resources Security Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Forums tag: Privacy Developer > Security — This also covers privacy topics. App privacy details on the App Store UIKit > Protecting the User’s Privacy documentation Bundle Resources > Privacy manifest files documentation TN3181 Debugging an invalid privacy manifest technote TN3182 Adding privacy tracking keys to your privacy manifest technote TN3183 Adding required reason API entries to your privacy manifest technote TN3184 Adding data collection details to your privacy manifest technote TN3179 Understanding local network privacy technote Handling ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest forums post Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

we develop extension "Autofill Credential Provider" function for passkey. 1.first step registe passkey 2.second step authenticate with passkey step 1 & step 2 has finished and run success with provideCredentialWithoutUserInteraction. But we want to prepare our interface for use to input password and select passkey what the want. however the func prepareInterfaceToProvideCredential in ASCredentialProviderViewController does call? what i missed? how can i do it?

While I was submitting a new feedback today for an iPhone/iPad storage issue, I saw a new log called “iOS storage log”. I could find no reference to this when I searched online. It made me wonder if it was new and if it contained personal data? Most of us only have one device, with all our personal data. Therefore, I’d appreciate any input on what personal data these logs contain.