Summary I am investigating a change in macOS 26.1 (Tahoe) where plain (non-bundled) executables that request screen recording access no longer appear under: System Settings → Privacy & Security → Screen & System Audio Recording This behavior differs from macOS Sequoia, where these executables did appear in the list and could be managed through the UI. Tahoe still prompts for permission and still allows the executable to capture the screen once permission is granted, but the executable never shows up in the UI list. This breaks user expectations and removes UI-based permission management. To confirm the behavior, I created a small reproduction project with both: a plain executable, and an identical executable packaged inside an .app bundle. Only the bundled version appears in System Settings. Observed Behaviour 1. Plain Executable (from my reproduction project) When running a plain executable that captures the screen: macOS displays the normal screen-recording permission prompt. Before granting permission: screenshots show only the desktop background. After granting permission: screenshots capture the full display. The executable does not appear under “Screen & System Audio Recording”. Even when permission is granted manually (e.g., dragging the executable into the pane), the executable still does not appear, which prevents the user from modifying or revoking the permission through the UI. If the executable is launched from inside another app (e.g., VS Code, Terminal), the parent app appears in the list instead, not the executable itself. 2. Bundled App Version (from the reproduction project) I packaged the same code into a simple .app bundle (ScreenCaptureApp.app). When running the app: The same permission prompt appears. Pre-permission screenshots show the desktop background. Post-permission screenshots capture the full display. The app does appear under “Screen & System Audio Recording”. This bundle uses the same underlying executable — the only difference is packaging. Hypothesis macOS 26.1 (Tahoe) appears to require app bundles for an item to be shown in the Screen Recording privacy UI. Plain executables: still request and receive permission, still function correctly after permission is granted, but do not appear in the System Settings list. This may be an intentional change, undocumented behavior, or a regression. Reproduction Project The reproduction project includes: screen_capture.go A simple Go program that captures screenshots in a loop. screen_capture_executable Plain executable built from the Go source. ScreenCaptureApp.app/ App bundle containing the same executable. build.sh Builds both the plain executable and the app bundle. Permission reset and TCC testing scripts. The project demonstrates the behavior consistently. Steps to Reproduce Plain Executable Build: ./build.sh Reset screen capture permissions: sudo tccutil reset ScreenCapture Run: ./screen_capture_executable Before granting: screenshots show desktop only. Grant permission when prompted. After granting: full screenshots. Executable does not appear in “Screen & System Audio Recording”. Bundled App Build (if not already built): ./build.sh Reset permissions (optional): sudo tccutil reset ScreenCapture Run: open ScreenCaptureApp.app Before granting: screenshots show desktop. After granting: full screenshots. App bundle appears in the System Settings list. Additional Check I also tested launching the plain executable as a child process of another executable, similar to how some software architectures work. Result: Permission prompt appears Permission can be granted Executable still does not appear in the UI, even though TCC tracks it internally → consistent with the plain-executable behaviour. This reinforces that only app bundles are listed. Questions for Apple Is the removal of plain executables from “Screen & System Audio Recording” an intentional change in macOS Tahoe? If so, does Apple now require all screen-recording capable binaries to be packaged as .app bundles for the UI to display them? Is there a supported method for making a plain executable (launched by a parent process) appear in the list? If this is not intentional, what is the recommended path for reporting this as a regression? Files Unfortunately, I have discovered the zip file that contains my reproduction project can't be directly uploaded here. Here is a Google Drive link instead: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sXsr3Q0g6_UzlOIL54P5wbS7yBkpMJ7A/view?usp=sharing Thank you for taking the time to review this. Any insight into whether this change is intentional or a regression would be very helpful.

Our Goal: We are implementing a workflow for derived credentials. Our objective is to have a PIV/CAC derived credential (from Entrust), installed via the Intune MDM Company Portal app, and then use it within our (managed) app to generate digital signatures. Challenge: The Intune Company Portal installs these identities into the System Keychain. Because third-party apps are restricted from accessing private keys in the System Keychain, we are running into a roadblock. Our Question: 1) Is there an API that allows us to create a signature without us having to pass the private key itself, but instead just pass a handle/some reference to the private key and then the API can access the private key in the system keychain and create the signature under the hood. SecKeyCreateSignature is the API method that creates a signature but requires passing a private key. 2) If #1 is not feasible, is there a way to get access to system keychain to retrieve certs + private key for managed apps

Is there any way for an iOS app to get a log of all Airdrop transfers originating in all apps on the iOS device e.g. from the last week?

Hi everyone, I'm working on an app that stores multiple secrets in the Keychain, each protected with .userPresence. My goal is to authenticate the user once via FaceID/TouchID and then read multiple Keychain items without triggering subsequent prompts. I am reusing the same LAContext instance for these operations, and I have set: context.touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration = LATouchIDAuthenticationMaximumAllowableReuseDuration However, I'm observing that every single SecItemCopyMatching call triggers a new FaceID/TouchID prompt, even if they happen within seconds of each other using the exact same context. Here is a simplified flow of what I'm doing: Create a LAContext. Set touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration to max. Perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item A, passing [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID. Success. Immediately perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item B, passing the same [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID again. My question is: Does the .userPresence access control flag inherently force a new user interaction for every Keychain access, regardless of the LAContext reuse duration? Is allowableReuseDuration only applicable for LAContext.evaluatePolicy calls and not for SecItem queries? If so, is there a recommended pattern for "unlocking" a group of Keychain items with a single biometric prompt? Environment: iOS 17+, Swift. Thanks!

Binary code is associated with the NSUserTrackingUsageDescription deleted at present, but in the revised App privacy will contain NSUserTrackingUsageDescription, I feel very confused, don't know should shouldn't solve.

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.

I am developing a macOS application (targeting macOS 13 and later) that is non-sandboxed and needs to install and trust a root certificate by adding it to the System keychain programmatically. I’m fine with prompting the user for admin privileges or password, if needed. So far, I have attempted to execute the following command programmatically from both: A user-level process A root-level process sudo security add-trusted-cert -d -r trustRoot -k /Library/Keychains/System.keychain /path/to/cert.pem While the certificate does get installed, it does not appear as trusted in the Keychain Access app. One more point: The app is not distributed via MDM. App will be distributed out side the app store. Questions: What is the correct way to programmatically install and trust a root certificate in the System keychain? Does this require additional entitlements, signing, or profile configurations? Is it possible outside of MDM management? Any guidance or working samples would be greatly appreciated.

Hi, I’m seeing a production issue on iOS 26+ that only affects some users. symptoms: It does NOT happen for all users. It happens for a subset of users on iOS 26+. If we write a value to Keychain and read it immediately in the same session, it succeeds. However, after terminating the app and relaunching, the value appears to be gone: SecItemCopyMatching returns errSecItemNotFound (-25300). Repro (as observed on affected devices): Launch app (iOS 26+). Save PIN data to Keychain using SecItemAdd (GenericPassword). Immediately read it using SecItemCopyMatching -> success. Terminate the app (swipe up / kill). Relaunch the app and read again using the same service -> returns -25300. Expected: The Keychain item should persist across app relaunch and remain readable (while the device is unlocked). Actual: After app relaunch, SecItemCopyMatching returns errSecItemNotFound (-25300) as if the item does not exist. Implementation details (ObjC): We store a “PIN” item like this (simplified): addItem: kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword kSecAttrService: <FIXED_STRING> kSecValueData: kSecAttrAccessControl: SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(..., kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, 0, ...) readItem (SecItemCopyMatching): kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword kSecAttrService: <FIXED_STRING> kSecReturnData: YES (uses kSecUseOperationPrompt in our async method) Question: On iOS 26+, is there any known issue or new behavior where a successfully added GenericPassword item could later return errSecItemNotFound after app termination/relaunch for only some users/devices? What should we check to distinguish: OS behavior change/bug vs. entitlement/access-group differences (app vs extension, provisioning/team changes), device state/policies (MDM, passcode/biometrics changes), query attributes we should include to make the item stable across relaunch? Build / Dev Environment: macOS: 15.6.1 (24G90) Xcode: 26.2

I am developing a daemon-based product that needs a cryptographic, non-spoofable proof of machine identity so a remote management server can grant permissions based on the physical machine. I was thinking to create a signing key in the Secure Enclave and use a certificate signed by that key as the machine identity. The problem is that the Secure Enclave key I can create is only accessible from user context, while my product runs as a system daemon and must not rely on user processes or launchAgents. Could you please advise on the recommended Apple-supported approaches for this use case ? Specifically, Is there a supported way for a system daemon to generate and use an unremovable Secure Enclave key during phases like the pre-logon, that doesn't have non user context (only the my application which created this key/certificate will have permission to use/delete it) If Secure Enclave access from a daemon is not supported, what Apple-recommended alternatives exist for providing a hardware-backed machine identity for system daemons? I'd rather avoid using system keychain, as its contents may be removed or used by root privileged users. The ideal solution would be that each Apple product, would come out with a non removable signing certificate, that represent the machine itself (lets say that the cetificate name use to represent the machine ID), and can be validated by verify that the root signer is "Apple Root CA"

I am using the CryptoKit SecureEnclave enum to generate Secure Enclave keys. I've got a couple of questions: What is the lifetime of these keys? When I don't store them somewhere, how does the Secure Enclave know they are gone? Do backups impact these keys? I.e. can I lose access to the key when I restore a backup? Do these keys count to the total storage capacity of the Secure Enclave? If I recall correctly, the Secure Enclave has a limited storage capacity. Do the SecureEnclave key instances count towards this storage capacity? What is the dataRepresentation and how can I use this? I'd like to store the Secure Enclave (preferably not in the Keychain due to its limitations). Is it "okay" to store this elsewhere, for instance in a file or in the UserDefaults? Can the dataRepresentation be used in other apps? If I had the capability of extracting the dataRepresentation as an attacker, could I then rebuild that key in my malicious app, as the key can be rebuilt with the Secure Enclave on the same device, or are there measures in place to prevent this (sandbox, bundle id, etc.)

"I am attempting to read and write data to an Office Group Container, and I am consistently prompted with the "App would like to access data from other apps" alert. How can I configure the application or environment to suppress this repeated permission prompt?"

Hello, I am currently researching to develop an application where I want to apply the MacOS updates without the password prompt shown to the users. I did some research on this and understand that an MDM solution can apply these patches without user intervention. Are there any other ways we can achieve this? Any leads are much appreciated.

Hello, I'm an application developer related to Apple system extensions. I developed an endpoint security system extension that can run normally before the 14.x system. However, after I upgraded to 15.x, I found that when I uninstalled and reinstalled my system extension, although the system extension was installed successfully, a system warning box would pop up when I clicked enable in the Settings, indicating a failure. I conducted the following test. I reinstalled a brand-new MAC 15.x system. When I installed my applications, the system extensions could be installed successfully and enabled normally. However, when I uninstalled and reinstalled, my system extension couldn't be enabled properly and a system warning popped up as well. I tried disabling SIP and enabling System Extension Developers, but it still didn't work. When the system warning box pops up, I can see some error log information through the console application, including an error related to Failed to authorize right 'com.apple.system-extensions.admin' by client '/System/Library/ExtensionKit/Extensions/SettingsSystemExtensionController.appex' [2256] for authorization created by '/System/Library/ExtensionKit/Extensions/SettingsSystemExtensionController.appex' [2256] (3,0) (-60005) (engine 179) as shown in the screenshot. The same problem, mentioned in Cannot approve some extensions in MacOS Sequoia , but there is no solution

I recently turned on the enhanced security options for my macOS app in Xcode 26.0.1 by adding the Enhanced Security capability in the Signing and Capabilities tab. Then, Xcode adds the following key-value sets (with some other key-values) to my app's entitlements file. <key>com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version</key> <integer>1</integer> <key>com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions</key> <integer>2</integer> These values appear following the documentation about the enhanced security feature (Enabling enhanced security for your app) and the app works without any issues. However, when I submitted a new version to the Mac App Store, my submission was rejected, and I received the following message from the App Review team via the App Store Connect. Guideline 2.4.5(i) - Performance Your app incorrectly implements sandboxing, or it contains one or more entitlements with invalid values. Please review the included entitlements and sandboxing documentation and resolve this issue before resubmitting a new binary. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version" value must be boolean and true. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions" value must be boolean and true. When I changed those values directly in the entitlements file based on this message, the app appears to still work. However, these settings are against the description in the documentation I mentioned above and against the settings Xcode inserted after changing the GUI setting view. So, my question is, which settings are actually correct to enable the Enhanced Security and the Additional Runtime Platform Restrictions?

There’s a critical, actively exploited vulnerability in Apple’s iOS activation servers allowing unauthenticated XML payload injection: https://cyberpress.org/apple-ios-activation-vulnerability/ This flaw targets the core activation process, bypassing normal security checks. Despite the severity, it’s barely discussed in public security channels. Why is this not being addressed or publicly acknowledged? Apple developers and security researchers should urgently review and audit activation flows—this is a direct attack vector on device trust integrity. Any insights or official response appreciated.

I'm seeing some odd behavior which may be a bug. I've broken it down to a least common denominator to reproduce it. But maybe I'm doing something wrong. I am opening a file read-write. I'm then mapping the file read-only and private: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_PRIVATE, fd, 0); I then unmap the memory and close the file. After the close, eslogger shows me this: {"close":{"modified":false,[...],"was_mapped_writable":false}} Which makes sense. I then change the mmap statement to: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); I run the new code and and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false, [....], "was_mapped_writable":true}} Which also makes sense. I then run the original again (ie, with MAP_PRIVATE vs. MAP_SHARED) and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false,"was_mapped_writable":true,[...]} Which doesn't appear to be correct. Now if I just open and close the file (again, read-write) and don't mmap anything the close still shows: {"close":{ [...], "was_mapped_writable":true,"modified":false}} And the same is true if I open the file read-only. It will remain that way until I delete the file. If I recreate the file and try again, everything is good until I map it MAP_SHARED. I tried this with macOS 13.6.7 and macOS 15.0.1.

Hello, I’m storing some values in the Keychain with the attribute ‘ksecattraccessibleafterfirstunlockthisdeviceonly’ (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/ksecattraccessibleafterfirstunlockthisdeviceonly). When I migrate user data between iPhones via iCloud, this behaves as expected and the keys are not preserved. However, when I migrate using a direct connection between two devices, the keys are preserved, which seems to contradict the attribute’s intent. Is this a known behavior, and if so, is there a workaround?

In iOS 18, i use CNContactPickerViewController to access to Contacts (i know it is one-time access). After first pick up one contact, the Setting > Apps > my app > Contacts shows Private Access without any option to close it. Is there any way to close it and undisplay it ? I tried to uninstall and reinstall my app, but it didn't work.

Hi, I am using CryptoKit in my app. I am getting an error sometimes with some users. I log the description to Firebase but I am not sure what is it exactly about.  CryptoKit.CryptoKitError error 2  CryptoKit.CryptoKitError error 3 I receive both of these errors. I also save debug prints to a log file and let users share them with me. Logs are line-by-line encrypted but after getting these errors in the app also decryption of log files doesn't work and it throws these errors too. I couldn't reproduce the same error by myself, and I can't reach the user's logs so I am a little blind about what triggers this. It would be helpful to understand what these errors mean. Thanks

Trying to apply 'always trust' to certificate added to keychain using both SecItemAdd() and SecPKCS12Import() with SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings(). I created a launchdaemon for this purpose. AuthorizationDB is modified so that any process running in root can apply trust to certificate. let option = SecTrustSettingsResult.trustRoot.rawValue // SecTrustSettingsResult.trustAsRoot.rawValue for non-root certificates let status = SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings(secCertificate, SecTrustSettingsDomain.admin, [kSecTrustSettingsResult: NSNumber(value: option.rawValue)] as CFTypeRef). Above code is used to trust certificates and it was working on os upto 14.7.4. In 14.7.5 SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings() returns errAuthorizationInteractionNotAllowed. In 15.5 modifying authorization db with AuthorizationRightSet() itself is returning errAuthorizationDenied.Tried manually editing authorization db via terminal and same error occurred. Did apple update anything on Security framework? Any other way to trust certificates?