We recently transferred our app from one developer account to a new one, internally. We're trying to transfer our sign in with apple users, but have hit a snag on the first step. I'm following the instructions here to "Obtain the user access token": https://developer.apple.com/documentation/sign_in_with_apple/transferring_your_apps_and_users_to_another_team This is my request as created in postman: curl --location 'https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token/' --form 'grant_type="client_credentials"' --form 'scope="user.migration"' --form 'client_id="com.XXXXX"' --form 'client_secret="XXXXX"' No matter what I try, I always receive invalid_client. I've uploaded example JWTs in FB15648650.

We received a rejection today based on an invalid PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy file. It contained one extra space character was somehow added to a value field. Is there a tool that can check the validity of our PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy files?

I'm developing a file access control system. In order to protect the file content copied out, I'm finding a way to deny user copy file content to other files. I know there are data transmission between the copied application and pboard service by XPC. But I don't know how to interrupt the data transmission. Or I can do something to stop the copied data send to the Clipboard. So is there any way to prevent the contents of a file being copied?

Hello Apple Developer Community, We have been experiencing a persistent notification issue in our application, Flowace, after updating to macOS 15 and above. The issue is affecting our customers but does not occur on our internal test machines. Issue Description When users share their screen using Flowace, they receive a repetitive system notification stating: "Flowace has accessed your screen and system audio XX times in the past 30 days. You can manage this in settings." This pop-up appears approximately every minute, even though screen sharing and audio access work correctly. This behavior was not present in macOS 15.1.1 or earlier versions and appears to be related to recent privacy enhancements in macOS. Impact on Users The frequent pop-ups disrupt workflows, making it difficult for users to focus while using screen-sharing features. No issues are detected in Privacy & Security Settings, where Flowace has the necessary permissions. The issue is not reproducible on our internal test machines, making troubleshooting difficult. Our application is enterprise level and works all the time, so technically this pop only comes after a period of not using the app. Request for Assistance We would like to understand: Has anyone else encountered a similar issue in macOS 15+? Is there official Apple documentation explaining this new privacy behavior? Are there any interim fixes to suppress or manage these notifications? What are Apple's prospects regarding this feature in upcoming macOS updates? A demonstration of the issue can be seen in the following video: https://youtu.be/njA6mam_Bgw Any insights, workarounds, or recommendations would be highly appreciated! Thank you in advance for your help. Best, Anuj Patil Flowace Team

When we enable 3rd party authentication plugin using SFAuthorization window, and during unlock the screen, we have observed the widgets are not showing the content. Attaching the screenshot for reference. We are noticing this behavior from macOS 14.7.1 and macOS 15

I modified the system.login.screensaver rule in the authorization database to use "authenticate" instead of "use-login-window-ui" to display a custom authentication plugin view when the screensaver starts or the screen locks. However, I noticed an issue when the "Require Password after Display is Turned Off" setting is set to 5 minutes in lock screen settings: If I close my Mac’s lid and reopen it within 5 minutes, my authentication plugin view is displayed as expected. However, the screen is not in a locked state—the desktop remains accessible, and the black background that typically appears behind the lock screen is missing. This behavior differs from the default lock screen behavior, where the screen remains fully locked, and the desktop is hidden. Has anyone encountered this issue before? Is there a way to ensure the screen properly locks when using authenticate in the screensaver rule?

I’ve come to discover over the course of three weeks of trying to gain access to my original iTunes account that because of the old security protocols I cannot get access to my music. Apple has said there is no way to access that data without being able to send a reset to the old deleted email attached to that data. That said Cox deleted all of my emails when they migrated over to yahoo so I cannot send an email to reset password to gain access and Apple does not have a protocol in place even though it’s very clear. The current account is linked to the old account. Any of your developers out there have an idea on how I can get past this because the birthdate and the username are not matching up to what they should be. Appreciate your brain muscle guys. It’s a lifetime of music.

I have implemented "Sign in With Apple" in my app , but problem is when user logged in initially or first time and email I can retrieve , name and email but after that when i tried to re login it is giving null value for name and email, why it is happening and what should be done here?

Hi, team. So, I'm working on reading certificates from the keychain that have been stored or saved by other apps into it. I understand that kSecAttrAccessGroupToken allows us to achieve that. It is a requirement to use com.apple.token group in the entitlements file. Having done that, I cannot store SecSertificates into the keychain, and into the security group. I can do it without the security group, but after adding in the dictionary the kSecAttrAccessGroup: kSecAttrAccessGroupToken, I can no longer add certificates. I get the famous -34018. No entitlement found. However, when I try to read certificates in the same access group, I do not get a -34018 error back. I instead get a -25300, which I understand means no keychain item was found in this access group. How can this be happening? Reading, the entitlement works, writing does not. Here are my queries: For adding: let addQuery = [ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecValueRef: secCertificate as Any, kSecAttrLabel: certificateName, kSecAttrAccessGroup: kSecAttrAccessGroupToken ] as [CFString: Any] let status = SecItemAdd(addQuery as CFDictionary, nil) For reading: var item: CFTypeRef? let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecMatchLimit: kSecMatchLimitAll, kSecReturnRef: kCFBooleanTrue as Any, kSecAttrAccessGroup: kSecAttrAccessGroupToken ] as [CFString: Any] let status = SecItemCopyMatching(query as CFDictionary, &item)

Hello, I’m planning to develop a custom referral-based attribution system for my app. The goal is to log the number of installs that come from unique referral links and then track subsequent in‑app analytics (for example, when a user reaches level 5 in a game). I’d also like to capture the user’s country to further segment these analytics. I want to build this system myself—without relying on third‑party services (such as AppsFlyer or Branch) since I only need a few key data points and want to keep costs low. However, I’m aware of the privacy restrictions in iOS and want to ensure that my implementation complies with Apple’s guidelines. Specifically, I would appreciate guidance on the following: Permissible Signals: Is it acceptable to log signals like IP address (or a suitably anonymized version), device model, and timestamp to help correlate the referral click to a successful install and subsequent in‑app events? Are there any other recommended non‑PII signals that can be used to confirm a referral install without risking rejection during App Review? Best Practices: What are the best practices for handling and transmitting these signals (e.g., should IP addresses be truncated or hashed)? How can I ensure that my system remains compliant with Apple’s App Tracking Transparency and other privacy guidelines? I’d appreciate any insights or references to relevant documentation that might help me build this system without getting rejected by Apple. Thank you in advance for your assistance!

Hello, I have a public key of type Curve25519.KeyAgreement.PublicKey that I create from the raw representation using: Curve25519.KeyAgreement.PublicKey(rawRepresentation: Data(base64Encoded: "08sYq4gExgX+UApEwLaASkE+TZjAxG1FPYaT+mj2irk=")!) I'm trying to convert that key to a curve, but I don't see an equivalent function in CryptoKit for the Javascript function pk_to_curve25519. Can someone please help? For completeness, I'm trying to implement the handshake protocol that's a part of secure scuttlebutt. https://ssbc.github.io/scuttlebutt-protocol-guide/

I am developing a background program that is included in the app as an extension. I would like to include logic to check the teamID and code signature validity of the program I created to ensure that it has not been tampered with. Is this possible?

I have a Mobile App developed in Objective C which has two SDK's writing to the keychain. The first SDK which is completely written in Swift, uses Swift to write and read the key chain and the second SDK uses Objective C to read and write to the SDK. When the first SDK reads from the keychain, the second SDK is not able to read from the keychain and it is getting the Keychain error of item not found. Both the SDK's are using different keys and so not sure why the second SDK is getting item not found. The weird thing with this error is it happens only on a Simulator and it is working fine on actual iPhone. I have also checked the Objective C to Swift bridging header and everything looks correct. Any help you can provide is highly appreciated.

Developers of our e-shop are preparing to enable Apple Sign In for account login. Apple ID verification is conducted via the domain appleid.apple.com, and the responses should be coming back from the following two Apple IP addresses: IPv4 Address: 17.32.194.6 IPv4 Address: 17.32.194.37 Question is whether these addresses are correct and if they remain unchanged over time. Alternatively, it is existing an official list of IP addresses that may be used for Apple Sign In verification response? This is necessary to ensure precise network communication settings and protection by F5 security solution. Thanks a lot for answers.

I’m implementing Passkey registration on iOS using ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider. On the server side, I’m using a WebAuthn library that throws the error UnexpectedRPIDHash: Unexpected RP ID hash during verifyRegistrationResponse(). Domain: pebblepath.link (publicly routable, valid SSL certificate, no warnings in Safari) Associated Domains in Xcode**: webcredentials:pebblepath.link AASA file: { "applinks": { "apps": [] }, "webcredentials": { "apps": [ "H33XH8JMV6.com.reactivex.pebblepath" ] } } Xcode Configuration: Team ID: H33XH8JMV6 Bundle ID: com.reactivex.pebblepath Associated Domains: webcredentials:pebblepath.link Logs: iOS clientDataJSON shows "origin": "https://pebblepath.link". Server logs confirm expectedOrigin = "https://pebblepath.link" and expectedRPID = "pebblepath.link". Despite this, the server library still errors out: finishRegistration error: UnexpectedRPIDHash. I’ve verified that: The domain has a valid CA-signed SSL cert (no Safari warnings). The AASA file is reachable at https://pebblepath.link/.well-known/apple-app-site-association. The app’s entitlements match H33XH8JMV6.com.reactivex.pebblepath. I’ve removed old passkeys from Settings → Passwords on the device and retried fresh. I’m testing on a real device with iOS 16+; I am using a Development provisioning profile, but that shouldn’t cause an RP ID mismatch as long as the domain is valid. Every log indicates that the domain and origin match exactly, but the WebAuthn library still throws UnexpectedRPIDHash, implying iOS is embedding a different (or unrecognized) RP ID hash in the credential. Has anyone else encountered this with iOS passkeys and a valid domain/AASA setup? Is there an extra step needed to ensure iOS recognizes the domain for passkey registration? Any guidance or insights would be greatly appreciated!

Issue with passport-apple: req.user Returning Undefined Data & Callback URL Issue I am facing an issue with passport-apple where, after successful authentication, the callback function does not receive the expected user data. Instead, req.user contains undefined values, and there seems to be an issue with the callback URL handling. Steps to Reproduce I have configured passport-apple with the following strategy: passport.use( new AppleStrategy( { clientID: process.env.APPLE_CLIENT_ID, teamID: process.env.APPLE_TEAM_ID, keyID: process.env.APPLE_KEY_ID, privateKeyLocation: path.join(__dirname, 'Auth.p8'), callbackURL: process.env.APPLE_CALLBACK_URL, scope: ['name', 'email'], passReqToCallback: true }, async (req, accessToken, refreshToken, idToken, profile, done) => { try { const decoded = jwt.decode(idToken); const user = { id: decoded?.sub || null, email: decoded?.email || null, name: profile?.name?.firstName || 'Unknown' }; const userApp = await authController.handleAppleAuth(user.email, accessToken, refreshToken); done(null, userApp); } catch (error) { return done(error); } } ) ); Observed Behavior Apple login succeeds, and an existing user is found in the database. However, req.user contains undefined values after authentication. The callback URL does not seem to function correctly, leading to potential misrouting or incomplete authentication flow. Expected Behavior req.user should contain the authenticated user's ID, email, and name. The callback URL should properly handle the authentication response. Actual Behavior req.user contains undefined values instead of valid user data, and the callback URL handling seems to be incorrect. Log Output: { id: '001412.13cccc5062074c35833683f6f0bcf5f6.1212', email: 'xyz@somemail.com', name: 'Unknown' } user checking redirectionn [Function: next] 📍 Processing Apple callback 📍 Authentication successful for user: { id: undefined, email: undefined } { id: undefined, email: undefined, firstName: undefined, lastName: undefined, subscriptionStatus: undefined }

Wondering if others have encountered this issue with PSSO 2.0. We are observing that if, after registration, a user changes their IDP password, they may be prompted for their previous password in order to unlock the Keychain. We are trying to determine if this is expected behavior or if there is a way to avoid it. To reproduce this, the flow would be as follows: user registers with PSSO user logs out and logs back in with their IDP password user is authenticated (and not prompted for previous password) user logs out user changes their IDP password on another machine user logs in and is prompted to use their previous password to unlock the Keychain. Failure to provide the previous password nukes the Keychain, which is not an outcome we want. Any insight anyone has on this issue would be most welcome. Thanks

We currently have an app that uses Sign in with Apple (SIWA), and we are planning to discontinue the SIWA feature. Specifically, we intend to disable SIWA from the app's Capabilities in the Apple Developer Center. My question is, if we disable SIWA, can we continue to use the private email addresses of users who registered using SIWA? Or will disabling SIWA also invalidate the users' private email addresses? We are considering asking users to change to a different, valid email address in our app. However, if the private email addresses are invalidated, we will not be able to disable SIWA until all users have completed the email address change. If anyone has knowledge about these behaviors, please let us know.

我配置了 DKIM 和 amazon 的默认 spf。但无法使用 Amazon Send 获取电子邮件，则可以发送配置的单个电子邮件

I’ve explained this point many times on the forums, so I figured I’d write it up properly once and for all. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread in Privacy & Security > General and add the App Sandbox tag. That way I’ll be sure to see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" The Case for Sandboxing a Directly Distributed App Many folks consider the App Sandbox to be a binary choice: “My app ships in the Mac App Store, so I must sandbox it.” “I directly distribute my app, so I’ll ignore the App Sandbox.” However, those are not your only options. In many cases it makes sense to sandbox a directly distributed app. Sandboxing your app has at least three benefits: It enables app container protection. See Trusted Execution Resources for a link to more info on that. If your app includes any app extensions, it simplifies your development experience because your app and its extensions run in a similar environment. It improves your app’s security (although the actual benefits vary based on the specifics of your app). Sandboxing some apps can be tricky because of the additional security limits applied by the sandbox. However, in a directly distributed app you have access to two techniques that are not available to Mac App Store apps: Temporary exception entitlements Non-sandboxed XPC services Temporary exception entitlements Use temporary exception entitlements to selectively disable specific sandbox security limits. Imagine, for example, that you’re creating a simple document-based app that’s generally compatible with the sandbox. However, that app needs to send an Apple event to Music to create a playlist. That Apple event is blocked by the sandbox. You don’t need to disable the entire App Sandbox just to get around this security limit. Instead, use the com.apple.security.temporary-exception.apple-events entitlement to open a small hole in the sandbox. There are temporary exception entitlements to disable most sandbox security limits. For more information about them, follow the link in App Sandbox Resources. IMPORTANT Don’t be alarmed by the temporary in temporary exception entitlements. That word makes sense when you view this from the Mac App Store perspective. Back in the early days of the Mac App Store, some apps were allowed to use temporary exception entitlements because of limitations in the App Sandbox. Once App Sandbox was sufficiently enhanced, these temporary exception entitlements were no longer allowed in the Mac App Store. However, there’s nothing temporary about the implementation of these entitlements. They work today and are expected to continue working in the future. Using them in a directly distributed app is not a problem. Non-sandboxed XPC services Not all sandbox security limits have a corresponding temporary exception entitlement. For example, the sandbox prevents you from sending a Unix signal to other processes, and there’s no temporary exception entitlement to allow that. If you run into such a limit, move that code to a non-sandboxed XPC service, then have the main app request that the XPC service perform the operation on its behalf. An XPC service can be useful even when there is a temporary exception entitlement to disable a specific sandbox security limit. Continuing the Apple event example from above, if you put the code that sends the Apple event into an XPC service, you only need to apply the temporary exception entitlement to that service, not to your app as a whole. Conclusion If you directly distribute your app, consider enabling the App Sandbox. It has some important benefits, and it might be more feasible than you think.