Hi, I have a set of plugins which are registered for login. One of them is a custom ui view for the login screen. The scenario: 1.DisableFDEAutoLogin is false. 2.The User logs in to the file vault login screen. 3.The security plugins are activated, and working. 4.We get any kind of an error from the plugins, and therefore the login fails. 5.We get a native login screen, after the denial of authorization. 6.In case that DisableFDEAutoLogin is true, I do get the custom login screen, after the file vault login. My question: Why dont I see the custom login screen, after the auto login fails? Cheers Sivan

I'm using Secure Enclave to generate and use a private key like this: let access = SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(nil, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, [.privateKeyUsage, .biometryAny], nil) let attributes: [String: Any] = [ kSecAttrKeyType as String: kSecAttrKeyTypeECSECPrimeRandom, kSecAttrKeySizeInBits as String: 256, kSecAttrTokenID as String: kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave, kSecAttrAccessControl as String: access as Any, kSecAttrApplicationTag as String: "com.example.key".data(using: .utf8)!, kSecReturnRef as String: true ] let privateKey = SecKeyCreateRandomKey(attributes as CFDictionary, nil) Later, I use this key to sign a message: let signature = SecKeyCreateSignature(privateKey, .ecdsaSignatureMessageX962SHA256, dataToSign as CFData, nil) This prompts for biometric authentication, but shows the default system text. How can I customize or localize the biometric prompt (e.g., title, description, button text) shown during SecKeyCreateSignature? Thanks!

Hi team, is there a native way to detect if a change has been made to biometrics using FaceID or TouchID? Thanks in advance.

Dear Apple Developer Technical Support, We are currently following the official Apple documentation “TN3159: Migrating Sign in with Apple users for an app transfer” to carry out a Sign in with Apple user migration after successfully transferring several apps to a new developer account. Here is a summary of our situation: Under the original Apple developer account, we had five apps using Sign in with Apple, grouped under a shared primary app using App Grouping. Recently, we transferred three of these apps to our new Apple developer account via App Store Connect. After the transfer, these three apps are no longer associated with the original primary App ID. We reconfigured individual Services IDs for each app in the new account and enabled Sign in with Apple for each. More than 24 hours have passed since the app transfer was completed. Now we are attempting to follow the migration process to restore user access via the user.migration flow. Specifically, we are using the following script to request an Apple access token: url = "https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token" headers = {"Content-Type": "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"} data = { "grant_type": "client_credentials", "scope": "user.migration", "client_id": "com.game.friends.ios.toptop.sea", # New Services ID in the new account "client_secret": "<JWT signed with new p8 key>" } response = requests.post(url, headers=headers, data=data) However, the API response consistently returns: { "error": "invalid_client" } We have verified that the following configurations are correct: The client_secret is generated using the p8 key from the new account, signed with ES256 and correct key_id, team_id, and client_id. The client_id corresponds to the Services ID created in the new account and properly associated with the migrated app. The scope is set to user.migration. The JWT payload contains correct iss, sub, and aud values as per Apple documentation. The app has been fully transferred and reconfigured more than 24 hours ago. Problem Summary & Request for Support: According to Apple’s official documentation: “After an app is transferred, Apple updates the Sign in with Apple configuration in the background. This can take up to 24 hours. During this time, attempts to authenticate users or validate tokens may fail.” However, we are still consistently receiving invalid_client errors after the 24-hour waiting period. We suspect one of the following issues: The transferred apps may still be partially associated with the original App Grouping or primary App ID. Some Sign in with Apple configuration in Apple’s backend may not have been fully updated after the transfer. Or the Services ID is not yet fully operational for the transferred apps in the new account. We kindly request your assistance to: Verify whether the transferred apps have been completely detached from the original App Grouping and primary App ID. Confirm whether the new Services IDs under the new account are fully functional and eligible for Sign in with Apple with user.migration scope. Help identify any remaining configuration or migration issues that may cause the invalid_client error. If necessary, assist in manually ungrouping or clearing any residual App Grouping relationships affecting the new environment. We have also generated and retained the original transfer_sub identifiers and are fully prepared to complete the sub mapping once the user.migration flow becomes functional. Thank you very much for your time and support!

I’m implementing a custom Authorization right with the following rule: &lt;key&gt;authenticate-user&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;allow-root&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;class&lt;/key&gt; &lt;string&gt;user&lt;/string&gt; &lt;key&gt;group&lt;/key&gt; &lt;string&gt;admin&lt;/string&gt; The currently logged-in user is a standard user, and I’ve created a hidden admin account, e.g. _hiddenadmin, which has UID≠0 but belongs to the admin group. From my Authorization Plug-in, I would like to programmatically satisfy this right using _hiddenadmin’s credentials, even though _hiddenadmin is not the logged-in user. My question: Is there a way to programmatically satisfy an authenticate-user right from an Authorization Plug-in using credentials of another (non-session) user?

I am working on implementing mTLS authentication in my iOS app (Apple Inhouse &amp; intune MAM managed app). The SCEP client certificate is deployed on the device via Intune MDM. When I try accessing the protected endpoint via SFSafariViewController/ASWebAuthenticationSession, the certificate picker appears and the request succeeds. However, from within my app (using URLSessionDelegate), the certificate is not found (errSecItemNotFound). The didReceive challenge method is called, but my SCEP certificate is not found in the app. The certificate is visible under Settings &gt; Device Management &gt; SCEP Certificate. How can I make my iOS app access and use the SCEP certificate (installed via Intune MDM) for mTLS requests? Do I need a special entitlement, keychain access group, or configuration in Intune or Developer account to allow my app to use the certificate? Here is the sample code I am using: final class KeychainCertificateDelegate: NSObject, URLSessionDelegate { func urlSession(_ session: URLSession, didReceive challenge: URLAuthenticationChallenge, completionHandler: @escaping (URLSession.AuthChallengeDisposition, URLCredential?) -&gt; Void) { guard challenge.protectionSpace.authenticationMethod == NSURLAuthenticationMethodClientCertificate else { completionHandler(.performDefaultHandling, nil) return } // Get the DNs the server will accept guard let expectedDNs = challenge.protectionSpace.distinguishedNames else { completionHandler(.cancelAuthenticationChallenge, nil) return } var identityRefs: CFTypeRef? = nil let err = SecItemCopyMatching([ kSecClass: kSecClassIdentity, kSecMatchLimit: kSecMatchLimitAll, kSecMatchIssuers: expectedDNs, kSecReturnRef: true, ] as NSDictionary, &amp;identityRefs) if err != errSecSuccess { completionHandler(.cancelAuthenticationChallenge, nil) return } guard let identities = identityRefs as? [SecIdentity], let identity = identities.first else { print("Identity list is empty") completionHandler(.cancelAuthenticationChallenge, nil) return } let credential = URLCredential(identity: identity, certificates: nil, persistence: .forSession) completionHandler(.useCredential, credential) } } func perform_mTLSRequest() { guard let url = URL(string: "https://sample.com/api/endpoint") else { return } var request = URLRequest(url: url) request.httpMethod = "POST" request.setValue("application/json", forHTTPHeaderField: "Accept") request.setValue("Bearer \(bearerToken)", forHTTPHeaderField: "Authorization") let delegate = KeychainCertificateDelegate() let session = URLSession(configuration: .ephemeral, delegate: delegate, delegateQueue: nil) let task = session.dataTask(with: request) { data, response, error in guard let httpResponse = response as? HTTPURLResponse, (200...299).contains(httpResponse.statusCode) else { print("Bad response") return } if let data = data { print(String(data: data, encoding: .utf8)!) } } task.resume() }

For security reasons, my application needs to prohibit external devices. If it is determined that the current phone is connected to any external devices, including non MFI authenticated devices, the app will exit. Please tell me how to do it? Thanks for your help.

I want iOS device identifier for a framework that is used in multiple vendor's apps. I'm developing a framework to control a peripheral. The framework has to send unique information to register the device with the peripheral. My naive idea was to use IdentifierForVendor. But this API provides the device identifier for the same vendor's apps, not the framework. (The framework will be used by multiple vendors.) Is there a usable device identifier for the framework, regardless of app vendor? Please tell me any solution.

I'm trying to develop a GUI app on macOS that takes control of the screen so that user must perform certain actions before regaining control of the desktop. I don't want the user to be able to kill the process (for example via an "assassin" shell script that looks for the process and terminates it with kill). Based on this post it is not possible to create an unkillable process on macOS. I'm wondering, however, if it's possible to run the GUI process in root (or with other escalated privileges) such that the logged in user cannot kill it. So it's killable, but you need privileges above what the logged in user has (assuming they are not root). I'm not worried about a root user being able to kill it. Such an app would run in a managed context. I've played around with Service Background Tasks, but so far haven't found what I'm looking for. I'm hoping someone (especially from Apple) might be able to tell me if this goal is even achievable with macOS Sequoia (and beyond).

With Let's Encrypt having completely dropped support for OCSP recently [1], I wanted to ask if macOS has a means of keeping up to date with their CRLs and if so, roughly how often this occurs? I first observed an issue where a revoked-certificate test site, "revoked.badssl.com" (cert signed by Let's Encrypt), was not getting blocked on any browser, when a revocation policy was set up using the SecPolicyCreateRevocation API, in tandem with the kSecRevocationUseAnyAvailableMethod and kSecRevocationPreferCRL flags. After further investigation, I noticed that even on a fresh install of macOS, Safari does not block this test website, while Chrome and Firefox (usually) do, due to its revoked certificate. Chrome and Firefox both have their own means of dealing with CRLs, while I assume Safari uses the system Keychain and APIs. I checked cert info for the site here [2]. It was issued on 2025-07-01 20:00 and revoked an hour later. [1] https://letsencrypt.org/2024/12/05/ending-ocsp/ [2] https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=revoked.badssl.com

Hello, We’ve resumed the migration process after a break. Since my colleague is no longer with us, I had to go through the steps again myself. As before, we’re trying to migrate "Sign In with Apple" users from tenant TENANT_A with client_id=CLIENT_ID_A to tenant TENANT_B with client_id=CLIENT_ID_B I followed the procedure described here: [Apple Developer Documentation](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3159-migrating-sign-in-with-apple-users-for-an-app-transfer – Migrating Sign In with Apple Users, essentially repeating what my coworker previously attempted in coordination with your employee Stephanie. Here’s a summary of the steps and the issue we’re facing: STEP 1 - get authcode for TEAM A curl --location 'https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token' --header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' --data-urlencode 'grant_type=client_credentials' --data-urlencode 'scope=user.migration' --data-urlencode 'client_id=pl.CLIEND_ID_A' --data-urlencode 'client_secret=<TEAM_A_SECRET>' I receive response: { "access_token": "<ACCESS_TOKEN_TEAM_A>", "token_type": "Bearer", "expires_in": 3600 } STEP 2 - get authcode for TEAB B curl --location 'https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token' --header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' --data-urlencode 'grant_type=client_credentials' --data-urlencode 'scope=user.migration' --data-urlencode 'client_id=CLIENT_ID_B' --data-urlencode 'client_secret=<TEAB_B_SECRET>' I receive response: { "access_token":"<ACCESS_TOKEN_TEAB_B>", "token_type": "Bearer", "expires_in": 3600 } STEP 3 - get transfer_sub from TEAM A curl --location 'https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo' --header 'Authorization: Bearer <ACCESS_TOKEN_TEAM_A>' --header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' --data-urlencode 'client_id=CLIENT_ID_A' --data-urlencode 'client_secret=<TEAM_A_SECRET>' --data-urlencode 'sub=USER_SUB_FROM_TEAM_A' --data-urlencode 'target=TENANT_B' I receive response: { "transfer_sub": "USER_SUB_FROM_TEAM_B" } STEP 4 - Team B exchanges transfer identifers curl --location 'https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo' --header 'Authorization: Bearer <ACCESS_TOKEN_TEAM_B' --header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' --data-urlencode 'client_id=CLIENT_ID_B' --data-urlencode 'client_secret=<TEAM_B_SECRET>' I receive response: { "error": "invalid_request" } We’ve created a new client_id under tenant B and want to migrate users there. However, we skipped the step described in Step 3 of the documentation(https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3159-migrating-sign-in-with-apple-users-for-an-app-transfer#3-Team-A-initiates-app-transfer-to-Team-B), which involves initiating an app transfer. The reason is that this client_id is used solely for web authentication, not for a mobile app, so we don’t have an app to transfer. Based on our analysis and your documentation, it seems this flow only works if the client_id matches across both tenants, which can only be achieved through an app transfer, something we cannot proceed with. Apple previously insisted that we migrate these users, but as shown above, we’re stuck. Is there any alternative flow available, or can you assist us in completing this migration?

We are interested in using a hardware-bound key in a launch daemon. In a previous post, Quinn explicitly told me this is not possible to use an SE keypair outside of the system context and my reading of the Apple documentation also supports that. That said, we have gotten the following key-creation and persistence flow to work, so we have some questions as to how this fits in with the above. (1) In a launch daemon (running thus as root), we do: let key = SecureEnclave.P256.Signing.PrivateKey() (2) We then use key.dataRepresentation to store a reference to the key in the system keychain as a kSecClassGenericPassword. (3) When we want to use the key, we fetch the data representation from system keychain and we "rehydrate" the key using: SecureEnclave.P256.Signing.PrivateKey(dataRepresentation: data) (4) We then use the output of the above to sign whatever we want. My questions: in the above flow, are we actually getting a hardware-bound key from the Secure Enclave or is this working because it's actually defaulting to a non-hardware-backed key? if it is an SE key, is it that the Apple documentation stating that you can only use the SE with the Data Protection Keychain in the user context is outdated (or wrong)? does the above work, but is not an approach sanctioned by Apple? Any feedback on this would be greatly appreciated.

Regarding the issue of login controls remaining on screen for a few seconds when using a subclass of SFAuthorizationPluginView, I wanted to inquire whether any progress has been made on resolving it. To recap, per notes I found in the QAuthPlugins sample code: Due to a bug (FB12074874), the use of an SFAuthorizationPluginView subclass can cause the login controls to remain onscreen for a significant amount of time (roughly 5 seconds) after login is complete, resulting in them being onscreen at the same time as the Finder’s menu bar and the Dock. The exact circumstances under which this happens are not well understood, but one factor seems to be running on a laptop where the main display is mirrored to an external display. Specifically, I would like to know: If there any other information about how the issue is reproduced? For my part I can say that it reproduces with out the use of a mirrored display. So far it reproduces for all of our developers and testers, all of the time. Are there any known workarounds? Is there any expectation that this issue will be addressed? Thank you so much!

Before device Reboot: Here no issue from keychain. 2025-06-17 11:18:17.956334 +0530 WAVE PTX [DB_ENCRYPTION] Key successfully retrieved from the Keychain default When device is in reboot and locked (Keychain access is set to FirstUnlock) App got woken up in background SEEMS(NOT SURE) DEVICE STILL IN LOCKED STARE IF YES THEN WHICH IS EXPECTED 2025-06-17 12:12:30.036184 +0530 WAVE PTX <ALA_ERROR>: [OS-CCF] [DB_ENCRYPTION] Error while retriving Private key -25308 default 2025-06-17 12:15:28.914700 +0530 WAVE PTX <ALA_ERROR> [DB_ENCRYPTION] Error retrieving key from the Keychain: -25300 default —————————————————— And as per logs, here user has launch the application post unlock and application never got the keychain access here also. HERE STILL HAS ISSUE WITH KEYCHAIN ACCESS. 2025-06-17 12:52:55.640976 +0530 WAVE PTX DEBUG : willFinishLaunchingWithOptions default 2025-06-17 12:52:55.651371 +0530 WAVE PTX <ALA_ERROR> [DB_ENCRYPTION] Error retrieving key from the Keychain: -25300 default

I have a custom NSWindow that I want to exclude from screen capture by setting its sharing state to kCGWindowSharingStateSharingNone. The goal is to prevent this window from appearing in the content captured by ScreenCaptureKit. [window setSharingType:NSWindowSharingType::NSWindowSharingNone]; However, on macOS 15.4+ (Sequoia), the window is still captured by ScreenCaptureKit and appears in the shared content. Does anyone know if kCGWindowSharingStateSharingNone is still effective with ScreenCaptureKit on macOS 15.4 and later?

I work for Brave, a browser with ~80M users. We want to introduce a new system for automatic updates called Omaha 4 (O4). It's the same system that powers automatic updates in Chrome. O4 runs as a separate application on users' systems. For Chrome, this works as follows: An app called GoogleUpdater.app regularly checks for updates in the background. When a new version is found, then GoogleUpdater.app installs it into Chrome's installation directory /Applications/Google Chrome.app. But consider what this means: A separate application, GoogleUpdater.app, is able to modify Google Chrome.app. This is especially surprising because, for example, the built-in Terminal.app is not able to modify Google Chrome.app. Here's how you can check this for yourself: (Re-)install Chrome with its DMG installer. Run the following command in Terminal: mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test. This works. Undo the command: rm -rf /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test Start Chrome and close it again. mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test now fails with "Operation not permitted". (These steps assume that Terminal does not have Full Disk Access and System Integrity Protection is enabled.) In other words, once Chrome was started at least once, another application (Terminal in this case) is no longer allowed to modify it. But at the same time, GoogleUpdater.app is able to modify Chrome. It regularly applies updates to the browser. For each update, this process begins with an mkdir call similarly to the one shown above. How is this possible? What is it in macOS that lets GoogleUpdater.app modify Chrome, but not another app such as Terminal? Note that Terminal is not sandboxed. I've checked that it's not related to codesigning or notarization issues. In our case, the main application (Brave) and the updater (BraveUpdater) are signed and notarized with the same certificate and have equivalent requirements, entitlements and provisioning profiles as Chrome and GoogleUpdater. The error that shows up in the Console for the disallowed mkdir call is: kernel (Sandbox) System Policy: mkdir(8917) deny(1) file-write-create /Applications/Google Chrome.app/foo (It's a similar error when BraveUpdater tries to install a new version into /Applications/Brave Browser.app.) The error goes away when I disable System Integrity Protection. But of course, we cannot ask users to do that. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hi, A user logs in to the file vault, and DisableFDEAutoLogin is false. The file vault login succeeds, but the login to the selected user fails. The user gets the login screen again. If the user puts an invalid password to try and login again, the loginwindow:FDESupport plugin will change the user's password to the invalid one.

Hi everyone, I'm experiencing an intermittent issue with Keychain data loss on the latest iOS Beta 2. In about 7% of cases, users report that previously saved Keychain items are missing when the app is relaunched — either after a cold start or simply after being killed and reopened. Here are the key observations: The issue occurs sporadically, mostly once per affected user, but in 3 cases it has happened 4 times. No explicit deletion is triggered from the app. No system logs or error messages from Apple indicate any Keychain-related actions. The app attempts to access Keychain items, but they are no longer available. This behavior is inconsistent with previous iOS versions and is not reproducible in development environments. This raises concerns about: Whether this is a bug in the beta or an intentional change in Keychain behavior. Whether this could affect production apps when the final iOS version is released. The lack of any warning or documentation from Apple regarding this behavior. Has anyone else encountered similar issues? Any insights, workarounds, or official clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Hello everyone, I've noticed some unusual behavior while debugging my application on the iOS 26 beta. My standard testing process relies on the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) authorization status being reset whenever I uninstall and reinstall my app. This is crucial for me to test the permission flow. However, on the current beta, I've observed the following: 1 I installed my app on a device running the iOS 26 beta for the first time. The ATTrackingManager.requestTrackingAuthorization dialog appeared as expected. 2 I completely uninstalled the application. 3 I then reinstalled the app. Unexpected Result: The tracking permission dialog did not appear. And more importantly, the device's advertisingIdentifier appears to have remained unchanged. This is highly unusual, as the IDFA is expected to be reset with a fresh app installation. My question: Is this an intentional change, and is there a fundamental shift in how the operating system handles the persistence of the IDFA or the authorization status? Or could this be a bug in the iOS 26 beta? Any information or confirmation on this behavior would be greatly appreciated.

Quinn, you've often suggested that to validate the other side of an XPC connection, we should use the audit token. But that's not available from the XPC object, whereas the PID is. So everyone uses the PID. While looking for something completely unrelated, I found this in the SecCode.h file OSStatus SecCodeCreateWithXPCMessage(xpc_object_t message, SecCSFlags flags, SecCodeRef * __nonnull CF_RETURNS_RETAINED target); Would this be the preferred way to do this now? At least from 11.0 and up. Like I said, I was looking for something completely unrelated and found this and don't have the cycles right now to try it. But it looks promising from the description and I wanted to check in with you about it in case you can say yes or no before I get a chance to test it. Thanks