Hello, We are using a Message Filter Extension (ILMessageFilterExtension) to classify SMS/iMessage content (junk vs allow) in our app. After testing on iOS 26.1, we want to confirm whether there are any behavioral, performance, or API-level changes that impact message filtering, such as: Changes in how often the filter extension is invoked Differences in classification accuracy or system overrides New privacy, entitlement, or permission-related restrictions Execution time limits or memory constraints Any changes specific to iMessage vs SMS filtering We did not find any explicit mention of Message Filter Extensions in the iOS 26.1 release notes and would like to confirm whether the existing behavior from previous iOS versions remains unchanged. Has Apple introduced any known or undocumented changes in iOS 26.1 that developers should be aware of when supporting Message Filter Extensions? Sometime I also found unpredictable behaviour on iOS version 18.5 or below, like sometime it works but sometimes starts working. Thanks in advance for any guidance.

Hello, We are using a Message Filter Extension (ILMessageFilterExtension) to classify SMS/iMessage content (junk vs allow) in our app. After testing on iOS 26.1, we want to confirm whether there are any behavioral, performance, or API-level changes that impact message filtering, such as: Changes in how often the filter extension is invoked Differences in classification accuracy or system overrides New privacy, entitlement, or permission-related restrictions Execution time limits or memory constraints Any changes specific to iMessage vs SMS filtering We did not find any explicit mention of Message Filter Extensions in the iOS 26.1 release notes and would like to confirm whether the existing behavior from previous iOS versions remains unchanged. Has Apple introduced any known or undocumented changes in iOS 26.1 that developers should be aware of when supporting Message Filter Extensions? Sometime I also found unpredictable behaviour on iOS version 18.5 or below, like sometime it works but sometimes starts working. Thanks in advance for any guidance.

I’ve created a document type for my app and set it up in the Info Configuration in Xcode. This all works as expected: Implemented with the Transferrable API and ShareLink, I can share an app’s file via the Files app or Notes and then import the file via a Share extension and the fileImport swiftUI api. My question is regarding Messages, specifically. It appears as a ShareLink option and I’m able to send my app’s document type via a message, but I’m unable to open it or share it (internally, with my app), other than being able to forward or delete it. If I copy the file, I can’t access it within my app (it’s still stored in the Messages private bundle) and startAccessingSecurityScopedResource returns false as expected. The message does detect the right icon, so it’s recognizing the custom document type. If my Share Extension, exported document type, and transferable implementation is configured correctly, should I be able to open a file for my app shared via Messages? Is this an allowed action? I get various answers from AI, and I can’t test this in the Simulator on pre-26 devices.

Hello, We are trying to use the new Background Upload Extension to improve uploads of assets (Photos, Live Photos, Videos) in the background in our application. 1 - We implemented the code to upload still images. We would like to do the same for Live Photos but we are not sure how to proceed since a Live Photo is composed of 2 resources that we would like to upload in the same job so that we keep the association between the 2 resources. Steps: A Live Photo is captured on the device. Our application is notified for new content in the Photo Library and the asset is queued for upload by our application. The system calls the background upload extension and the Live Photo is prepared for upload but we can schedule a job only for one resource (still photo or paired video) so we can not upload both resources in a single job. 2 - Is there a way to synchronise the application and the extension so that the application would not process the same data or execute the same requests than the extension. For example: our application is working with tokens and we would like to prevent those tokens to be consumed by the application and the extension at the same time. 3 - is there a command in xcode or terminal to start or stop the extension, something similar to what exists for processing tasks (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/backgroundtasks/starting-and-terminating-tasks-during-development).

I'm developing a passkey manager using ASCredentialProviderViewController. I've set a custom AAGUID in the attestation object during registration: let aaguid = Data([ 0xec, 0x78, 0xfa, 0xe8, 0xb2, 0xe0, 0x56, 0x97, 0x8e, 0x94, 0x7c, 0x77, 0x28, 0xc3, 0x95, 0x00 ]) However, when I test on webauthn.io, the relying party receives: AAGUID: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 Provider Name: "iCloud Keychain" It appears that macOS overwrites the AAGUID to all zeros for third-party Credential Provider Extensions. This makes it impossible for relying parties to distinguish between different passkey providers, which is one of the key purposes of AAGUID in the WebAuthn specification. Is this expected behavior? Is there a way for third-party Credential Provider Extensions to use their own registered AAGUID? Environment: macOS 26.2 Xcode 26.2

Hello, We are using a Message Filter Extension (ILMessageFilterExtension) to classify SMS/iMessage content (junk vs allow) in our app. After testing on iOS 26.1, we want to confirm whether there are any behavioral, performance, or API-level changes that impact message filtering, such as: Changes in how often the filter extension is invoked Differences in classification accuracy or system overrides New privacy, entitlement, or permission-related restrictions Execution time limits or memory constraints Any changes specific to iMessage vs SMS filtering We did not find any explicit mention of Message Filter Extensions in the iOS 26.1 release notes and would like to confirm whether the existing behavior from previous iOS versions remains unchanged. Has Apple introduced any known or undocumented changes in iOS 26.1 that developers should be aware of when supporting Message Filter Extensions? Sometime I also found unpredictable behaviour on iOS version 18.5 or below, like sometime it works but sometimes starts working. Thanks in advance for any guidance.

I’m working on an iOS VPN app and looking into using NETunnelProvider (Packet Tunnel) for the VPN implementation. From the documentation it seems that Packet Tunnel is required for VPN protocols like OpenVPN, but the Packet Tunnel capability doesn’t appear to be available by default. Does using NETunnelProvider / Packet Tunnel require a special entitlement to be enabled by Apple for App Store apps? If so, what is the general process for requesting or enabling that entitlement?

I have noticed race conditions on macOS when tearing down and re-configuring an NEPacketTunnelProvider. My goal is to handle switching out one VPN profile for another identical/near identical one (I'll add some context for this below). The flow that I have tested was to wait for the NEVPNStatusDidChange notification to report a NEVPNStatus.disconnected state, and then start the process of re-configuring the VPN with a new profile. In practice however, I have noticed that I must wait a couple of seconds between NEVPNStatus.disconnected state being reported and setting up a new tunnel. Otherwise, the system routing table gets messed up but the VPN reports being in NEVPNStatus.connected state, resulting in a tunnel that appears healthy but can't be accessed. With this, I wanted to ask if you have any suggestions on any OS items I can observer, in order to deterministically know that the system has fully cleaned up my packet tunnel, and that I am safe to configure another? This would be much more optimal than a hard-coded delay. Additional context: Jamf is a common solution for deploying MDM configuration profiles. However, in my tests, it doesn't support Apple's recommended approach of using the PayloadIdentifier to mark profiles for replacement, as PayloadIdentifiers are automatically updated to match the PayloadUUID of that same profile on upload. Although given what I've observed, I'm not sure the Apple recommended approach would work here in any case. Additionally, it would be nice to transition from non-MDM to MDM cleanly, however, this also requires an indeterminate wait time between the non-MDM configuration being disconnected and subsequently removed, and the MDM one being configured. With these scenarios, we need to be able to add a second configuration, with possibly identical VPN settings, then remove the old one, allowing the system to transition to the new configuration. For the MDM case, the pattern I've noticed on the system is that when the current profile is suddenly deleted, the connection will go into disconnected state, then NEVPNConfigurationChange will fire. The new profile can be configured from NEVPNConfigurationChange, however some time is needed to avoid races. For non-MDM, I had experimented with an approach of polling for MDM configurations appearing. When they do, I'd remove my previous notification observers, and set up a new NEVPNStatusDidChange notification observer, to remove the non-MDM VPN configuration after. it enters a disconnected state. Following the removal, I would call a function to reconfigure the VPN with new configuration. When this logic is in place, the call to stopVPNTunnel() is made. Again, a hardcoded delay is required between stopping and removing the old configuration and setting up a new one. Thanks!

Hello Apple Developer Community, I currently have a Safari Web Extension on iOS that blocks certain URLs for users. I would like to provide the same functionality for Chrome on iOS. I understand that Chrome on iOS uses WebKit under the hood, and Safari Web Extensions can run in Safari, but I am unsure whether there is any way to implement URL blocking in Chrome for iOS—either via an extension, API, or other supported mechanism. Specifically, I’m looking for guidance on: Whether any browser extension (Safari, Chrome, or otherwise) can intercept or block web requests in Chrome on iOS. If not, what Apple-supported alternatives exist for implementing URL-blocking functionality for users of Chrome on iOS. Any best practices for maintaining a cross-browser URL-blocking solution for iOS users. I want to make sure my approach is aligned with Apple’s policies and platform capabilities. Any guidance or official references would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

There is an inconsistent issue when views are rendered from the Device Activity Report Extension. This issue is noticeable only on release versions and it works fine in debug mode. Around 80% of the times, the Report Views return blank screen and this is only the case when a weekly/monthly filter is used. Although, it works as expected for daily report views. My questions are: How are all the Report Activity Views working fine in debug mode but not in release mode? How the daily activity filter works fine in the release mode but the weekly/monthly filters don't work? Is this because of a memory limit issue in the extension? As of now, I have the family-controls(distribution) entitlement only for the app and for the extensions I only have family-controls(development) entitlement. Do I need to request for family-controls(Distribution) entitlement even for the extensions? I have seen threads on the forum mentioning the blank screen issue associated with the DeviceActivityReport but haven't found a solution to it. Any suggestions/feedback would be of great help, thanks.

In these threads, it was clarified that Credential Provider Extensions must set both Backup Eligible (BE) and Backup State (BS) flags to 1 in authenticator data: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/745605 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/787629 However, I'm developing a passkey manager that intentionally stores credentials only on the local device. My implementation uses: kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly for keychain items kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave for private keys No iCloud sync or backup These credentials are, by definition, single-device credentials. According to the WebAuthn specification, they should be represented with BE=0, BS=0. Currently, I'm forced to set BE=1, BS=1 to make the extension work, which misrepresents the actual backup status to relying parties. This is problematic because: Servers using BE/BS flags for security policies will incorrectly classify these as synced passkeys Users who specifically want device-bound credentials for higher security cannot get accurate flag representation Request: Please allow Credential Provider Extensions to return credentials with BE=0, BS=0 for legitimate device-bound passkey implementations. Environment: macOS 26.2 (25C56), Xcode 26.2 (17C52)

Hello, We are using a Message Filter Extension (ILMessageFilterExtension) to classify SMS/iMessage content (junk vs allow) in our app. After testing on iOS 26.1, we want to confirm whether there are any behavioral, performance, or API-level changes that impact message filtering, such as: Changes in how often the filter extension is invoked Differences in classification accuracy or system overrides New privacy, entitlement, or permission-related restrictions Execution time limits or memory constraints Any changes specific to iMessage vs SMS filtering We did not find any explicit mention of Message Filter Extensions in the iOS 26.1 release notes and would like to confirm whether the existing behavior from previous iOS versions remains unchanged. Has Apple introduced any known or undocumented changes in iOS 26.1 that developers should be aware of when supporting Message Filter Extensions? Sometime I also found unpredictable behaviour on iOS version 18.5 or below, like sometime it works but sometimes starts working. Thanks in advance for any guidance.

Hello everyone, I’m currently working with the Message Filtering Extension and would really appreciate some clarification around its performance and operational constraints. While the extension is extremely powerful and useful, I’ve found that some important details are either unclear or not well covered in the available documentation. There are two main areas I’m trying to understand better: Machine learning model constraints within the extension In our case, we already have an existing ML model that classifies messages (and are not dependant on Apple's built-in models). We’re evaluating whether and how it can be used inside the extension. Specifically, I’m trying to understand: Are there documented limits on the size of an ML model (e.g., maximum bundle size or model file size in MB)? What are the memory constraints for a model once loaded into memory by the extension? Under what conditions would the system terminate or “kick out” the extension due to memory or performance pressure? Message processing timeouts and execution constraints What is the timeout for processing a single received message? At what point will the OS stop waiting for the extension’s response and allow the message by default (for example, if the extension does not respond in time)? Any guidance, official references, or practical experience from Apple engineers or other developers would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help,

Hi all, I'm building an iOS app extension using ExtensionKit that works exclusively with its containing host app, presenting UI via EXHostViewController. I'd like the extension to have read-only access to the host's task for process introspection purposes. I'm aware this would almost certainly require a special entitlement. I know get-task-allow and the debugger entitlement exist, but those aren't shippable to the App Store. I'm looking for something that could realistically be distributed to end users. My questions: Does an entitlement exist (or is one planned) that would grant an extension limited, read-only access to its host's task—given the extension is already tightly coupled to the host? If not, is this something Apple would consider adding? The use case is an extension that needs to inspect host process state without the ability to modify it. Is there a path to request such an entitlement through the provisioning profile process, or is this fundamentally off the table for App Store distribution? It seems like a reasonable trust boundary given the extension already lives inside the host's app bundle, but I understand the security implications. Any insight appreciated. Thanks!

Hi everyone, I am building an SMS filtering app using the IdentityLookup framework. My main application handles the user login and receives a JWT. I need my ILMessageFilterExtension to use this JWT to authenticate its backend requests via context.deferQueryRequestToNetwork. Since the extension is sandboxed and doesn't share a URLSession or standard Keychain with the main app, I am trying to use the Shared Web Credentials mechanism as suggested in the documentation. My Questions: Is SecAddSharedWebCredential still the recommended way to "bridge" a token from the main app to the messagefilter service in 2026? If the backend returns a 401 Unauthorized with a WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="api.mydomain.com" header, will iOS automatically retry the request with the stored token? Are there any specific AASA (Apple App Site Association) requirements for the messagefilter key? Does it need to be a separate top-level object or nested? Current Setup: Entitlements: Both Main App and Extension have messagefilter:api.mydomain.com and webcredentials:api.mydomain.com. Main App Code: Swift SecAddSharedWebCredential("api.mydomain.com" as CFString, "UserAccount" as CFString, "my_jwt_token" as CFString) { error in // Returns nil (success) } AASA File: JSON { "messagefilter": { "apps": ["TEAMID.bundle.id"] } } Despite this, I see the first 401 in my server logs, but the automatic retry with the Authorization header never happens. Has anyone successfully implemented this "silent" handshake recently?

Hi I'm developing an app that autofills Passkeys. The app allows the user to authenticate to their IdP to obtain an access token. Using the token the app fetches from <server>/attestation/options. The app will generate a Passkey credential using a home-grown module - the extension has no involvement, neither does ASAuthorizationSecurityKeyPublicKeyCredentialProvider. I can confirm the passkey does get created. Next the credential is posted to <server>/attestation/results with the response JSON being parsed and used to create a ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity - a sample of the response JSON is attached. Here is my save function: static func save(authenticator: AuthenticatorInfo) async throws { guard let credentialID = Data(base64URLEncoded: authenticator.attributes.credentialId) else { throw AuthenticatorError.invalidEncoding("Credential ID is not a valid Base64URL string.") } guard let userHandle = authenticator.userId.data(using: .utf8) else { throw AuthenticatorError.invalidEncoding("User handle is not a valid UTF-8 string.") } let identity = ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity( relyingPartyIdentifier: authenticator.attributes.rpId, userName: authenticator.userId, // This is what the user sees in the UI credentialID: credentialID, userHandle: userHandle, recordIdentifier: authenticator.id ) try await ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.saveCredentialIdentities([identity]) } Although no error occurs, I don't get any identities returned when I call this method: let identities = await ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.credentialIdentities( forService: nil, credentialIdentityTypes: [.passkey] ) Here is the Info.plist in the Extension: <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>NSExtension</key> <dict> <key>NSExtensionAttributes</key> <dict> <key>ASCredentialProviderExtensionCapabilities</key> <dict> <key>ProvidesPasskeys</key> <true/> </dict> <key>ASCredentialProviderExtensionShowsConfigurationUI</key> <true/> </dict> <key>NSExtensionPointIdentifier</key> <string>com.apple.authentication-services-credential-provider-ui</string> <key>NSExtensionPrincipalClass</key> <string>$(PRODUCT_MODULE_NAME).CredentialProviderViewController</string> </dict> </dict> </plist> The entitlements are valid and the app and extension both support the same group. I'm stumped as to why the identity is not getting saved. Any ideas and not getting retrieved. attestationResult.json

I am trying to set up a message filter extension that will use shared web credentials for basic auth when calling to its ILMessageFilterExtensionNetworkURL. I have associated domains set up for both "messagefilter:" and "webcredentials:" and the message filter IS correctly calling the ILMessageFilterExtensionNetworkURL with each message - so that part is working. As detailed here, I have set up Shared Web Credentials and my view controller is using SecAddSharedWebCredential() to save the creds to the correct domain. Using Authorization services, the creds are auto-filled into my app's login screen. When I go under Settings > Passwords, I see the creds are saved and they are the correct creds to the corrent website that matches ILMessageFilterExtensionNetworkURL. Regardless of all of this, the deferQueryRequestToNetwork() refuses to use the creds and implement Basic Auth in its URL call. It makes the call to the correct URL, it just won't use the Shared Web Creds for basic auth. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hi, I’m trying to implement the new PhotoKit PHBackgroundResourceUploadExtension. I created the extension, enabled full photo library access in the host app, and registered the extension point using the string: com.apple.photos.background-upload. However, when I attempted to enable the extension with: try library.setUploadJobExtensionEnabled(true) I received the following error: Error Domain=PHPhotosErrorDomain Code=-1 "(null)" This happens when running the app on Xcode 26.1 and 26.2 Beta, using the iPhone 17 Pro Max simulator (iOS 26.1 and 26.2). My question is: Is this extension supported on the simulator? I’m asking because at the moment it’s difficult for me to test this on a physical device. Also, What's the meaning of the error? Thanks.

If the extension uses manifest v3 and a background script in the form of a service worker, then in Safari it is not possible to open the background script debugging window. If I expand the Developer menu in Safari, there is nothing under Web Extension Background Data (or disappear after click), which is an error. In other browsers (Edge, Chrome, Opera, Firefox) this works correctly. If I switch the background script back to non-persistent script mode, everything works fine and from the Developer menu and the Web Extension Background Data submenu I am able to open the background script debugging window for the extension. Am I doing something wrong?

I’d like to submit a feature request regarding the availability of Foundation Models in MessageFilter extensions. Background MessageFilter extensions play a critical role in protecting users from spam, phishing, and unwanted messages. With the introduction of Foundation Models and Apple Intelligence, Apple has provided powerful on-device natural language understanding capabilities that are highly aligned with the goals of MessageFilter. However, Foundation Models are currently unavailable in MessageFilter extensions. Why Foundation Models Are a Great Fit for MessageFilter Message filtering is fundamentally a natural language classification problem. Foundation Models would significantly improve: Detection of phishing and scam messages Classification of promotional vs transactional content Understanding intent, tone, and semantic context beyond keyword matching Adaptation to evolving scam patterns without server-side processing All of this can be done fully on-device, preserving user privacy and aligning with Apple’s privacy-first design principles. Current Limitations Today, MessageFilter extensions are limited to relatively simple heuristics or lightweight models. This often results in: Higher false positives Lower recall for sophisticated scam messages Increased development complexity to compensate for limited NLP capabilities Request Could Apple consider one of the following: Allowing Foundation Models to be used directly within MessageFilter extensions Providing a constrained or optimized Foundation Model API specifically designed for MessageFilter Enabling a supported mechanism for MessageFilter extensions to delegate inference to the containing app using Foundation Models Even limited access (e.g. short text only, strict execution limits) would be extremely valuable. Closing Foundation Models have the potential to significantly raise the quality and effectiveness of message filtering on Apple platforms while maintaining strong privacy guarantees. Supporting them in MessageFilter extensions would be a major improvement for both developers and users. Thank you for your consideration and for continuing to invest in on-device intelligence.