The One-time codes documentation details how to enable autofill for SMS based codes. However, there is no details about how to correctly implement autofill for email based codes. I am observing the email based autofill works inconsistently when using email based OTC. In my application: There is latency of 10-15 seconds from when the email arrives to when it is available for autofill. After the autofill feature is used, the OTC email is not being deleted from the inbox automatically. Without documentation, it's unclear to me what I might be doing wrong that is causing these side effects. I found an ietf proposal for how autofill with email based codes might work, but it’s unclear if this is how Apple has implemented the feature: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wells-origin-bound-one-time-codes-00.html#name-email Existing docs for Autofill using SMS: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/enabling-autofill-for-domain-bound-sms-codes

With the new ios 26 update, certain numbers will be filtered into other inboxes within imessage. What numbers are classified as "known", and will not be moved into these filters. Do they need to be a contact in your phone, or if a business texts you how will that be filtered?

We’ve identified an issue in our app where, upon clicking the "Call Customer Center" button, users are unexpectedly shown a logo and message option on a native pop-up window. However, this wasn't the case before, and it should only display a phone number to dial, which was given inside our code. This is incorrect and misleading for our users, as: We are a Canadian-based service and have no affiliation with US messaging chat. The messaging feature was never enabled or intended for our app. Our app should only initiate a phone call to our customer support center — no messages or branding from third parties should appear

I would like to confirm about fraud prevention using Device Check when publishing multiple apps. If the Team ID and Key ID are the same, will the values be shared across all apps with Device Check? With Device Check, only two keys can be created per developer account, and these two are primarily intended for key renewal in case of a leak, rather than for assigning different keys to each app, correct? If both 1 and 2 are correct, does that mean that Device Check should not be used to manage "one-time-only rewards per device" when offering them across multiple apps? Thank you very much for your confirmation.

Hello, We received a rejection on one of our IOS applications because we were doing Microsoft MSAL login through the user's browser. The representative recommended that we use Webview to do in-app logins. However when we tried to handle the custom app uri redirection (looking like myapp://auth/), Webview does not seem to send the user back to the application. Does anyone have a fix for this? Thanks!

I noticed, that even though my AutoFill Credential Provider Extension works with Safari for both Passwords and Passkeys, it doesn't work in context menus inside arbitrary textfields, meanwhile the same is true for the Apple Passwords app. This is a great hit to AutoFill productivity, as my extension is unable to fill textfields by just going to the context menu and clicking AutoFill > Passwords.. Is this a feature only available to Apple via private APIs, or is this something I can interface with? I checked and the Passwords app does use some undocumented but non-private entitlements: [Key] com.apple.authentication-services.access-credential-identities [Value] [Bool] true I also checked the responsible executable for some hints (AutoFillPanelService) however found nothing that would lead me to believe this is a public extension point. Another idea I had was trying to use a macOS Service for this, however Services in the "General" category won't show up in any context menu, only in the Application's Main Menu.

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.

From watching the video on App Attest the answer would appear to be no, but the video is a few years old so in hope, I thought I would post this question anyway. There's several scenarios where I would like a notification service extension to be able to use App Attest in communications with the back end(for example to send a receipt to the backend acknowledging receipt of the push, fetching an image from a url in the push payload, a few others). Any change App Attest can be used in by a notification service extension?

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.

Hi, Xcode Instruments shows multiple Points of Interest with the information that the framework is not listed in my Privacy Manifest. However, I have already included them in the Privacy Manifest under the privacy tracking domains. I have this problem with every tracking domain i listed in the Privacy Manifest's Privacy Tracking Domains. Did I make a mistake in my Privacy Manifest declaration?

Hi, We are trying to open an application "xyz.app" It worked fine until 15.1.1 versions. But facing issues with 15.2 and 15.3 The application is working fine when we navigate to xyz.app/Contents/MacOS/ and run applet in this directory. But the error ""Not authorized to send Apple events to Finder"" occurs when we are trying to open the app directly. Could someone please help me understand what might be causing this issue and how to resolve it?

Hi, I'm looking at adding App Attest to an app, and I think I understand the mechanics of the attestation process, but I'm having trouble figuring out how development and testing are supposed to work. Two main questions: The "App Attest Environment" -- the documentation says that attestation requests made in the .development sandbox environment don't affect the app's risk metrics, but I'm not sure how to actually use this sandbox. My understanding is that one of the things App Attest does is to ensure that your app has been appropriately signed by the App Store, so it knows that it hasn't been tampered with. But the docs say that App Store builds (and Test Flight and Developer Enterprise Program) always use the .production environment. Does App Attest actually work for local developer-build apps if you have this entitlement set? Presumably only on hardware devices since it requires the Secure Enclave? Does our headend have to do something different when verifying the public key and subsequent attested requests for an app that's using the .development sandbox? The docs do mention that a headend server should potentially track two keys per device/user pair so that it can have a production and development key. How does the headend know if a key is from the sandbox environment? Thanks!

I keep getting the following error when trying to run Passkey sign in on macOS. Told not to present authorization sheet: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServicesCore.AuthorizationError Code=1 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 "(null)" This is the specific error. Application with identifier a is not associated with domain b I have config the apple-app-site-association link and use ?mode=developer Could there be any reason for this?

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?

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!

I've come across strange behavior with the userID property on the returned credential from a passkey attestation. When performing a cross-device passkey assertion between iOS and Android by scanning the generated QR code on my iPhone with an Android device the returned credential object contains an empty userID. This does not happen when performing an on device or cross-device assertion using two iPhones. Is this expected behavior, or is there something I'm missing here? I couldn't find any more information on this in the documentation. iOS Version: 26.0.1, Android Version: 13

Hello everyone, I'm developing a FIDO2 service using the AuthenticationServices framework. I've run into an issue when a user manually deletes a passkey from their password manager. When this happens, the ASAuthorizationError I get doesn't clearly indicate that the passkey is missing. The error code is 1001, and the localizedDescription is "The operation couldn't be completed. No credentials available for login." The userInfo also contains "NSLocalizedFailureReason": "No credentials available for login." My concern is that these localized strings will change depending on the user's device language, making it unreliable for me to programmatically check for a "no credentials" scenario. Is there a more precise way to determine that the user has no passkey, without relying on localized string values? Thank you for your help.

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 (aka Gatekeeper path randomisation) 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"

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)

Our product includes a background sync process that synchronizes credentials between devices. We need to update ASCredentialIdentityStore when credentials are changed, we have noticed that the ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.saveCredentialIdentities() fails to run when the device is locked. Is it possible to update ASCredentialIdentityStore when the device is locked?