I am currently unable to enable passkey in my app so I am having to tell my users to skip the prompts for using passkey. We have noticed that after a few times of this the OS will stop asking the user to register their passkey. The question is, how long does this last before the OS asks you to use passkey again? Is it permanent until you re-install the app? Just looking for a time frame if anyone knows.

Without developer mode, I was able to get Password AutoFill to work in my SwiftUI app with my local Vapor server using ngrok and adding the Associated Domains capability with the value webcredentials:....ngrok-free.app and the respective apple-app-site-association file on my local server in /.well-known/. (works on device, but not in the simulator). However, if I use the developer mode (webcredentials:....ngrok-free.app?mode=developer) it only works halfway when running from Xcode: I get asked to save the password, but the saved passwords are not picked up, when I try to login again. Neither on device, nor in the simulator. If I remove the ?mode=developer it seems to work as expected. Is this by design, or am I missing something? var body: some View { ... Section(header: Text("Email")) { TextField("Email", text: $viewModel.credentials.username) .textContentType(.username) .autocapitalization(.none) .keyboardType(.emailAddress) } Section(header: Text("Passwort")) { SecureField("Passwort", text: $viewModel.credentials.password) .textContentType(.password) } ... }

Script attachment enables advanced users to create powerful workflows that start in your app. NSUserScriptTask lets you implement script attachment even if your app is sandboxed. This post explains how to set that up. IMPORTANT Most sandboxed apps are sandboxed because they ship on the Mac App Store [1]. While I don’t work for App Review, and thus can’t make definitive statements on their behalf, I want to be clear that NSUserScriptTask is intended to be used to implement script attachment, not as a general-purpose sandbox bypass mechanism. If you have questions or comments, please put them in a new thread. Place it in the Privacy & Security > General subtopic, and tag it with App Sandbox. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" [1] Most but not all. There are good reasons to sandbox your app even if you distribute it directly. See The Case for Sandboxing a Directly Distributed App. Implementing Script Attachment in a Sandboxed App Some apps support script attachment, that is, they allow a user to configure the app to run a script when a particular event occurs. For example: A productivity app might let a user automate repetitive tasks by configuring a toolbar button to run a script. A mail client might let a user add a script that processes incoming mail. When adding script attachment to your app, consider whether your scripting mechanism is internal or external: An internal script is one that only affects the state of the app. A user script is one that operates as the user, that is, it can change the state of other apps or the system as a whole. Supporting user scripts in a sandboxed app is a conundrum. The App Sandbox prevents your app from changing the state of other apps, but that’s exactly what your app needs to do to support user scripts. NSUserScriptTask resolves this conundrum. Use it to run scripts that the user has placed in your app’s Script folder. Because these scripts were specifically installed by the user, their presence indicates user intent and the system runs them outside of your app’s sandbox. Provide easy access to your app’s Script folder Your application’s Scripts folder is hidden within ~/Library. To make it easier for the user to add scripts, add a button or menu item that uses NSWorkspace to show it in the Finder: let scriptsDir = try FileManager.default.url(for: .applicationScriptsDirectory, in: .userDomainMask, appropriateFor: nil, create: true) NSWorkspace.shared.activateFileViewerSelecting([scriptsDir]) Enumerate the available scripts To show a list of scripts to the user, enumerate the Scripts folder: let scriptsDir = try FileManager.default.url(for: .applicationScriptsDirectory, in: .userDomainMask, appropriateFor: nil, create: true) let scriptURLs = try FileManager.default.contentsOfDirectory(at: scriptsDir, includingPropertiesForKeys: [.localizedNameKey]) let scriptNames = try scriptURLs.map { url in return try url.resourceValues(forKeys: [.localizedNameKey]).localizedName! } This uses .localizedNameKey to get the name to display to the user. This takes care of various edge cases, for example, it removes the file name extension if it’s hidden. Run a script To run a script, instantiate an NSUserScriptTask object and call its execute() method: let script = try NSUserScriptTask(url: url) try await script.execute() Run a script with arguments NSUserScriptTask has three subclasses that support additional functionality depending on the type of the script. Use the NSUserUnixTask subsclass to run a Unix script and: Supply command-line arguments. Connect pipes to stdin, stdout, and stderr. Get the termination status. Use the NSUserAppleScriptTask subclass to run an AppleScript, executing either the run handler or a custom Apple event. Use the NSUserAutomatorTask subclass to run an Automator workflow, supplying an optional input. To determine what type of script you have, try casting it to each of the subclasses: let script: NSUserScriptTask = … switch script { case let script as NSUserUnixTask: … use Unix-specific functionality … case let script as NSUserAppleScriptTask: … use AppleScript-specific functionality … case let script as NSUserAutomatorTask: … use Automatic-specific functionality … default: … use generic functionality … }

completeRequestWithTextToInsert is used to return text into an arbitrary textfield via the context menu AutoFill/Passwords from a 3rd party password manager (or presumably the Passwords App) in iOS 18. While testing this feature in the debugger, it would often fail on the first invocation. It also appears to happen intermittently in the released app extension. Subsequent testing using the Passwords App shows it too may fail to return a value. I have confirmed this behaviour is repeatable with the Passwords App on an iPhone running iOS 18.3.1 Reboot the iPhone. Show the App Library, and right click Autofill. Select Passwords Select Passwords (App) Select a password. Nothing will be inserted (intermittently). Feedback assistant report: FB16788563

Hello there, We’re currently integrating Apple Wallet pass functionality into our application and am looking for clarification around the automatic update flow. Particularly regarding secure management of the authenticationToken. We’ve reviewed the documentation here: Adding a Web Service to Update Passes authenticationToken Documentation From our understanding: When a user downloads a pass from our service, the .pkpass includes both a webServiceURL and an authenticationToken. Once the pass is added to Wallet, the Wallet app makes authenticated requests to our webServiceURL, using the token in the Authorization header. We then validate this token server-side to serve updates or handle device registration. So far, this flow is clear. However, we’re looking for clarification on two key scenarios: If a user adds the same pass twice on the same device, should the authenticationToken remain the same in both cases? If the same user adds the same pass on a different device, should the authenticationToken also remain consistent across devices? If the answer to both is “yes,” we assume that our backend must store the original authenticationToken in a retrievable form (not just as a hash) to regenerate the same pass for re-download or multi-device sync. Our main question is: What is Apple’s recommended or acceptable approach to storing authenticationToken values securely on the backend? Should these tokens be: Stored in plaintext (e.g. in a protected DB field)? Encrypted using a symmetric key? Hashed (not reversible, but limits reuse)? We want to ensure we align with Apple’s best practices for Wallet security and token management, especially in contexts where the same pass may be installed on multiple devices or reissued later.

I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. There have been substantial changes in this space recently. While much of this is now covered in the official docs (r. 92322409), I’ve updated this post to go into all the gory details. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the App & System Services > Core OS topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if your question is about app group containers, also include Files and Storage. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony There are two styles of app group ID: iOS-style app group IDs start with group., for example, group.eskimo1.test. macOS-style app group IDs start with your Team ID, for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. This difference has been the source of numerous weird problems over the years. Starting in Feb 2025, iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on macOS for all product types [1]. If you’re writing new code that uses app groups, use an iOS-style app group ID. If you have existing code that uses a macOS-style app group ID, consider how you might transition to the iOS style. IMPORTANT The Feb 2025 changes aren’t tied to an OS release but rather to a Developer website update. For more on this, see Feb 2025 Changes, below. [1] If your product is a standalone executable, like a daemon or agent, wrap it in an app-like structure, as explained in Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement. iOS-Style App Group IDs An iOS-style app group ID has the following features: It starts with the group. prefix, for example, group.eskimo1.test. You allocate it on the Developer website. This assigns the app group ID to your team. You then claim access to it by listing it in the App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. That claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile [1]. The Developer website will only let you include your team’s app group IDs in your profile. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. iOS-style app group IDs originated on iOS with iOS 3.0. They’ve always been supported on iOS’s child platforms (iPadOS, tvOS, visionOS, and watchOS). On the Mac: They’ve been supported by Mac Catalyst since that technology was introduced. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Starting in Feb 2025, they’re supported for other Mac products. [1] Strictly speaking macOS does not require that, but if your claim is not authorised by a profile then you might run into other problems. See Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. macOS-Style App Group IDs A macOS-style app group ID has the following features: It should start with your Team ID [1], for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. It can’t be explicitly allocated on the Developer website. Code that isn’t sandboxed doesn’t need to claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. [2] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted on macOS, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile [3]. However, if you claim an app group ID that’s not authorised in some way, you might run into problems. More on that later in this post. If you submit an app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense, that is, they either start with your Team ID (macOS style) or are assigned to your team (iOS style). [1] This is “should” because, historically, macOS has not actually required it. However, that’s now changing, with things like app group container protection. [2] This was true prior to macOS 15. It may still technically be true in macOS 15 and later, but the most important thing, access to the app group container, requires the entitlement because of app group container protection. [3] Technically it’s a validation-required entitlement, something that we’ll come back to in the Entitlements-Validated Flag section. Feb 2025 Changes On 21 Feb 2025 we rolled out a change to the Developer website that completes the support for iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Specifically, it’s now possible to create a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group ID. Note This change doesn’t affect Mac Catalyst or iOS Apps on Mac, which have always been able to use iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Prior to this change it was possible to use an iOS-style app group ID on the Mac but that might result in some weird behaviour. Later sections of this post describe some of those problems. Of course, that information is now only of historical interest because, if you’re using an iOS-style app group, you can and should authorise that use with a provisioning profile. We also started seeding Xcode 16.3, which has since been release. This is aware of the Developer website change, and its Signing & Capabilities editor actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. Note This Xcode behaviour is the only option for iOS and its child platforms. With Xcode 16.3, it’s now the default for macOS as well. If you have existing project, enable this behaviour using the Register App Groups build setting. Finally, we updated a number of app group documentation pages, including App Groups entitlement and Configuring app groups. Crossing the Streams In some circumstances you might need to have a single app that accesses both an iOS- and a macOS-style app group. For example: You have a macOS app. You want to migrate to an iOS-style app group ID, perhaps because you want to share an app group container with a Mac Catalyst app. But you also need to access existing content in a container identified by a macOS-style app group ID. Historically this caused problems (FB16664827) but, as of Jun 2025, this is fully supported (r. 148552377). When the Developer website generates a Mac provisioning profile for an App ID with the App Groups capability, it automatically adds TEAM_ID.* to the list of app group IDs authorised by that profile (where TEAM_ID is your Team ID). This allows the app to claim access to every iOS-style app group ID associated with the App ID and any macOS-style app group IDs for that team. This helps in two circumstances: It avoids any Mac App Store Connect submission problems, because App Store Connect can see that the app’s profile authorises its use of all the it app group IDs it claims access to. Outside of App Store — for example, when you directly distribute an app using Developer ID signing — you no longer have to rely on macOS granting implicit access to macOS-style app group IDs. Rather, such access is explicitly authorised by your profile. That ensures that your entitlements remain validated, as discussed in the Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. A Historical Interlude These different styles of app group IDs have historical roots: On iOS, third-party apps have always used provisioning profiles, and thus the App Groups entitlement is restricted just like any other entitlement. On macOS, support for app groups was introduced before macOS had general support for provisioning profiles [1], and thus the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted. The unrestricted nature of this entitlement poses two problems. The first is accidental collisions. How do you prevent folks from accidentally using an app group ID that’s in use by some other developer? On iOS this is easy: The Developer website assigns each app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. macOS achieved a similar result by using the Team ID as a prefix. The second problem is malicious reuse. How do you prevent a Mac app from accessing the app group containers of some other team? Again, this isn’t an issue on iOS because the App Groups entitlement is restricted. On macOS the solution was for the Mac App Store to prevent you from publishing an app that used an app group ID that’s used by another team. However, this only works for Mac App Store apps. Directly distributed apps were free to access app group containers of any other app. That was considered acceptable back when the Mac App Store was first introduced. That’s no longer the case, which is why macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. See App Group Container Protection, below. [1] I’m specifically talking about provisioning profiles for directly distributed apps, that is, apps using Developer ID signing. Entitlements-Validated Flag The fact that the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted on macOS is, when you think about it, a little odd. The purpose of entitlements is to gate access to functionality. If an entitlement isn’t restricted, it’s not much of a gate! For most unrestricted entitlements that’s not a problem. Specifically, for both the App Sandbox and Hardened Runtime entitlements, those are things you opt in to, so macOS is happy to accept the entitlement at face value. After all, if you want to cheat you can just not opt in [1]. However, this isn’t the case for the App Groups entitlement, which actually gates access to functionality. Dealing with this requires macOS to walk a fine line between security and compatibility. Part of that solution is the entitlements-validated flag. When a process runs an executable, macOS checks its entitlements. There are two categories: Restricted entitlements must be authorised by a provisioning profile. If your process runs an executable that claims a restricted entitlement that’s not authorised by a profile, the system traps. Unrestricted entitlements don’t have to be authorised by a provisioning profile; they can be used by any code at any time. However, the App Groups entitlement is a special type of unrestricted entitlement called a validation-required entitlement. If a process runs an executable that claims a validation-required entitlement and that claim is not authorised by a profile, the system allows the process to continue running but clears its entitlements-validated flag. Some subsystems gate functionality on the entitlements-validated flag. For example, the data protection keychain uses entitlements as part of its access control model, but refuses to honour those entitlements if the entitlement-validated flag has been cleared. Note If you’re curious about this flag, use the procinfo subcommand of launchctl to view it. For example: % sudo launchctl procinfo `pgrep Test20230126` … code signing info = valid … entitlements validated … If the flag has been cleared, this line will be missing from the code signing info section. Historically this was a serious problem because it prevented you from creating an app that uses both app groups and the data protection keychain [2] (r. 104859788). Fortunately that’s no longer an issue because the Developer website now lets you include the App Groups entitlement in macOS provisioning profiles. [1] From the perspective of macOS checking entitlements at runtime. There are other checks: The App Sandbox is mandatory for Mac App Store apps, but that’s checked when you upload the app to App Store Connect. Directly distributed apps must be notarised to pass Gatekeeper, and the notary service requires that all executables enable the hardened runtime. [2] See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain a historical oddity associated with keychain access. The Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps article says: Application groups When you collect related apps into an application group using the App Groups entitlement, they share access to a group container, and gain the ability to message each other in certain ways. You can use app group names as keychain access group names, without adding them to the Keychain Access Groups entitlement. On iOS this makes a lot of sense: The App Groups entitlement is a restricted entitlement on iOS. The Developer website assigns each iOS-style app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. The required group. prefix means that these keychain access groups can’t collide with other keychain access groups, which all start with an App ID prefix (there’s also Apple-only keychain access groups that start with other prefixes, like apple). However, this didn’t work on macOS [1] because the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted there. However, with the Feb 2025 changes it should now be possible to use an iOS-style app group ID as a keychain access group on macOS. Note I say “should” because I’ve not actually tried it (-: Keep in mind that standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on all platforms, using the restricted Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for Mac Catalyst apps and iOS Apps on Mac. Not Entirely Unsatisfied When you launch a Mac app that uses app groups you might see this log entry: type: error time: 10:41:35.858009+0000 process: taskgated-helper subsystem: com.apple.ManagedClient category: ProvisioningProfiles message: com.example.apple-samplecode.Test92322409: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups Note The exact format of that log entry, and the circumstances under which it’s generated, varies by platform. On macOS 13.0.1 I was able to generate it by running a sandboxed app that claims a macOS-style app group ID in the App Groups entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. It means that the App Groups entitlement claims an entitlement that’s not authorised by a provisioning profile. On iOS this would trap, but on macOS the system allows the process to continue running. It does, however, clear the entitlements-validate flag. See Entitlements-Validated Flag for an in-depth discussion of this. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to authorise your app group ID claims with a provisioning profile. If there’s some reason you can’t do that, watch out for potential problems with: The data protection keychain — See the discussion of that in the Entitlements-Validated Flag and App Groups and the Keychain sections, both above. App group container protection — See App Group Container Protection, below. App Group Container Protection macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. To access an app group container without user intervention: Claim access to the app group by listing its ID in the App Groups entitlement. Locate the container by calling the containerURL(forSecurityApplicationGroupIdentifier:) method. Ensure that at least one of the following criteria are met: Your app is deployed via the Mac App Store (A). Or via TestFlight when running on macOS 15.1 or later (B). Or the app group ID starts with your app’s Team ID (C). Or your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D) [1]. If your app doesn’t follow these rules, the system prompts the user to approve its access to the container. If granted, that consent applies only for the duration of that app instance. For more on this, see: The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15 Release Notes The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15.1 Release Notes WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy, starting at 12:23 The above criteria mean that you rarely run into the app group authorisation prompt. If you encounter a case where that happens, feel free to start a thread here on DevForums. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Note Prior to the Feb 2025 change, things generally worked out fine when you app was deployed but you might’ve run into problems during development. That’s no longer the case. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Revision History 2025-08-12 Added a reference to the Register App Groups build setting. 2025-07-28 Updated the Crossing the Streams section for the Jun 2025 change. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-04-16 Rewrote the document now that iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on the Mac. Changed the title from App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight! to App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony 2025-02-25 Fixed the Xcode version number mentioned in yesterday’s update. 2025-02-24 Added a quick update about the iOS-style app group IDs on macOS issue. 2024-11-05 Further clarified app group container protection. Reworked some other sections to account for this new reality. 2024-10-29 Clarified the points in App Group Container Protection. 2024-10-23 Fleshed out the discussion of app group container protection on macOS 15. 2024-09-04 Added information about app group container protection on macOS 15. 2023-01-31 Renamed the Not Entirely Unsatisfactory section to Not Entirely Unsatisfied. Updated it to describe the real impact of that log message. 2022-12-12 First posted.

Hey everyone, I'm working on a password manager app for iOS and I'm trying to implement the new iOS 18 feature that lets users enable autofill directly from within the app. I know this exists because I've seen it in action in another app. They've clearly figured it out, but I'm struggling to find any documentation or info about the specific API. Has anyone else had any luck finding this? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Greetings, We are struggling to implement device binding according to your documentation. We are generation a nonce value in backend like this: public static String generateNonce(int byteLength) { byte[] randomBytes = new byte[byteLength]; new SecureRandom().nextBytes(randomBytes); return Base64.getUrlEncoder().withoutPadding().encodeToString(randomBytes); } And our mobile client implement the attestation flow like this: @implementation AppAttestModule - (NSData *)sha256FromString:(NSString *)input { const char *str = [input UTF8String]; unsigned char result[CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; CC_SHA256(str, (CC_LONG)strlen(str), result); return [NSData dataWithBytes:result length:CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; } RCT_EXPORT_MODULE(); RCT_EXPORT_METHOD(generateAttestation:(NSString *)nonce resolver:(RCTPromiseResolveBlock)resolve rejecter:(RCTPromiseRejectBlock)reject) { if (@available(iOS 14.0, *)) { DCAppAttestService *service = [DCAppAttestService sharedService]; if (![service isSupported]) { reject(@"not_supported", @"App Attest is not supported on this device.", nil); return; } NSData *nonceData = [self sha256FromString:nonce]; NSUserDefaults *defaults = [NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults]; NSString *savedKeyId = [defaults stringForKey:@"AppAttestKeyId"]; NSString *savedAttestation = [defaults stringForKey:@"AppAttestAttestationData"]; void (^resolveWithValues)(NSString *keyId, NSData *assertion, NSString *attestationB64) = ^(NSString *keyId, NSData *assertion, NSString *attestationB64) { NSString *assertionB64 = [assertion base64EncodedStringWithOptions:0]; resolve(@{ @"nonce": nonce, @"signature": assertionB64, @"deviceType": @"IOS", @"attestationData": attestationB64 ?: @"", @"keyId": keyId }); }; void (^handleAssertion)(NSString *keyId, NSString *attestationB64) = ^(NSString *keyId, NSString *attestationB64) { [service generateAssertion:keyId clientDataHash:nonceData completionHandler:^(NSData *assertion, NSError *assertError) { if (!assertion) { reject(@"assertion_error", @"Failed to generate assertion", assertError); return; } resolveWithValues(keyId, assertion, attestationB64); }]; }; if (savedKeyId && savedAttestation) { handleAssertion(savedKeyId, savedAttestation); } else { [service generateKeyWithCompletionHandler:^(NSString *keyId, NSError *keyError) { if (!keyId) { reject(@"keygen_error", @"Failed to generate key", keyError); return; } [service attestKey:keyId clientDataHash:nonceData completionHandler:^(NSData *attestation, NSError *attestError) { if (!attestation) { reject(@"attestation_error", @"Failed to generate attestation", attestError); return; } NSString *attestationB64 = [attestation base64EncodedStringWithOptions:0]; [defaults setObject:keyId forKey:@"AppAttestKeyId"]; [defaults setObject:attestationB64 forKey:@"AppAttestAttestationData"]; [defaults synchronize]; handleAssertion(keyId, attestationB64); }]; }]; } } else { reject(@"ios_version", @"App Attest requires iOS 14+", nil); } } @end For validation we are extracting the nonce from the certificate like this: private static byte[] extractNonceFromAttestationCert(X509Certificate certificate) throws IOException { byte[] extensionValue = certificate.getExtensionValue("1.2.840.113635.100.8.2"); if (Objects.isNull(extensionValue)) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("Apple App Attest nonce extension not found in certificate."); } ASN1Primitive extensionPrimitive = ASN1Primitive.fromByteArray(extensionValue); ASN1OctetString outerOctet = ASN1OctetString.getInstance(extensionPrimitive); ASN1Sequence sequence = (ASN1Sequence) ASN1Primitive.fromByteArray(outerOctet.getOctets()); ASN1TaggedObject taggedObject = (ASN1TaggedObject) sequence.getObjectAt(0); ASN1OctetString nonceOctet = ASN1OctetString.getInstance(taggedObject.getObject()); return nonceOctet.getOctets(); } And for the verification we are using this method: private OptionalMethodResult<Void> verifyNonce(X509Certificate certificate, String expectedNonce, byte[] authData) { byte[] expectedNonceHash; try { byte[] nonceBytes = MessageDigest.getInstance("SHA-256").digest(expectedNonce.getBytes()); byte[] combined = ByteBuffer.allocate(authData.length + nonceBytes.length).put(authData).put(nonceBytes).array(); expectedNonceHash = MessageDigest.getInstance("SHA-256").digest(combined); } catch (NoSuchAlgorithmException e) { log.error("Error while validations iOS attestation: {}", e.getMessage(), e); return OptionalMethodResult.ofError(deviceBindError.getChallengeNotMatchedError()); } byte[] actualNonceFromCert; try { actualNonceFromCert = extractNonceFromAttestationCert(certificate); } catch (Exception e) { log.error("Error while extracting nonce from certificate: {}", e.getMessage(), e); return OptionalMethodResult.ofError(deviceBindError.getChallengeNotMatchedError()); } if (!Arrays.equals(expectedNonceHash, actualNonceFromCert)) { return OptionalMethodResult.ofError(deviceBindError.getChallengeNotMatchedError()); } return OptionalMethodResult.empty(); } But the values did not matched. What are we doing wrong here? Thanks.

I am currently working on Fraud System Detection that will be used by one of the financial institutions. Those tools are related to ensuring user security. Our goal is to identify features that can trigger an early warning system for attempted fraud. We have identified three uncertain variables: Whether the user is having a conversation while using our app, Whether the user has specific screen sharing apps on their phone, Whether the user has enabled VPN connection. Here my doubts appear: Can we check the presence of a telephone conversation if we are not a VOIP application? Can we check the presence of installed programs using Universal Link and canOpenUrl(_:) method? Can we read "SCOPED" key from CFNetworkCopySystemProxySettings() dictionary? I will be glad for any advice and help.

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?

We are using SecPKCS12Import C API in our application to import a self seigned public key certificate. We tried to run the application for the first time on Tahoe and it failed with OSStatus -26275 error. The release notes didn't mention any deprecation or change in the API as per https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-notes/macos-26-release-notes. Are we missing anything? There are no other changes done to our application.

Hi! Is it possible to disable the option for users to 'Sign in with Another Device'? I encounter this message during the authentication process and I want to prevent it from appearing. I appreciate your help and look forward to your response.

I'm looking for confirmation on the security aspects of fdesetup authrestart when used on a FileVault-enabled Mac. As I understand it, this command temporarily stores the decryption key in memory to allow the system to restart without requiring manual entry of the FileVault password. However, I have a few security-related concerns: Storage of the Decryption Key: Where exactly is the key stored during an authenticated restart? Is it protected within the Secure Enclave (for Apple Silicon Macs) or the T2 Security Chip on Intel Macs? Key Lifetime &amp; Wiping: At what point is the decryption key erased from memory? Does it persist in any form after the system has fully rebooted? Protection Against Physical Attacks: If an attacker gains physical access to the machine before the restart completes, is there any possibility that they could extract the decryption key from memory? Cold Boot Attack Resistance: Is there any risk that advanced forensic techniques (such as freezing RAM to retain data) could be used to recover the decryption key after issuing an authenticated restart? Malware Resistance: Could a compromised system (e.g., root access by an attacker) intercept or misuse the decryption key before the restart? I understand that on Apple Silicon and T2-equipped Macs, FileVault keys are tied to hardware-based encryption, making unauthorized access difficult. However, I'd like to confirm whether Authenticated Restart introduces any new risks compared to a standard FileVault-enabled boot process.

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.

Hello everyone, I'm working on a project where I intend to use Secure Enclave-based, device-bound private keys within a Webauthn flow. I have the following question: Is it possible to generate private keys in the Secure Enclave with integrated attestation in order to reliably prove to a relying party the authenticity and uncompromised state of the key? If so, I would appreciate details on the implementation—specifically, any prerequisites, limitations, or particular API calls and configuration options that need to be considered. I look forward to any advice, best practices, or pointers to further documentation on this topic. Thank you in advance for your support! Best regards, Alex

Hello -- I am developing an Authentication Plug-in for the purpose of invoking login with no user interaction (headless). There seems to be sufficient documentation and sample code on how to implement a plug-in and mechanism, and debug the same, which is great. What I am trying to understand is exactly how to modify the login right (system.login.console) in order to accomplish my goal. Question 1: I had the idea of installing my mechanism as the first mechanism of the login right, and when invoked to set the username and password into the engine’s context, in the belief that this would negate the system from needing to display the login screen. I didn’t modify or remove any other mechanisms. This did not work, in the sense that the login screen was still shown. Should this work in theory? Question 2: I then tried modifying the login right to remove anything that interacted with the user, leaving only the following: <array> <string>builtin:prelogin</string> <string>builtin:login-begin</string> <string>builtin:forward-login,privileged</string> <string>builtin:auto-login,privileged</string> <string>MyAuthPlugin:customauth,privileged</string> <string>PKINITMechanism:auth,privileged</string> <string>builtin:login-success</string> <string>HomeDirMechanism:login,privileged</string> <string>HomeDirMechanism:status</string> <string>MCXMechanism:login</string> <string>CryptoTokenKit:login</string> </array> The mechanisms I removed were: <string>builtin:policy-banner</string> <string>loginwindow:login</string> <string>builtin:reset-password,privileged</string> <string>loginwindow:FDESupport,privileged</string> <string>builtin:authenticate,privileged</string> <string>loginwindow:success</string> <string>loginwindow:done</string> In place of builtin:authenticate I supplied my own mechanism to verify the user’s password using OD and then set the username and password in the context. This attempt appears to have failed quite badly, as authd reported an error almost immediately (I believe it was related to the AuthEngine failing to init). There’s very little information to go on as to what each of these mechanisms do, and which are required, etc. Am I on the wrong track in attempting this? What would be the correct approach?

Like many/most developers, I gave Connect the info required to comply with the DSA. Perhaps unlike most, I always give unique email addresses so that I can easily track the source of abuse. Yesterday I finally had a phish come in to my DSA address claiming "Message blocked" and doing the standard click-to-login-for-details FOMO bait. So, yep, DSA just becomes yet another public database that malicious actors can use to target you. It would be really nice if Apple provided a way to supply our contact info only for legitimate business purposes. Mail Privacy Protection (or similar) for this would be a start.

Hello, we are using DeviceCheck – App Attest in a production iOS app. The integration has been live for some time and works correctly for most users, but a small subset of users encounter non-deterministic failures that we are unable to reproduce internally. Environment iOS 14+ Real devices only (no simulator) App Attest capability enabled Correct App ID, Team ID and App Attest entitlement Production environment Relevant code let service = DCAppAttestService.shared service.generateKey { keyId, error in // key generation } service.attestKey(keyId, clientDataHash: hash) { attestation, error in // ERROR: com.apple.devicecheck.error 3 / 4 } service.generateAssertion(keyId, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) { assertion, error in // ERROR: com.apple.devicecheck.error 3 / 4 } For some users we intermittently receive: com.apple.devicecheck.error error 3 com.apple.devicecheck.error error 4 Characteristics: appears random affects only some users/devices sometimes resolves after time or reinstall not reproducible on our test devices NSError contains no additional diagnostic info Some questions: What is the official meaning of App Attest errors 3 and 4? Are these errors related to key state, device conditions, throttling, or transient App Attest service issues? Is there any recommended way to debug or gain more insight when this happens in production? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated, as this impacts real users and is difficult to diagnose. Thank you.

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!

We recently transferred two applications to a different account, both of which utilize Keychain and shared app containers. Before transferring the first application, we anticipated losing access to the Keychain and took proactive measures by backing up data to the app’s private container in the final release prior to the transfer. During the app transfer process, we removed the shared container group ID from the old account and recreated it under the new account. In our testing, Keychain restoration from the local backup was successful, and users experienced no disruptions. However, after releasing the application, we observed that approximately 25% of our users not only lost their Keychain data as expected but also their shared app container data. As we have been unable to reproduce this issue internally, we are seeking your guidance on how to prevent a similar situation when transferring our second application. At this stage, we have not yet released any updates from the new account, and the Keychain data remains backed up in the app’s private container. We would appreciate any insights or recommendations you can provide to ensure a smooth transition for our users and make sure we can keep the data in shared container.