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).

Hello, I'm seeking some clarification regarding the use of accessibility and input monitoring APIs in sandboxed apps that are distributed through the App Store. I understand that accessibility permissions are generally restricted for App Store apps. However, I've seen several recently released apps request these permissions directly upon first launch. I'm aware that apps submitted prior to 2012 may have legacy access to certain APIs, but the ones I'm referring to appear to be recent - within the past year. While it's possible these apps were approved despite the restrictions, I want to make sure I'm not overlooking something. I also came across a recent discussion on this topic, and one post in particular stood out: Link I’d really appreciate some clarification on what's officially allowed. Specifically: Are accessibility permissions ever allowed? If so, under what circumstances? Is input monitoring permitted for apps on the App Store? (The referenced post says yes, but since it's from 2022, I just want to confirm) The linked post suggests that event generation might be allowed on the App Store, though the author hadn’t explored that privilege in detail and recommended opening a DTS tech support incident. I’ve done that and have a support case open - would it be possible to take a closer look at this? For context, my app (currently distributed outside the App Store) uses CGEventPost and CGEventCreateMouseEvent to modify mouse behavior. Thank you

I cannot find any reference to this within the Apple developer documents (or certainly searching for multiple possible keywords yields no results). The only reference I can find is to documents written in support of its announcement in 2002: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=huqjyh7k. Is there any further documentation on implementing or has the capability been deprecated?

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 am developing a daemon-based product that needs a cryptographic, non-spoofable proof of machine identity so a remote management server can grant permissions based on the physical machine. I was thinking to create a signing key in the Secure Enclave and use a certificate signed by that key as the machine identity. The problem is that the Secure Enclave key I can create is only accessible from user context, while my product runs as a system daemon and must not rely on user processes or launchAgents. Could you please advise on the recommended Apple-supported approaches for this use case ? Specifically, Is there a supported way for a system daemon to generate and use an unremovable Secure Enclave key during phases like the pre-logon, that doesn't have non user context (only the my application which created this key/certificate will have permission to use/delete it) If Secure Enclave access from a daemon is not supported, what Apple-recommended alternatives exist for providing a hardware-backed machine identity for system daemons? I'd rather avoid using system keychain, as its contents may be removed or used by root privileged users. The ideal solution would be that each Apple product, would come out with a non removable signing certificate, that represent the machine itself (lets say that the cetificate name use to represent the machine ID), and can be validated by verify that the root signer is "Apple Root CA"

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.

I am getting the following errors. The app used to work and now does not, even without any code changes. Any thoughts on resolving this issue? Authorization failed: Error Domain=AKAuthenticationError Code=-7026 "(null)" Us erInfo={AKClientBundleID=<bundleid>} LaunchServices: store (null) or url (null) was nil: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "process may not map database" Us erInfo={NSDebugDescription=process may not map database, _LSLine=72, _LSFunction=_LSServer_GetServerStoreForConnectionWithCompletionHandler} Attempt to map database failed: permission was denied. This attempt will not be retried. Failed to initialize client context with error Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "process may not map database" Us erInfo={NSDebugDescription=process may not map database, _LSLine=72, _LSFunction=_LSServer_GetServerStoreForConnectionWithCompletionHandler} Failed to get application extension record: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1000 "(null)"

Hi, I was testing the lockdown mode in iOS 16 and would like to know whether we can detect the lockdown mode status using any public API that Apple provides. I really appreciate any help you can provide.

I've been spending days trying to solve the memory leak in a small menu bar application I've wrote (SC Menu). I've used Instruments which shows the leaks and memory graph which shows unreleased allocations. This occurs when someone views a certificate on the smartcard. Basically it opens a new window and displays the certificate, the same way Keychain Access displays a certificate. Whenever I create an SFCertificateView instance and set setDetailsDisclosed(true) - a memory leak happens. Instruments highlights that line. import Cocoa import SecurityInterface class ViewCertsViewController: NSViewController { var selectedCert: SecIdentity? = nil override func viewDidLoad() { super.viewDidLoad() self.view = NSView(frame: NSRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: 500, height: 500)) self.view.wantsLayer = true var secRef: SecCertificate? = nil guard let selectedCert else { return } let certRefErr = SecIdentityCopyCertificate(selectedCert, &secRef) if certRefErr != errSecSuccess { os_log("Error getting certificate from identity: %{public}@", log: OSLog.default, type: .error, String(describing: certRefErr)) return } let scrollView = NSScrollView() scrollView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.borderType = .lineBorder scrollView.hasHorizontalScroller = true scrollView.hasVerticalScroller = true let certView = SFCertificateView() guard let secRef = secRef else { return } certView.setCertificate(secRef) certView.setDetailsDisclosed(true) certView.setDisplayTrust(true) certView.setEditableTrust(true) certView.setDisplayDetails(true) certView.setPolicies(SecPolicyCreateBasicX509()) certView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.documentView = certView view.addSubview(scrollView) // Layout constraints NSLayoutConstraint.activate([ scrollView.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.leadingAnchor), scrollView.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.trailingAnchor), scrollView.topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.topAnchor), scrollView.bottomAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.bottomAnchor), // Provide certificate view a width and height constraint certView.widthAnchor.constraint(equalTo: scrollView.widthAnchor), certView.heightAnchor.constraint(greaterThanOrEqualToConstant: 500) ]) } } https://github.com/boberito/sc_menu/blob/dev_2.0/smartcard_menu/ViewCertsViewController.swift Fairly simple.

Hi, I am developing an app that checks if biometric authentication capabilities (Face ID and Touch ID) are available on a device. I have a few questions: Do I need to include a privacy string in my app to use the LAContext's canEvaluatePolicy function? This function checks if biometric authentication is available on the device, but does not actually trigger the authentication. From my testing, it seems like a privacy declaration is only required when using LAContext's evaluatePolicy function, which would trigger the biometric authentication. Can you confirm if this is the expected behavior across all iOS versions and iPhone models? When exactly does the biometric authentication permission pop-up appear for users - is it when calling canEvaluatePolicy or evaluatePolicy? I want to ensure my users have a seamless experience. Please let me know if you have any insights on these questions. I want to make sure I'm handling the biometric authentication functionality correctly in my app. Thank you!

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

Hi Forum, We’re building a security-focused SDK for iOS that includes SIM Binding and SIM Swap detection to help prevent fraud and unauthorised device access, particularly in the context of banking and fintech apps. We understand that iOS limits access to SIM-level data, and that previously available APIs (such as those in CoreTelephony, now deprecated from iOS 16 onwards) provide only limited support for these use cases. We have a few questions and would appreciate any guidance from the community or Apple engineers: Q1. Are there any best practices or Apple-recommended approaches for binding a SIM to a device or user account? Q2. Is there a reliable way to detect a SIM swap when the app is not running (e.g., via system callback, entitlement, or background mechanism)? Q3. Are fields like GID1, GID2, or ICCID accessible through any public APIs or entitlements (such as com.apple.coretelephony.IdentityAccess)? If so, what is the process to request access? Q4. For dual SIM and eSIM scenarios, is there a documented approach to identify which SIM is active or whether a SIM slot has changed? Q5. In a banking or regulated environment, is it possible for an app vendor (e.g., a bank) to acquire certain entitlements from Apple and securely expose that information to a security SDK like ours? What would be the compliant or recommended way to structure such a partnership? Thanks in advance for any insights!

Hi Apple Developer Community, We have carefully reviewed the documentation on App Transfer and User Migration, but we still have a few unresolved questions regarding Apple Sign-In token behavior and testing strategies. Would appreciate any guidance! Token Behavior for Pre-Transfer App Versions After the app transfer: If a user logs in via an existing pre-transfer version of the app (published under Team A before transfer), will the Apple Sign-In token’s sub (or private email) switch to new value tie to Team B, or unchanged? This is critical for our user migration plan. Preserving sub Across Transfers (Internal Team Transfer) Since our app-transfer is an internal transfer (no change in app ownership outside our organization), is there a way to retain the original sub value（or private email） for users after the transfer? We are concerned that Apple Sign-In errors during the app transfer process may negatively impact user experience. Testing the Transfer Process Safely We’d like to simulate the app transfer and user migration process in a sandbox/test environment before executing it in production. Is there a way to test app transfers without affecting live users? (e.g., a staging mode for transfers) Thank you for your expertise! Any insights would be invaluable.

I understand from the recent Apple Developer News that Korean developers are now required to register a URL to receive notifications from the Apple server when creating or modifying a Sign in With Apple Service ID. However, it is not clear whether simply registering the URL is sufficient, or if it is also mandatory to implement the real-time processing of those notifications. I am inquiring whether the processing part is also a mandatory requirement.

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’m using a custom Installer plug-in (InstallerPane) to collect sensitive user input (username/password) during install. After the payload is laid down, I need to send those values to a newly installed agent (LaunchAgent) to persist them. What I tried I expose an XPC Mach service from the agent and have the plug-in call it. On the agent side I validate the XPC client using the audit token → SecCodeCopyGuestWithAttributes → SecCodeCheckValidity. However, the client process is InstallerRemotePluginService-* (Apple’s view service that hosts all plug-ins), so the signature I see is Apple’s, not mine. I can’t distinguish which plug-in made the call. Any suggestion on better approach ?

Why are we doing this nonsense? We want to be able to run builds in a sandbox such that they can only see the paths they are intended to depend on, to improve reproducibility. With builds with a very large number of dependencies, there's a very large number of paths added to the sandbox, and it breaks things inside libsandbox. Either it hits some sandbox length limit (sandbox-exec: pattern serialization length 66460 exceeds maximum (65535), Nix issue #4119, worked around: Nix PR 12570), or it hits an assert (this report; also Nix issue #2311). The other options for sandboxing on macOS are not viable; we acknowledge sandbox-exec and sandbox_init_with_parameters are deprecated; App Sandbox is inapplicable because we aren't an app. Our use case is closer to a browser, and all the browsers use libsandbox internally. We could possibly use SystemExtension or a particularly diabolical use of Virtualization.framework, but the former API requires notarization which is close to a no-go for our use case as open source software: it is nearly impossible to develop the software on one's own computer, and it would require us to ship a binary blob (and have the build processes to produce one in infrastructure completely dissimilar to what we use today); it also requires a bunch of engineering time. Today, we can pretend that code signing/notarization doesn't exist and that we are writing an old-school Unix daemon, because we are one. The latter is absolutely diabolical and hard to implement. See this saga about the bug we are facing: Nix issue #4119, Nix issue #2311, etc. What is going wrong I can't attach the file fail.sb as it is too large (you can view the failing test case at Lix's gerrit, CL 2870) and run this: $ sandbox-exec -D _GLOBAL_TMP_DIR=/tmp -f fail.sb /bin/sh Assertion failed: (diff &lt;= INSTR_JUMP_NE_MAX_LENGTH), function push_jne_instr, file serialize.c, line 240. zsh: abort sandbox-exec -D _GLOBAL_TMP_DIR=/tmp -f fail.sb /bin/sh Or a stacktrace: stacktrace.txt Credits Full credits to Jade Lovelace (Lix) for writing the above text and filing a bug. This is submitted under FB16964888

Hello, We are working on integrating app integrity verification into our service application, following Apple's App Attest and DeviceCheck guide. Our server issues a challenge to the client, which then sends the challenge, attestation, and keyId in CBOR format to Apple's App Attest server for verification. However, we are unable to reach both https://attest.apple.com and https://attest.development.apple.com due to network issues. These attempts have been made from both our internal corporate network and mobile hotspot environments. Despite adjusting DNS settings and other configurations, the issue persists. Are there alternative methods or solutions to address this problem? Any recommended network configurations or guidelines to successfully connect to Apple's App Attest servers would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

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 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?