While working with Platform SSO on macOS, I’m trying to better understand how the system handles cases where a user’s local account password becomes unsynchronized with their Identity Provider (IdP) password—for example, when the device is offline during a password change. My assumption is that macOS may store some form of persistent token during the Platform SSO user registration process (such as a certificate or similar credential), and that this token could allow the system to unlock the user’s login keychain even if the local password no longer matches the IdP password. I’m hoping to get clarification on the following: Does macOS actually use a persistent token to unlock the login keychain when the local account password is out of sync with the IdP password? If so, how is that mechanism designed to work? If such a capability exists, is it something developers can leverage to enable a true passwordless authentication experience at the login window and lock screen (i.e., avoiding the need for a local password fallback)? I’m trying to confirm what macOS officially supports so I can understand whether passwordless login is achievable using the persistent-token approach. Thanks in advance for any clarification.

For context, my company develops a data loss prevention (DLP) product. Part of our functionality is the ability to detect sensitive data being pasted into a web browser or cloud-based app. The AppKit release notes for April 2025 document an upcoming “macOS pasteboard privacy” feature, which will presumably ship in macOS 26. Using the user default setting “EnablePasteboardPrivacyDeveloperPreview” documented in the release notes, I tested our agent under macOS 15.5, and encountered a modal alert reading " is trying to access the pasteboard" almost immediately, when the program reads the General pasteboard to scan its contents. Since our product is aimed at enterprise customers (and not individual Mac users), I believed Apple would implement a privacy control setting for this new feature. This would allow our customers to push a configuration profile via MDM, with the “Paste from Other Apps” setting for our application preset to “Allow”, so that they can install our product on their endpoints without manual intervention. Unfortunately, as of macOS 26 beta 4 (25A5316i), there does not seem to be any such setting documented under Device Management — for example in PrivacyPreferencesPolicyControl.Services, which lists a number of similar settings. Without such a setting available, a valuable function of our product will be effectively crippled when macOS 26 is released. Is there such a setting (that I've overlooked)? If not, allow me to urge Apple to find the resources to implement one, so that our customers can preset “Paste from Other Apps” to “Allow” for our application.

Problem Description: In our App, When we launch the web login part using ASWebAuthentication + Universal Links with callback scheme as "https", we are not receiving callback. Note: We are using "SwiftUIWebAuthentication" Swift Package Manager to display page in ASWebAuth. But when we use custom url scheme instead of Universal link, app able to receive call back every time. We use ".onOpenURL" to receive universal link callback scheme.

Hi everyone, I’m encountering an unexpected Keychain behavior in a production environment and would like to confirm whether this is expected or if I’m missing something. In my app, I store a deviceId in the Keychain based on the classic KeychainItemWrapper implementation. I extended it by explicitly setting: kSecAttrAccessible = kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock My understanding is that kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock should allow Keychain access while the app is running in the background, as long as the device has been unlocked at least once after reboot. However, after the app went live, I observed that when the app performs background execution (e.g., triggered by background tasks / silent push), Keychain read attempts intermittently fail with: errSecInteractionNotAllowed (-25308) This seems inconsistent with the documented behavior of kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock. Additional context: The issue never occurs in foreground. The issue does not appear on development devices. User devices are not freshly rebooted when this happens. The Keychain item is created successfully; only background reads fail. Setting the accessibility to kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly produces the same result. Questions: Under what circumstances can kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock still cause a -25308 error? Is there any known restriction when accessing Keychain while the app is running in background execution contexts? Could certain system states (Low Power Mode, Background App Refresh conditions, device lock state, etc.) cause Keychain reads to be blocked unexpectedly? Any insights or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

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.

Hello, I am currently researching to develop an application where I want to apply the MacOS updates without the password prompt shown to the users. I did some research on this and understand that an MDM solution can apply these patches without user intervention. Are there any other ways we can achieve this? Any leads are much appreciated.

I have been implementing an sdk for authenticating a user. I have noticed that on iOS 18.5, whether using SFSafariViewController, or the sdk (built on ASWebAuthenticationSession), password autofill does not work. I have confirmed it works on a different device running iOS 18.0.1. Are there any work arounds for this at this time? Specifically for ASWebAuthenticationSession?

On Sonoma beta 7, if system.login.screensaver is updated to use “authenticate-session-owner-or-admin”, and then Lock Screen is not hiding the macOS Desktop. Step1. Update system.login.screensaver authorizationdb rule to use “authenticate-session-owner-or-admin”( to get old SFAutorizationPluginView at Lock Screen ). Step 2. Once the rule is in place after logout and login, now click on Apple icon and select “Lock Screen”. Even after selecting Lock Screen, complete macOS Desktop is visible with no control for the user to unlock the screen. To gain access we have to restart the MAC.

I'm trying to add a generic password to the keychain and get back the persistent ID for it, and give it .userPresence access control. Unfortunately, if I include that, I get paramError back from SecItemAdd. Here's the code: @discardableResult func set(username: String, hostname: String?, password: String, comment: String? = nil) throws -> PasswordEntry { // Delete any existing matching password… if let existing = try? getEntry(forUsername: username, hostname: hostname) { try deletePassword(withID: existing.id) } // Store the new password… var label = username if let hostname { label = label + "@" + hostname } var item: [String: Any] = [ kSecClass as String : kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrDescription as String : "TermPass Password", kSecAttrGeneric as String : self.bundleID.data(using: .utf8)!, kSecAttrLabel as String : label, kSecAttrAccount as String : username, kSecValueData as String : password.data(using: .utf8)!, kSecReturnData as String : true, kSecReturnPersistentRef as String: true, ] if self.synchronizable { item[kSecAttrSynchronizable as String] = kCFBooleanTrue! } if let hostname { item[kSecAttrService as String] = hostname } if let comment { item[kSecAttrComment as String] = comment } // Apply access control to require the user to prove presence when // retrieving this password… var error: Unmanaged<CFError>? guard let accessControl = SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(nil, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, .userPresence, &error) else { let cfError = error!.takeUnretainedValue() as Error throw cfError } item[kSecAttrAccessControl as String] = accessControl item[kSecAttrAccessible as String] = kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly var result: AnyObject! let status = SecItemAdd(item as CFDictionary, &result) try Errors.throwIfError(osstatus: status) load() guard let secItem = result as? [String : Any], let persistentRef = secItem[kSecValuePersistentRef as String] as? Data else { throw Errors.malformedItem } let entry = PasswordEntry(id: persistentRef, username: username, hostname: hostname, password: password, comment: comment) return entry } (Note that I also tried it omitting kSecAttrAccessible, but it had no effect.) This code works fine if I omit setting kSecAttrAccessControl. Any ideas? TIA!

I have 2 basic questions related to Launch Constraints: [Q1] Are Launch Constraints supposed to work when SIP is disabled? From what I'm observing, when SIP is disabled, Launch Constraints (e.g. Launch Constraint Parent Process) are not enforced. I can understand that. But it's a bit confusing considering that the stack diagram in the WWDC 2023 session is placing the 'Environment Constraints' block under SIP, not above. Also the documentation only mentions SIP for the 'is-sip-protected' fact. [Q2] Is the SpawnConstraint key in legacy launchd plist files (i.e. inside /Library/Launch(Agents|Daemons)) officially supported? From what I'm seeing, it seems to be working when SIP is enabled. But the WWDC session and the documentation don't really talk about this case.

In one of my apps I would like to find out if users have their device set up to authenticate with their Apple Watch. According to the documentation (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/localauthentication/lapolicy/deviceownerauthenticationwithcompanion) this would be done by evaluating the LAPolicy like this: var error: NSError? var canEvaluateCompanion = false if #available(iOS 18.0, *) { canEvaluateCompanion = context.canEvaluatePolicy(.deviceOwnerAuthenticationWithCompanion, error: &error) } But when I run this on my iPhone 16 Pro (iOS 18.5) with a paired Apple Watch SE 2nd Gen (watchOS 11.5) it always returns false and the error is -1000 "No companion device available". But authentication with my watch is definitely enabled, because I regularly unlock my phone with the watch. Other evaluations of using biometrics just works as expected. Anything that I am missing?

Cannot find developer mode in iPhone 16. Please help me resolve this

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).

Trying to apply 'always trust' to certificate added to keychain using both SecItemAdd() and SecPKCS12Import() with SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings(). I created a launchdaemon for this purpose. AuthorizationDB is modified so that any process running in root can apply trust to certificate. let option = SecTrustSettingsResult.trustRoot.rawValue // SecTrustSettingsResult.trustAsRoot.rawValue for non-root certificates let status = SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings(secCertificate, SecTrustSettingsDomain.admin, [kSecTrustSettingsResult: NSNumber(value: option.rawValue)] as CFTypeRef). Above code is used to trust certificates and it was working on os upto 14.7.4. In 14.7.5 SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings() returns errAuthorizationInteractionNotAllowed. In 15.5 modifying authorization db with AuthorizationRightSet() itself is returning errAuthorizationDenied.Tried manually editing authorization db via terminal and same error occurred. Did apple update anything on Security framework? Any other way to trust certificates?

Hi,is there an option to mark the file or folder or item stored in user defaults ... not to be backed up when doing unencrypted backup in iTunes?We are developing iOS app that contains sensitive data. But even if we enable Data Protection for the iOS app it can be backed up on mac unencrypted using iTunes. Is there a way to allow backing up content only if the backup is encrypted?

In the hopes of saving others time, the updated demo project (i.e. the new Shiny) can be found from the video 'Resources' section under 'Performing fast account creation with passkeys'. The beta documentation can also be found from there. All of the new functionality is available only on *OS 26 at this time.

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

Hi everyone, I'm developing a C++ plugin (.bundle) for a third-party host application (Autodesk Maya) on macOS, and I'm finalizing the design for our licensing system. The plugin is distributed outside the Mac App Store. My goal is to securely store a license key in the user's Keychain. After some research, my proposed implementation is as follows: On activation, store the license data in the user's login keychain as a Generic Password (kSecClassGenericPassword) using the SecItem APIs. To ensure the plugin can access the item when loaded by Maya, I will use a specific Keychain Access Group (e.g., MY_TEAM_ID.com.mywebsite). The final .bundle will be code-signed with our company's Developer ID certificate. The signature will include an entitlements file (.entitlements) that specifies the matching keychain-access-groups permission. My understanding is that this combination of a unique Keychain Access Group and a properly signed/entitled bundle is the key to getting reliable Keychain access. This should also correctly trigger the one-time user permission prompt on first use. Does this sound like the correct and most robust approach for this scenario? Are there any common pitfalls with a plugin's Keychain access from within a host app that I should be aware of? Thanks for any feedback!

Hi everyone, I have a macOS application that uses Screen Recording permission. I build my app with an adhoc signature (not with a Developer ID certificate). For example, in version 1.0.0, I grant Screen Recording permission to the app. Later, I build a new version (1.1.0) and update by dragging the new app into the Applications folder to overwrite the previous one. However, when I launch the updated app, it asks for Screen Recording permission again, even though I have already granted it for the previous version. I don’t fully understand how TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control) determines when permissions need to be re-granted. Can anyone explain how TCC manages permissions for updated builds, especially with adhoc signatures? Is there any way to retain permissions between updates, or any best practices to avoid having users re-authorize permissions after every update?

I am using the CryptoTokenKit API in order to communicate with smart cards through NFC, with TKSmartCardSlotNFCSession. I call the createNFCSlotWithMessage method from TKSmartCardSlotManager, which displays successfuly the NFC dialog. However, when I put any smart card next to the phone, the NFC dialog shuts down instantly. I notice the following log in the system console: -[_NFReaderSession(Entitlement) validateAID:allowsPrefixMatch:]:317 Non-permissible identifier: A000000308000010000100 When I add the A000000308000010000100 AID mentioned in the error message to the Info.plist of my application, the NFC dialog does not shut down anymore and I am able to communicate with the smart card (using TKSmartCard). This behavior has been reproduced on an iPhone 16e, iOS 26.4. This AID does not correspond to anything in the smart card. It seems to be related to PIV, but this behavior also occurs with cards that are not PIV (PKCS#15...). Also, with an implementation using CoreNFC API instead of CryptoTokenKit API, this AID is not needed to be able to communicate with the card, so it seems CryptoTokenKit-specific. I did not find anything related to this in the documentation, have I missed something here ? Is this a special AID that is required all the time to work with NFC through CryptoTokenKit ?