Recently, we have adapted the passkey function on the Mac, but we always encounter the error message "Unable to verify the web credentials association of xxx with domain aaa. Please try again in a few seconds." We can confirm that https://aaa/.well-known/apple-app-site-association has been configured and is accessible over the public network. Additionally, the entitlements in the app have also been set with webcredentials:aaa. This feature has been experiencing inconsistent performance. When I restart my computer or reinstall the pkg, this feature may work or it may still not work. I believe this is a system issue. Here is feed back ID: FB20876945 In the feedback, I provided the relevant logs. If you have any suggestions or assistance, please contact me. I would be extremely grateful!

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?

We have a custom SecurityAgentPlugin that is triggered by multiple authorizationdb entries. Some customers report that the SecurityAgent process takes window focus even though no UI or windows are displayed. Our plugin explicitly ignores the _securityAgent user and does not show any UI for that user. However, in macOS 26.1, it appears that the plugin still causes the SecurityAgent to take focus as soon as it is triggered. Is this a change in macOS 26.1 or a bug? Can we do anything to prevent "focus stealing"?

Quinn, you've often suggested that to validate the other side of an XPC connection, we should use the audit token. But that's not available from the XPC object, whereas the PID is. So everyone uses the PID. While looking for something completely unrelated, I found this in the SecCode.h file OSStatus SecCodeCreateWithXPCMessage(xpc_object_t message, SecCSFlags flags, SecCodeRef * __nonnull CF_RETURNS_RETAINED target); Would this be the preferred way to do this now? At least from 11.0 and up. Like I said, I was looking for something completely unrelated and found this and don't have the cycles right now to try it. But it looks promising from the description and I wanted to check in with you about it in case you can say yes or no before I get a chance to test it. Thanks

Our background monitoring application uses a Unix executable that requests Screen Recording permission via CGRequestScreenCaptureAccess(). This worked correctly in macOS Tahoe 26.0.1, but broke in 26.1. Issue: After calling CGRequestScreenCaptureAccess() in macOS Tahoe 26.1: System dialog appears and opens System Settings Our executable does NOT appear in the Screen Recording list Manually adding via "+" button grants permission internally, but the executable still doesn't show in the UI Users cannot verify or revoke permissions Background: Unix executable runs as a background process (not from Terminal) Uses Accessibility APIs to retrieve window titles Same issue occurs with Full Disk Access permissions Environment: macOS Tahoe 26.1 (worked in 26.0.1) Background process (not launched from Terminal) Questions: Is this a bug or intentional design change in 26.1? What's the recommended approach for background executables to properly register with TCC? Are there specific requirements (Info.plist, etc.) needed? This significantly impacts user experience as they cannot manage permissions through the UI. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Forums tag: Privacy Developer > Security — This also covers privacy topics. App privacy details on the App Store UIKit > Protecting the User’s Privacy documentation Bundle Resources > Privacy manifest files documentation TN3181 Debugging an invalid privacy manifest technote TN3182 Adding privacy tracking keys to your privacy manifest technote TN3183 Adding required reason API entries to your privacy manifest technote TN3184 Adding data collection details to your privacy manifest technote TN3179 Understanding local network privacy technote Handling ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest forums post Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Summary I am investigating a change in macOS 26.1 (Tahoe) where plain (non-bundled) executables that request screen recording access no longer appear under: System Settings → Privacy & Security → Screen & System Audio Recording This behavior differs from macOS Sequoia, where these executables did appear in the list and could be managed through the UI. Tahoe still prompts for permission and still allows the executable to capture the screen once permission is granted, but the executable never shows up in the UI list. This breaks user expectations and removes UI-based permission management. To confirm the behavior, I created a small reproduction project with both: a plain executable, and an identical executable packaged inside an .app bundle. Only the bundled version appears in System Settings. Observed Behaviour 1. Plain Executable (from my reproduction project) When running a plain executable that captures the screen: macOS displays the normal screen-recording permission prompt. Before granting permission: screenshots show only the desktop background. After granting permission: screenshots capture the full display. The executable does not appear under “Screen & System Audio Recording”. Even when permission is granted manually (e.g., dragging the executable into the pane), the executable still does not appear, which prevents the user from modifying or revoking the permission through the UI. If the executable is launched from inside another app (e.g., VS Code, Terminal), the parent app appears in the list instead, not the executable itself. 2. Bundled App Version (from the reproduction project) I packaged the same code into a simple .app bundle (ScreenCaptureApp.app). When running the app: The same permission prompt appears. Pre-permission screenshots show the desktop background. Post-permission screenshots capture the full display. The app does appear under “Screen & System Audio Recording”. This bundle uses the same underlying executable — the only difference is packaging. Hypothesis macOS 26.1 (Tahoe) appears to require app bundles for an item to be shown in the Screen Recording privacy UI. Plain executables: still request and receive permission, still function correctly after permission is granted, but do not appear in the System Settings list. This may be an intentional change, undocumented behavior, or a regression. Reproduction Project The reproduction project includes: screen_capture.go A simple Go program that captures screenshots in a loop. screen_capture_executable Plain executable built from the Go source. ScreenCaptureApp.app/ App bundle containing the same executable. build.sh Builds both the plain executable and the app bundle. Permission reset and TCC testing scripts. The project demonstrates the behavior consistently. Steps to Reproduce Plain Executable Build: ./build.sh Reset screen capture permissions: sudo tccutil reset ScreenCapture Run: ./screen_capture_executable Before granting: screenshots show desktop only. Grant permission when prompted. After granting: full screenshots. Executable does not appear in “Screen & System Audio Recording”. Bundled App Build (if not already built): ./build.sh Reset permissions (optional): sudo tccutil reset ScreenCapture Run: open ScreenCaptureApp.app Before granting: screenshots show desktop. After granting: full screenshots. App bundle appears in the System Settings list. Additional Check I also tested launching the plain executable as a child process of another executable, similar to how some software architectures work. Result: Permission prompt appears Permission can be granted Executable still does not appear in the UI, even though TCC tracks it internally → consistent with the plain-executable behaviour. This reinforces that only app bundles are listed. Questions for Apple Is the removal of plain executables from “Screen & System Audio Recording” an intentional change in macOS Tahoe? If so, does Apple now require all screen-recording capable binaries to be packaged as .app bundles for the UI to display them? Is there a supported method for making a plain executable (launched by a parent process) appear in the list? If this is not intentional, what is the recommended path for reporting this as a regression? Files Unfortunately, I have discovered the zip file that contains my reproduction project can't be directly uploaded here. Here is a Google Drive link instead: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sXsr3Q0g6_UzlOIL54P5wbS7yBkpMJ7A/view?usp=sharing Thank you for taking the time to review this. Any insight into whether this change is intentional or a regression would be very helpful.

Dear Apple Developer Support, We are currently encountering a recurring issue with the DeviceCheck API across multiple devices in our production environment. The following error is frequently returned: com.apple.devicecheck.error 0 We would like to ask the following: What are the possible underlying causes that could lead to this specific error code (0) in the DeviceCheck API? Is there any known behavior or condition where Wi-Fi network configurations (e.g., DNS filtering, proxy settings, captive portals) could result in this error? Are there known timeouts, connectivity expectations, or TLS-level requirements that the DeviceCheck API enforces which could fail silently under certain network conditions? Is this error ever triggered locally (e.g., client library-level issues) or is it always from a failed communication with Apple’s servers? Any technical clarification, documentation, or internal insight into this error code would be greatly appreciated. This would help us significantly narrow down root causes and better support our users

Hi, I’ve added attestation to my app, and everything worked as expected during setup. However, after deployment, I noticed some unknownSystemFailure entries in the production logs on New Relic. Could you help me understand what typically causes this error? The documentation suggests issues such as failing to generate a token. What scenarios could lead to that?

When presenting a cookie banner for GDPR purposes, should ATT precede the cookie banner? It seems that showing a Cookie Banner and then showing the ATT permission prompt afterwards (if a user elects to allow cookies/tracking) would be more appropriate. Related question: Should the “Allow Tracking” toggle for an app in system settings serve as a master switch for any granular tracking that might be managed by a 3rd party Consent Management Platform? If ATT is intended to serve as a master switch for tracking consent, if the ATT prompt is presented before a cookie banner, should the banner even appear if a user declines tracking consent? I’m not finding any good resources that describe this flow in detail and I’m seeing implementations all over the place on this. Help! Thanks!!!

When trying to check if a certificate has been revoked with SecPolicyCreateRevocation (Flags: kSecRevocationUseAnyAvailableMethod | kSecRevocationRequirePositiveResponse) and SecTrustEvaluateWithError I always get the result error code errSecIncompleteCertRevocationCheck, regardless if the certificate was revoked or not. Reproduction: Execute the program from the attached Xcode project (See Feedback FB21224106). Error output: Error: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67635 ""revoked.badssl.com","E8","ISRG Root X1" certificates do not meet pinning requirements" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription="revoked.badssl.com","E8","ISRG Root X1" certificates do not meet pinning requirements, NSUnderlyingError=0x6000018d48a0 {Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67635 "Certificate 0 “revoked.badssl.com” has errors: Failed to check revocation;" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Certificate 0 “revoked.badssl.com” has errors: Failed to check revocation;}}} To me it looks like that the revocation check just fails („Failed to check revocation;“), no further information is provided by the returned error. In the example the certificate chain of https://revoked.badssl.com (default code) and https://badssl.com is verified (to switch see comments in the code). I have a proxy configured in the system, I assume that the revocation check will use it. On the same machine, the browsers (Safari and Google Chrome) can successfully detect if the certificate was revoked (revoked.badssl.com) or not (badssl.com) without further changes in the system/proxy settings. Note: The example leaks some memory, it’s just a test program. Am I missing something? Feedback: FB21224106

iOS18.1.1 macOS15.1.1 xcode16.1 Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 "Unable to verify webcredentials association of ********** with domain ******************. Please try again in a few seconds." Our domain must query with VPN, so I set webcredentials:qa.ejeokvv.com?mode=developer following: "If you use a private web server, which is unreachable from the public internet, while developing your app, enable the alternate mode feature to bypass the CDN and connect directly to your server. To do this, add a query string to your associated domains entitlement, as shown in the following example: :?mode= " but it still not working, even after I set mode=developer. Please help!!!!

I’d like to confirm something regarding the hosting of the apple-app-site-association (AASA) file. We have a server that publicly hosts the AASA file and is accessible globally. However, this server sits behind an additional security layer (a security server/reverse proxy). My question is: Will this security layer affect Apple’s ability to access and validate the AASA file for Universal Links or App Clips? Are there specific requirements (e.g. headers, redirects, TLS versions, etc.) that we need to ensure the security server does not block or modify? Any guidance or best practices would be appreciated. Thanks!

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?

DTS regularly receives questions about how to preserve keychain items across an App ID change, and so I thought I’d post a comprehensive answer here for the benefit of all. If you have any questions or comments, please start a new thread here on the forums. Put it in the Privacy & Security > General subtopic and tag it with Security. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access The list of keychain access groups your app can access is determined by three entitlements. For the details, see Sharing Access to Keychain Items Among a Collection of Apps. If your app changes its App ID prefix, this list changes and you’re likely to lose access to existing keychain items. This situation crops up under two circumstances: When you migrate your app from using a unique App ID prefix to using your Team ID as its App ID prefix. When you transfer your app to another team. In both cases you have to plan carefully for this change. If you only learn about the problem after you’ve made the change, consider undoing the change to give you time to come up with a plan before continuing. Note On macOS, the information in this post only applies to the data protection keychain. For more information about the subtleties of the keychain on macOS, see On Mac Keychains. For more about App ID prefix changes, see Technote 2311 Managing Multiple App ID Prefixes and QA1726 Resolving the Potential Loss of Keychain Access warning. Migrate From a Unique App ID Prefix to Your Team ID Historically each app was assigned its own App ID prefix. This is no longer the case. Best practice is for apps to use their Team ID as their App ID prefix. This enables multiple neat features, including keychain item sharing and pasteboard sharing. If you have an app that uses a unique App ID prefix, consider migrating it to use your Team ID. This is a good thing in general, as long as you manage the migration process carefully. Your app’s keychain access group list is built from three entitlements: keychain-access-groups — For more on this, see Keychain Access Groups Entitlement. application-identifier (com.apple.application-identifier on macOS) com.apple.security.application-groups — For more on this, see App Groups Entitlement. Keycahin access groups from the third bullet are call app group identified keychain access groups, or AGI keychain access groups for short. IMPORTANT A macOS app can only use an AGI keychain access group if all of its entitlement claims are validated by a provisioning profile. See App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony for more about this concept. Keychain access groups from the first two bullets depend on the App ID prefix. If that changes, you lose access to any keychain items in those groups. WARNING Think carefully before using the keychain to store secrets that are the only way to access irreplaceable user data. While the keychain is very reliable, there are situations where a keychain item can be lost and it’s bad if it takes the user’s data with it. In some cases losing access to keychain items is not a big deal. For example, if your app uses the keychain to manage a single login credential, losing that is likely to be acceptable. The user can recover by logging in again. In other cases losing access to keychain items is unacceptable. For example, your app might manage access to dozens of different servers, each with unique login credentials. Your users will be grumpy if you require them to log in to all those servers again. In such situations you must carefully plan your migration. The key thing to understand is that an app group is tied to your team, not your App ID prefix, and thus your app retains access to AGI keychain access groups across an App ID prefix change. This suggests the following approach: Release a version of your app that moves keychain items from other keychain access groups to an AGI keychain access group. Give your users time to update to this new version, run it, and so move their keychain items. When you’re confident that the bulk of your users have done this, change your App ID prefix. The approach has one obvious caveat: It’s hard to judge how long to wait at step 2. Transfer Your App to Another Team Historically there was no supported way to maintain access to keychain items across an app transfer. That’s no longer the case, but you must still plan the transfer carefully. The overall approach is: Identify an app group ID to transfer. This could be an existing app group ID, but in many cases you’ll want to register a new app group ID solely for this purpose. Use the old team (the transferor) to release a version of your app that moves keychain items from other keychain access groups to the AGI keychain access group for this app group ID. Give your users time to update to this new version, run it, and so move their keychain items. When you’re confident that the bulk of your users have done this, initiate the app transfer. Once that’s complete, transfer the app group ID you selected in step 1. See App Store Connect Help > Transfer an app > Overview of app transfer > Apps using App Groups. Publish an update to your app from the new team (the transferee). When a user installs this version, it will have access to your app group, and hence your keychain items. WARNING Once you transfer the app group, the old team won’t be able to publish a new version of any app that uses this app group. That makes step 1 in the process critical. If you have an existing app group that’s used solely by the app being transferred — for example, an app group that you use to share state between the app and its app extensions — then choosing that app group ID makes sense. On the other hand, choosing the ID of an app group that’s share between this app and some unrelated app, one that’s not being transferred, would be bad, because any updates to that other app will lose access to the app group. There are some other significant caveats: The process doesn’t work for Mac apps because Mac apps that have ever used an app group can’t be transferred. See App Store Connect Help > Transfer an app > App transfer criteria. If and when that changes, you’ll need to choose an iOS-style app group ID for your AGI keychain access group. For more about the difference between iOS- and macOS-style app group IDs, see App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony. The current transfer process of app groups exposes a small window where some other team can ‘steal’ your app group ID. We have a bug on file to improve that process (r. 171616887). The process works best when transferring between two teams that are both under the control of the same entity. If that’s not the case, take steps to ensure that the old team transfers the app group in step 5. When you submit the app from the new team (step 6), App Store Connect will warn you about a potential loss of keychain access. That warning is talking about keychain items in normal keychain access groups. Items in an AGI keychain access group will still be accessible as long as you transfer the app group. Alternative Approaches for App Transfer In addition to the technique described in the previous section, there are a some alternative approaches you should at consider: Do nothing Do not transfer your app Get creative Do Nothing In this case the user loses all the secrets that your app stored in the keychain. This may be acceptable for certain apps. For example, if your app uses the keychain to manage a single login credential, losing that is likely to be acceptable. The user can recover by logging in again. Do Not Transfer Another option is to not transfer your app. Instead, ship a new version of the app from the new team and have the old app recommend that the user upgrade. There are a number of advantages to this approach. The first is that there’s absolutely no risk of losing any user data. The two apps are completely independent. The second advantage is that the user can install both apps on their device at the same time. This opens up a variety of potential migration paths. For example, you might ship an update to the old app with an export feature that saves the user’s state, including their secrets, to a suitably encrypted file, and then match that with an import facility on the new app. Finally, this approach offers flexible timing. The user can complete their migration at their leisure. However, there are a bunch of clouds to go with these silver linings: Your users might never migrate to the new app. If this is a paid app, or an app with in-app purchase, the user will have to buy things again. You lose the original app’s history, ratings, reviews, and so on. Get Creative Finally, you could attempt something creative. For example, you might: Publish a new version of the app that supports exporting the user’s state, including the secrets. Tell your users to do this, with a deadline. Transfer the app and then, when the deadline expires, publish the new version with an import feature. Frankly, this isn’t very practical. The problem is with step 2: There’s no good way to get all your users to do the export, and if they don’t do it before the deadline there’s no way to do it after. Test Before You Ship Once you have a new version of your app, with the new App ID prefix, it’s time to test. To run a day-to-day test: On a test device, install the existing version of the app from the App Store. Use the app to generate keychain items as a normal user would. For example, if you store login credentials in the keychain, use the app to save such a credential. In Xcode, run the new version of your app. Check that the keychain items you created in step 2 still work. After you upload this new version to App Store Connect, use TestFlight to run an internal test: On a test device, install the existing version of the app from the App Store. Use the app to generate keychain items as a normal user. For example, if you store login credentials in the keychain, use the app to save such a credential. Use TestFlight to update the app to your new version. Check that the keychain items you created in step 2 still work. Do this before you release the app to your beta testers and then again before releasing it to customers. WARNING These TestFlight test are your last chance to ensure that everything works. If you detect an error at this stage, you still have a chance to fix it. Revision History 2026-04-07 Added the Test Before You Ship section. 2026-03-31 Rewrote the Transfer Your App to Another Team section to describe a new approach for preserving access to keychain items across app transfers. Moved the previous discussion into a new Alternative Approaches for App Transfer section. Clarified that a macOS program can now use an app group as a keychain access group as long as its entitlements are validated. Made numerous editorial changes. 2022-05-17 First posted.

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.

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.

Hi there, I'm trying to use SFAuthorizationPluginView in order to show some fields in the login screen, have the user click the arrow, then continue to show more fields as a second step of authentication. How can I accomplish this? Register multiple SecurityAgentPlugins each with their own mechanism and nib? Some how get MacOS to call my SFAuthorizationPluginView::view() and return a new view? Manually remove text boxes and put in new ones when button is pressed I don't believe 1 works, for the second mechanism ended up calling the first mechanism's view's view() Cheers, -Ken

I’m implementing passkey registration and authentication in an iOS 17 app with a credential provider extension, but I’m running into an issue. Setup: I have a credential provider target configured. The app correctly shows the pop-up to register the passkey with my app. My Info.plist is set up properly. Issue: When the following function is triggered: override func prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration registrationRequest: ASCredentialRequest) { "code to generate registrationRequest..." let controller = ASAuthorizationController(authorizationRequests: [registrationRequest]) controller.delegate = self controller.presentationContextProvider = self controller.performRequests() } I get the following error: Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 I do not own the relying party domain (e.g., https://webauthn.io), so I cannot configure an apple-app-site-association file on the website. Question: How can I register and authenticate passkeys on any site that allows passkeys (such as webauthn.io) when I don’t control the webpage? Are there any workarounds or best practices for handling this in iOS 17? Any insights would be greatly appreciated!

Hi, Our App relies on a keychain to store certificates and key-value pairs. However, when we upgraded from an older XCode 15.2 (1 year old) app version to a newer version XCode 16.2 (with identical keychain-groups entitlement), we found that the newer ipa cannot see the older keychain group anymore... We tried Testflight builds, but limited to only generating newer versions, we tried using the older App's code, cast as a newer App version, and then upgraded to the newer code (with an even newer app version!). Surprisingly we were able to see the older keychain group. So it seems that there's something different between the packaging/profile of the older (1 year) and newer (current) App versions that seems to cause the new version to not see the old keychainGroup... Any ideas?