Hi, After enabling the new Enhanced Security capability in Xcode 26, I’m seeing install failures on devices running < iOS 26. Deployment target: iOS 15.0 Capability: Enhanced Security (added via Signing & Capabilities tab) Building to iOS 18 device error - Unable to Install ...Please ensure sure that your app is signed by a valid provisioning profile. It works fine on iOS 26 devices. I’d like to confirm Apple’s intent here: Is this capability formally supported only on iOS 26 and later, and therefore incompatible with earlier OS versions? Or should older systems ignore the entitlement, meaning this behavior might be a bug?

Hi! I am trying to run the demo app(SampleEndpointApp) from the WWDC2020 presentation(link). Here are the steps I followed in order to run the app: I submitted a request for the Endpoint Security entitlement and got the approval from the Apple Support team. Created an identifier and assigned Endpoint Security capability. Updated the Bundle Identifier in ViewController.m and in the Extension target. Built and copied the app bundle to /Application folder. Ran the app, clicked "Install Extension" and got the confirmation message that everything went well. Looking into the logs, I see the following : (libEndpointSecurity.dylib) Failed to open service: 0xe00002d8: Caller lacks TCC authorization for Full Disk Access I keep getting the same message even after granting SampleEndpointApp Full Disk Access in Privacy & Security. System : macOS Sequoia 15.1.1 Could you please assist me with this issue? Andrei

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!

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).

I now had the second user with 26.2. complaining about a hang in my app. The hang occurs when the first AppleScript for Mail is run. Here is the relevant section from the process analysis in Activity Monitor: + 2443 OSACompile (in OpenScripting) + 52 [0x1b32b30f4] + 2443 SecurityPolicyTestDescriptor (in OpenScripting) + 152 [0x1b32a2284] + 2443 _SecurityPolicyTest(char const*, void const*, unsigned long) (in OpenScripting) + 332 [0x1b32a2118] + 2443 InterpreterSecurity_ScanBuffer (in libInterpreterSecurity.dylib) + 112 [0x28c149304] + 2443 -[InterpreterSecurity scanData:withSourceURL:] (in libInterpreterSecurity.dylib) + 164 [0x28c148db4] + 2443 -[XProtectScan beginAnalysisWithFeedback:] (in XprotectFramework) + 544 [0x1d35a1e58] + 2443 -[XPMalwareEvaluation initWithData:assessmentClass:] (in XprotectFramework) + 92 [0x1d359ada4] + 2443 -[XPMalwareEvaluation initWithRuleString:withExtraRules:withURL:withData:withAssessmentClass:feedback:] (in XprotectFramework) + 36 [0x1d359b2a8] My app is correctly signed and notarised. The first user had to completely uninstall/reinstall the app and the everything worked again. Why does this happen? How can the problem be fixed?

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'm looking to implement USB monitoring for FIDO2 authentication through a custom Authorization Plugin, specifically for the below ones. This plugin applies to the following macOS authorization mechanisms: system.login.console — login window authentication system.login.screensaver — screensaver unlock authentication The goal is to build a GUI AuthPlugin, an authorization plugin that presents a custom window prompting the user to "Insert your FIDO key”. Additionally, the plugin should detect when the FIDO2 device is removed and respond accordingly. Additional Info: We have already developed a custom authorization plugin which is a primary authentication using OTP at login and Lock Screen. We are now extending to include FIDO2 support as a primary. Our custom authorization plugin is designed to replace the default loginwindow:login mechanism with a custom implementation. Question: Is there a reliable approach to achieve the USB monitoring functionality through a custom authorization plugin? Any guidance or pointers on this would be greatly appreciated.

Hello, I want to access the Docker socket API from inside the macOS App Sandbox. The method queries the API using curl with --unix-socket. However, the Sandbox blocks the request, as shown by the log: curl(22299) deny(1) network-outbound /Users/user/.docker/run/docker.sock Outgoing network traffic is generally allowed, but access to the Docker Unix socket is denied. Here’s the code I’m using: private func executeDockerAPI() -> String { let process = Process() let pipe = Pipe() process.executableURL = URL(fileURLWithPath: "/usr/bin/curl") process.arguments = [ "--unix-socket", "/Users/user/.docker/run/docker.sock", "http://127.0.0.1/containers/json" ] process.standardOutput = pipe process.standardError = pipe do { try process.run() process.waitUntilExit() let data = pipe.fileHandleForReading.readDataToEndOfFile() if let output = String(data: data, encoding: .utf8) { return output } else { return "Error while decoding" } } catch { return "Error running command: \(error.localizedDescription)" } } Is there any entitlement or sandbox configuration I’m missing to allow access to /Users/user/.docker/run/docker.sock from inside the sandbox?

Hi, I am working on Authorisation Plugin for Mac OS X and able to get going for most of the parts and taking inspiration from Jamf Authorisation Plugin repo https://github.com/jamf/NoMADLogin-AD. I have seen in project they are implementing logic for following. Connecting to Wifi Power management (Sleep, Restart, Power Off) Question: I was wondering these things need to be implemented or is there a way some components from Mac OS X could be integrated calling some API and I don't have to implement them and I see say a top bar where these items are viable as we see in default login screen. I have developed my own login screen and I do see it is all blank everything I have to implement from scratch. Trying luck here if any API is out there to reduce work, else no option but to implement all logic. I'll really appreciate if someone just could help me know such API's are present or not. In case there are will save lot of effort. Thanks,

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

Before device Reboot: Here no issue from keychain. 2025-06-17 11:18:17.956334 +0530 WAVE PTX [DB_ENCRYPTION] Key successfully retrieved from the Keychain default When device is in reboot and locked (Keychain access is set to FirstUnlock) App got woken up in background SEEMS(NOT SURE) DEVICE STILL IN LOCKED STARE IF YES THEN WHICH IS EXPECTED 2025-06-17 12:12:30.036184 +0530 WAVE PTX <ALA_ERROR>: [OS-CCF] [DB_ENCRYPTION] Error while retriving Private key -25308 default 2025-06-17 12:15:28.914700 +0530 WAVE PTX <ALA_ERROR> [DB_ENCRYPTION] Error retrieving key from the Keychain: -25300 default —————————————————— And as per logs, here user has launch the application post unlock and application never got the keychain access here also. HERE STILL HAS ISSUE WITH KEYCHAIN ACCESS. 2025-06-17 12:52:55.640976 +0530 WAVE PTX DEBUG : willFinishLaunchingWithOptions default 2025-06-17 12:52:55.651371 +0530 WAVE PTX <ALA_ERROR> [DB_ENCRYPTION] Error retrieving key from the Keychain: -25300 default

Hi all, I'm using a CryptoTokenKit (CTK) extension to perform code signing without having the private key stored on my laptop. The extension currently only supports the rsaSignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA256 algorithm: func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, supports operation: TKTokenOperation, keyObjectID: TKToken.ObjectID, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) -> Bool { return algorithm.isAlgorithm(SecKeyAlgorithm.rsaSignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA256) } This setup works perfectly with codesign, and signing completes without any issues. However, when I try to use productsign, the system correctly detects and delegates signing to my CTK extension, but it seems to always request rsaSignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA1 instead: productsign --timestamp --sign <identity> unsigned.pkg signed.pkg productsign: using timestamp authority for signature productsign: signing product with identity "Developer ID Installer: <org> (<team>)" from keychain (null) ... Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-50 "algid:sign:RSA:digest-PKCS1v15:SHA1: algorithm not supported by the key" ... productsign: error: Failed to sign the product. From what I understand, older versions of macOS used SHA1 for code signing, but codesign has since moved to SHA256 (at least when legacy compatibility isn't a concern). Oddly, productsign still seems to default to SHA1, even in 2025. Is there a known way to force productsign to use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for the signature digest algorithm? Or is there some flag or configuration I'm missing? Thanks in advance!

In a project I was using Local Authentication to authenticate a user. When I got a request to support smartcard/PIV token authentication (which Local Authentication does not support), I had to switch to Authorization Services, which works pretty. There's only one issue I have. Local Authentication's evaluatePolicy:localizedReason:reply: requires a reason in the form "&lt;appname&gt;" is trying to &lt;localized reason&gt;. The app is currently translated into 41 languages and I would like to use the localized strings for the AuthorizationEnvironment of Authorization Services as well. The problem is that Local Authentication prefixes the localized string with something like "&lt;appname&gt;" is trying to and Authorization Services does not do this. Is there a way to get this prefix from somewhere so I can manually add it to the (partially) localized string? Any help would be highly appreciated. Thank you, Marc

I am developing a MacOS Authorisation Plugin, I have username and password entry items and utilising SFAuthorizationPluginView to display that. I am able to do so. Requirement is I have to store ed25519 private key in PEM format in System Keychain as I need to read this entry before login to sign a request to a remote server. I only want my authorisation plugin to access this private key in System Keychain. I am looking up resources on the internet but I could not find specific to macOS Authorisation plugin, many are specific to iOS and some point at using entitlements and app group, but I doubt that applies to macOS authorisation plugin. I'll really appreciate if some pointers are shared how can I store a private credential in System Keychain so that it can be used by only my plugin only, and this is before I have logged into the system.

Hello, I have a fully functional webauthn relying party that uses passkeys and I am trying to implement an iOS sdk for it. On the server, the AASA file is valid and well served at /.well-known/assetlinks.json. I verified its validity with branch.io and that it is indeed cached by Apple's CDN (https://app-site-association.cdn-apple.com/a/v1/service.domain.com), but even will all these I still get the following error when installing the app on a device and starting the passkey ceremony: Passkey authorization failed. Error: The operation couldn’t be completed. Application with identifier TEAM.com.APP is not associated with domain service.domain.com So I then checked the system log when installing the app on my iPhone, and under the swcd process (which is apparently responsible of fetching the AASA file) I found the following error: swcd: Domain is invalid. Will not attempt a download. The issue that I have is that my domain is actually an IDN, it has a special character in it. But everywhere I have used it, I converted it to ASCII (punycode). With this conversion, Apple's CDN is able to fetch the AASA file, and the passkey ceremony works fine on a browser. So I don't understand how the device (both iPhone or Mac) finds this domain to be invalid? In the app's entitlements, I added the capability for an associated domain, with webcredentials:service.domain.com with the domain name converted to ASCII (punycode) and developer mode doesn't address this issue as it appears when the app is installed (and is not related to Apple's CDN). The last thing I tried was to add the domain with special characters in the app's entitlements (for webcredentials:) but then Xcode was unable to install the app on the device, and gave the following error: Failed to verify code signature (A valid provisioning profile for this executable was not found.) which happened only with a special character in the domain in the app's entitlements. All this leaves me kind of in a dead end, I understand Xcode or iOS/macOS has a hard time with IDNs and special characters (so do I), but I have no idea on how to solve this (without changing the domain name), so I would really appreciate any help. Thanks in advance. PS: I tested all this previously with another domain without special characters and it was working. It also had dashes ('-') in it and the new domain converted to ASCII is basically a regular domain with '-' in it so I suppose there is some kind of conversion made from ASCII back to special characters and that then, the domain is considered as invalid, but this doesn't really help me a lot... PS2: My devices are running on iOS 17.4.1 and macOS 14.4.1 with Xcode 15.2

This is on macOS, not iOS. Not sure if that should make a difference? I have a GUI app and a command line tool (that will run a daemon) that I need to share credentials between. The keys/certs will be stored using the GUI app. But, both tools need to utilize them. guard let accessControl = SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags( nil, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenPasscodeSetThisDeviceOnly, [.privateKeyUsage], nil ) else { throw KeychainCertError.keychainError(errSecAuthFailed, "Failed to create access control for private key") } // Define Key Pair Attributes let privateKeyAttributes: [String: Any] = [ kSecAttrIsPermanent as String: true, kSecAttrApplicationTag as String: privateLabel.data(using: .utf8)!, kSecAttrLabel as String: privateLabel, // kSecAttrAccessControl as String: accessControl, kSecAttrAccessGroup as String: keychainAccessGroup ] With the kSecAttrAccessControl commented out, I am able to generate a private key and generate a self signed certificate that is stored on the user login keychain. If I uncomment that line, I get an error to the affect of "Keychain error (-26275): Failed to generate key pair: A required entitlement isn't present" Also, to share the credentials, don't they need to be NOT on the user keychain for the daemon to access them? Any ideas what I am doing wrong? I think I'm a bit over my head here with the the security, crypto kit and openssl. 😁

I have a sandboxed Mac app which I can grant access to a folder using an NSOpenPanel. Once it’s been granted access it can enumerate the contents of the folder just fine. If I rename the folder while the app is open and then make the app enumerate the folder’s contents again, though, it seems to have lost access. What’s the recommended way to have an app’s sandbox “track” files as they’re moved around the filesystem? (NSDocument handles this for you, from what I can tell.) I’ve managed to hack something together with a combination of Dispatch sources and security-scoped bookmarks, but it feels like there must be an easier solution …

QuickLookAR shares the actual USDZ model instead of the original website URL — critical copyright and data leak issue on iOS 26 Since iOS 26, QuickLookAR (or ARQuickLookPreviewItem) no longer preserves the original web URL when sharing a model. Instead of sending the link to the hosted file, the system directly shares the actual USDZ model file with the recipient. This is a critical regression and a severe breach of intellectual property protection, as it exposes proprietary 3D models that must never be distributed outside of the controlled web environment. In earlier iOS versions (tested up to iOS 18), QuickLookAR correctly handled sharing — the share sheet would send the website link where the model is hosted, not the file itself. Starting with iOS 26, this behavior has changed and completely breaks the intended secure flow for AR experiences. Our project relies on allowing users to view models in AR via QuickLook, without ever transferring the underlying 3D assets. Now, the share operation forces full file sharing, giving end users unrestricted access to the model file, which can be copied, rehosted, or reverse-engineered. This issue critically affects production environments and prevents us from deploying our AR-based solutions. Implement a standard QuickLookAR preview with a USDZ file hosted on your web server (e.g., via ARQuickLookPreviewItem). 2. Open the AR view on iOS 26. 3. Tap the Share icon from QuickLookAR. 4. Send via any messenger (Telegram, WhatsApp, etc.). 5. Observe that the actual .usdz model is sent instead of the original website URL. ⸻ Expected behavior: QuickLookAR should share only the original URL (as in iOS 17–18), not the file itself. This ensures that intellectual property and licensed 3D models remain protected and controlled by the content owner. ⸻ Actual behavior: QuickLookAR shares the entire USDZ file, leaking the model content outside of the intended environment. ⸻ Impact: • Violation of copyright and confidential data policies • Loss of control over proprietary 3D assets • Breaking change for all existing web-based AR integrations • Critical blocker for AR production deployment ⸻ Environment: • iOS 26.0 and 26.1 (tested on iPhone 14, iPhone 15) • Safari + QuickLookAR integration • Works correctly on iOS 17 / iOS 18 ⸻ Notes: This regression appears to have been introduced in the latest iOS 26 system handling of QuickLookAR sharing. Please escalate this issue to the ARKit / QuickLook engineering team as it directly affects compliance, IP protection, and usability of AR features across production applications. Additional Notes / Verification: Please test this behavior yourself using the CheckAR test model on my website: https://admixreality.com/ios26/ • If the login page appears, click “Check AR” and then “View in Your Space”. • On iOS 18 and earlier, sharing correctly sends the website URL. • On iOS 26, sharing sends the actual USDZ model file. This clearly demonstrates the regression and the security/IP issue.

Hi, A certificate imported on macOS 15 using the security command with the "non-exportable" option was imported in an exportable state. I would like to know how to change this certificate to be non-exportable. Regards, CTJ

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