Hi Apple Developer Support, I’m building a macOS app that acts as a default browser. I can confirm that I can set it correctly through System Settings → Default Web Browser. The app implements ASWebAuthenticationSessionWebBrowserSessionHandling to intercept Single Sign-On (SSO) flows. To handle requests, it presents SSO pages in a WKWebView embedded in a window that this app creates and owns - this works perfectly for the initial login flow. However, after I close my WebView window and then launch Safari or Chrome, any subsequent SSO requests open in the newly-launched browser instead of my custom browser, even though it remains selected as the default in System Settings. I’d appreciate any insight on why the system “hands off” to Safari/Chrome in this scenario, and how I can keep my app consistently intercepting all ASWebAuthenticationSession requests. Here are the steps that break down the issue: Launch & confirm that the custom default browser app is the default browser in System Settings → Default Web Browser. Trigger SSO (e.g., try to log in to Slack). App’s WKWebView appears, and the SSO UI works end-to-end. Close the WebView window (I have windowShouldClose callback where I cancel the pending session). Manually launch Safari or Chrome. Trigger SSO again. Observed behaviour: the login URL opens in Safari/Chrome. I am using macOS 15.3.2

Hi, I’m building a macOS tool that analyzes process behavior to detect autonomous / AI-like activity locally (process trees, file access patterns, and network usage). The system is fully user-space and runs locally in real time. I’m planning to use the Endpoint Security Framework for process and file event monitoring. This is an open-source project (non-enterprise), developed by a solo developer. My question: What are the realistic chances of getting Endpoint Security entitlements approved for this type of project? Are there specific requirements or common reasons for rejection I should be aware of? Thanks, sivan-rnd

Hi, This issue is happening during Passkey creation. We’ve observed that approximately 1% of our customer users encounter a persistent error during Passkey creation. For the vast majority, the process works as expected. We believe our apple-app-site-association file is correctly configured, served directly from the RP ID over HTTPS without redirects, and is up-to-date. This setup appears to work for most users, and it seems the Apple CDN cache reflects the latest version of the file. To help us diagnose and address the issue for the affected users, we would appreciate guidance on the following: What tools or steps does Apple recommend to identify the root cause of this issue? Are there any known recovery steps we can suggest to users to resolve this on affected devices? Is there a way to force a refresh of the on-device cache for the apple-app-site-association file? Thank you in advance for any input or guidance.

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.

I have filed bug reports on this to no avail, so I am bringing it up here hoping someone at Apple will address this. Since the first beta of 26.3, with voice control enabled there are now two icons in the menu bar (*plus an orange dot in full screen) that never go away. That orange microphone isn't serving its intended purpose to notify me that something is accessing my microphone if it is always displayed. I use voice control extensively, so it is nearly always on. In every prior version of macOS, the orange icon was not on for voice control. Even if voice control is not listening but simply enabled in system settings, the orange icon will be there. And there is no need for this icon to be on for a system service that is always listening. This orange icon in the menu bar at all times is incredibly irritating, as it takes up valuable space to the right of the notch, and causes other actual useful menu bar items to be hidden. As well, if some other application on my system were to turn on the mic and start recording me I would never know since that orange icon is always on. It also places an orange dot next to the control center icon taking up even more of the precious little menu bar real estate. Please fix this! Either exempt voice control (as Siri is always listening and it doesn't get the orange icon) or exempt all system services, or give me a way to turn this off. If you cannot tell, I find this incredibly annoying and frustrating.

Hi everyone, I'm currently working on a native macOS app (built with SwiftUI) and I'm trying to implement Password AutoFill functionality so users can use their saved credentials from Keychain or third-party password managers. I've gone through Apple's documentation, WWDC sessions, and sample code, but I've noticed that the resources primarily focus on iOS and web implementations. There's very limited guidance specifically for macOS. I've set up: Associated Domains entitlement with the webcredentials: service The apple-app-site-association file on my server TextField with .textContentType(.username) and SecureField with .textContentType(.password) However, I'm still not seeing the expected AutoFill behavior on macOS like I would on iOS. Has anyone successfully implemented Password AutoFill on a native macOS app? Are there any macOS-specific considerations or additional steps required that differ from iOS? Any guidance, sample code, or pointers to documentation I might have missed would be greatly appreciated.

Title: Sporadical - Permissions Not Cleared After App Uninstallation on iOS18 I install and launch my private MAUI App I ask for example Bluetooth permissions (can be any other permission) I tap Allow button on native settings (or Don't Allow) I unistall app from real phone (we can wait for a while) I install and launch My Private MAUI App I ask for example Bluetooth permissions <- here is an issue. Bluetooth is already granted, so I cannot ask for it again. Occurrence: This issue occurs inconsistently: On iOS 18.5: approximately 5 out of 10 times On iOS 17: approximately 1 out of 50 times Tested using my automated system using Appium latest. After each scenario I unistall app using: "mobile: removeApp" with bundleId

Hi, I'm using webauthn.io to test my macOS Passkey application. When registering a passkey whichever value I set for User Verification, that's what I get when I check registrationRequest.userVerificationPreference on prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration registrationRequest: any ASCredentialRequest). However, when authenticating my passkey I can never get discouraged UV on prepareInterfaceToProvideCredential(for credentialRequest: any ASCredentialRequest). In the WWDC 2022 Meet Passkeys video, it is stated that Apple will always require UV when biometrics are available. I use a Macbook Pro with TouchID, but if I'm working with my lid closed, shouldn't I be able to get .discouraged?

Hi, is it somehow possible to access a key that was generated by the DCAppAttestService generateKey() function? I need to be 100% sure that no actor from within or outside of my app can access the generated key with the DeviceCheck Framework. It would also be helpful to get some official resources to the topic. Thank you in advance, Mike

From watching the video on App Attest the answer would appear to be no, but the video is a few years old so in hope, I thought I would post this question anyway. There's several scenarios where I would like a notification service extension to be able to use App Attest in communications with the back end(for example to send a receipt to the backend acknowledging receipt of the push, fetching an image from a url in the push payload, a few others). Any change App Attest can be used in by a notification service extension?

Recently, we received an user enquiry regarding the inability to perform bookings for the app. After investigation, we found that the issue appears to be caused by the failure of the Apple DeviceCheck service. Based on our checks, approximately 0.01% of requests fail each day (e.g., on 26 June: 6 failures out of 44,544 requests) when using Apple DeviceCheck. Could you please assist in raising the following enquiries with Apple Support? What is the typical failure rate of Apple DeviceCheck? Are there any reliability metrics or benchmarks for its performance? How can the failures be prevented, or is there a recommended retry mechanism to handle such failures? Does the iOS version affect the performance or reliability of Apple DeviceCheck? Are there known issues or limitations with specific iOS versions? How long does the token remain valid, and when should a new one be retrieved? Does using a jailbroken device affect the functionality of Apple DeviceCheck?

I've made my first app and encountered an unexpected (potentially existential) issue. The Manager app is designed to tag 3rd party "plugins" used by a DAW, storing metadata in a local SQLite database, and move them between Active and Inactive folders. This allows management of the plugin collection - the DAW only uses what's in the Active folder. Permissions are obtained via security-scoped bookmarks on first launch. The app functions as intended: plugin bundles move correctly and the database tracks everything. No information is written to the plugins themselves. The Problem:
When moving plugins using fs.rename() , the MAS sandbox automatically adds the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute to moved files. When the DAW subsequently rebuilds its plugin cache, it interprets quarantined plugins as "corrupt" or potentially malicious and refuses to load them. Technical Details: Moving files with NSFileManager or Node.js fs APIs within sandbox triggers quarantine Sandboxed apps cannot call xattr -d com.apple.quarantine or use removexattr() The entitlement com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write doesn't grant xattr removal rights User workaround: run xattr -cr /path/to/plugins in Terminal - not acceptable for professional users Question:
Is there any MAS-compliant way to move files without triggering quarantine, or to remove the quarantine attribute within the sandbox? The hardened-runtime DMG build works perfectly (no sandbox = no quarantine added). Any insight appreciated!

I’m looking for clarification on how rate limiting works for the App Attest service, especially in production environments. According to the entitlement documentation (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/BundleResources/Entitlements/com.apple.developer.devicecheck.appattest-environment), iOS ignores the environment setting once an app is distributed through TestFlight, the App Store, or Enterprise distribution, and always contacts the production App Attest endpoint. With that context, I have two questions: Rate‑Limiting Thresholds How exactly does rate limiting work for App Attest? Is there a defined threshold beyond which attestation requests begin to fail? The "Preparing to Use the App Attest Service" documentation (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/preparing-to-use-the-app-attest-service) recommends ramping up no more than 10 million users per day per app, but I’m trying to understand what practical limits or failure conditions developers should expect. Per‑AppID Budgeting If multiple apps have different App IDs, do they each receive their own independent attestation budget/rate limit? Or is the rate limiting shared across all apps under the same developer account?

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

Hello Team, We’ve recently started receiving reports from our customer base (Trellix) regarding issues with Full Disk Access (FDA) for Trellix binaries on macOS devices running Tahoe 26.1 (released on November 3, 2025). The issue occurs when users attempt to add Trellix CLI binaries under FDA to grant the required permissions; the binaries fail to appear under the FDA settings, even after selection. Upon further investigation, this appears to be a macOS 26.1–specific issue and not observed in earlier versions. Similar reports have been noted across various forums, indicating that the issue affects multiple binaries, not just Trellix: Some of the discussions on the same issue I see online. https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/806187 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/806156 https://forum.logik.tv/t/macos-26-1-installation-issue-wait-before-updating/13761 https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/1os1ph3/cant_add_anything_to_privacy_security_full_disk/ I have also logged FB21009024 for the same. We would like to understand when we can expect this to be fixed, since the issue persists even in 26.2 Beta and also whether the workaround of dragging and dropping the binaries can still be suggested?

There’s a critical, actively exploited vulnerability in Apple’s iOS activation servers allowing unauthenticated XML payload injection: https://cyberpress.org/apple-ios-activation-vulnerability/ This flaw targets the core activation process, bypassing normal security checks. Despite the severity, it’s barely discussed in public security channels. Why is this not being addressed or publicly acknowledged? Apple developers and security researchers should urgently review and audit activation flows—this is a direct attack vector on device trust integrity. Any insights or official response appreciated.

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

Hey all, Question for the masses.... Does the Yubikey authentication have a OS dependency and it only works with a stable, public OS? Does Azure/Okta/Yubikey beta OS26? My CEO installed iPadOS 26 on his iPad and was not able to authenticate via Yubikey into our company environment. I ran the same scenario on my iPad using iPadOS 26 and I had the same results. Downgrading to iPAdOS doesn't pose these issues. I'm assuming something isn't fine-tuned yet?

Since Sun 15th Jun 04:30 (UTC+7) we received lots of following error that causes our device test failure. Could Apple please investigate further? ############################# Operations could not be completed. (com.apple.devicecheck.error error 4.) (serverUnavailable)

Hi. We are writing to report a critical issue we've encountered following the recent release of iOS 26 beta 6. After updating our test devices, we discovered that our application is no longer able to establish HTTPS connections to several of our managed FQDNs. This issue was not present in beta 5 and appears to be a direct result of changes introduced in beta 6. The specific FQDNs that are currently unreachable are: d.socdm.com i.socdm.com tg.scodm.com We have reviewed the official iOS & iPadOS 26 Beta 6 Release Notes, particularly the updates related to TLS. While the notes mention changes, we have confirmed that our servers for all affected FQDNs support TLS 1.2, so we believe they should still be compliant. We have also investigated several of Apple's support documents regarding TLS connection requirements (e.g., HT214774, HT214041), but the information does not seem to apply to our situation, and we are currently unable to identify the root cause of this connection failure. https://support.apple.com/en-us/102028 https://support.apple.com/en-us/103214 Although we hope this issue might be resolved in beta 7 or later, the official release is fast approaching, and this has become a critical concern for us. Could you please provide any advice or insight into what might be causing this issue? Any guidance on potential changes in the networking or security frameworks in beta 6 that could affect TLS connections would be greatly appreciated. We have attached the relevant code snippet that triggers the error, along with the corresponding Xcode logs, for your review. Thank you for your time and assistance. #import "ViewController.h" @interface ViewController () @end @implementation ViewController - (void)viewDidLoad { [super viewDidLoad]; NSURL *url = [NSURL URLWithString:@"https://i.socdm.com/sdk/js/adg-script-loader-b-stg.js"]; NSMutableURLRequest *req = [NSMutableURLRequest requestWithURL:url cachePolicy:NSURLRequestReloadIgnoringLocalCacheData timeoutInterval:30.0]; [self sendWithRequest:req completionHandler:^(NSData *_Nullable data, NSHTTPURLResponse *_Nonnull response, NSError *_Nullable error) { if (error){ NSLog(@"Error occurred: %@", error.localizedDescription); return; }else{ NSLog(@"Success! Status Code: %ld", (long)response.statusCode); } }]; } - (void) sendWithRequest:(NSMutableURLRequest *)request completionHandler:(void (^ _Nullable)(NSData *_Nullable data, NSHTTPURLResponse *response, NSError *_Nullable error))completionHandler { NSURLSessionConfiguration *configuration = [NSURLSessionConfiguration defaultSessionConfiguration]; NSURLSession *session = nil; session = [NSURLSession sessionWithConfiguration:configuration delegate:self delegateQueue:nil]; NSURLSessionTask *task = [session dataTaskWithRequest:request completionHandler:^(NSData *data, NSURLResponse *response, NSError *error) { [session finishTasksAndInvalidate]; NSHTTPURLResponse *httpResponse = (NSHTTPURLResponse *) response; if (error) { if (completionHandler) { completionHandler(nil, httpResponse, error); } } else { if (completionHandler) { completionHandler(data, httpResponse, nil); } } }]; [task resume]; } @end error Connection 1: default TLS Trust evaluation failed(-9807) Connection 1: TLS Trust encountered error 3:-9807 Connection 1: encountered error(3:-9807) Task <C50BB081-E1DA-40FF-A1E5-A03A2C4CB733>.<1> HTTP load failed, 0/0 bytes (error code: -1202 [3:-9807]) Task <C50BB081-E1DA-40FF-A1E5-A03A2C4CB733>.<1> finished with error [-1202] Error Domain=NSURLErrorDomain Code=-1202 "The certificate for this server is invalid. You might be connecting to a server that is pretending to be “i.socdm.com” which could put your confidential information at risk." UserInfo={NSLocalizedRecoverySuggestion=Would you like to connect to the server anyway?, _kCFStreamErrorDomainKey=3, NSErrorPeerCertificateChainKey=( "<cert(0x10621ca00) s: *.socdm.com i: GlobalSign RSA OV SSL CA 2018>", "<cert(0x106324e00) s: GlobalSign RSA OV SSL CA 2018 i: GlobalSign>" ), NSErrorClientCertificateStateKey=0, NSErrorFailingURLKey=https://i.socdm.com/sdk/js/adg-script-loader-b-stg.js, NSErrorFailingURLStringKey=https://i.socdm.com/sdk/js/adg-script-loader-b-stg.js, NSUnderlyingError=0x1062bf960 {Error Domain=kCFErrorDomainCFNetwork Code=-1202 "(null)" UserInfo={_kCFStreamPropertySSLClientCertificateState=0, kCFStreamPropertySSLPeerTrust=<SecTrustRef: 0x10609d140>, _kCFNetworkCFStreamSSLErrorOriginalValue=-9807, _kCFStreamErrorDomainKey=3, _kCFStreamErrorCodeKey=-9807, kCFStreamPropertySSLPeerCertificates=( "<cert(0x10621ca00) s: *.socdm.com i: GlobalSign RSA OV SSL CA 2018>", "<cert(0x106324e00) s: GlobalSign RSA OV SSL CA 2018 i: GlobalSign>" )}}, _NSURLErrorRelatedURLSessionTaskErrorKey=( "LocalDataTask <C50BB081-E1DA-40FF-A1E5-A03A2C4CB733>.<1>" ), _kCFStreamErrorCodeKey=-9807, _NSURLErrorFailingURLSessionTaskErrorKey=LocalDataTask <C50BB081-E1DA-40FF-A1E5-A03A2C4CB733>.<1>, NSURLErrorFailingURLPeerTrustErrorKey=<SecTrustRef: 0x10609d140>, NSLocalizedDescription=The certificate for this server is invalid. You might be connecting to a server that is pretending to be “i.socdm.com” which could put your confidential information at risk.} Error occurred: The certificate for this server is invalid. You might be connecting to a server that is pretending to be “i.socdm.com” which could put your confidential information at risk. 折りたたむ