We recently deployed Attestation on our application, and for a majority of the 40,000 users it works well. We have about six customers who are failing attestation. In digging through debug logs, we're seeing this error "iOS assertion verification failed. Unauthorized access attempted." We're assuming that the UUID is blocked somehow on Apple side but we're stumped as to why. We had a customer come in and we could look at the phone, and best we can tell it's just a generic phone with no jailbroken or any malicious apps. How can we determine if the UUID is blocked?

Hi, I develop a Mac application, initially on Catalina/Xcode12, but I recently upgrade to Monterey/Xcode13. I'm about to publish a new version: on Monterey all works as expected, but when I try the app on Sequoia, as a last step before uploading to the App Store, I encountered some weird security issues: The main symptom is that it's no longer possible to save any file from the app using the Save panel, although the User Select File entitlement is set to Read/Write. I've tried reinstalling different versions of the app, including the most recent downloaded from TestFlight. But, whatever the version, any try to save using the panel (e.g. on the desktop) results in a warning telling that I don't have authorization to record the file to that folder. Moreover, when I type spctl -a -t exec -v /Applications/***.app in the terminal, it returns rejected, even when the application has been installed by TestFlight. An EtreCheck report tells that my app is not signed, while codesign -dv /Applications/***.app returns a valid signature. I'm lost... It suspect a Gate Keeper problem, but I cannot found any info on the web about how this system could be reset. I tried sudo spctl --reset-default, but it returns This operation is no longer supported... I wonder if these symptoms depend on how the app is archived and could be propagated to my final users, or just related to a corrupted install of Sequoia on my local machine. My feeling is that a signature problem should have been detected by the archive validation, but how could we be sure? Any idea would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

The Core Problem After Users sign out from the App, the app isn’t properly retrieving the user on second sign in. Instead, it’s treating the user as “Unknown” and saving a new entry in CloudKit and locally. Is there a tutorial aside from 'Juice' that is recent and up to date?

Can you please give me a hand with importing certificates under MacOS? I want to connect to Wi-Fi with 802.1X authentication (EAP-TLS) using a certificate that my homebrew application imported into my data protection keychain, but the imported certificate does not show up and I cannot select the certificate. It also does not show up in the Keychain Access app. One method I have tried is to import it into the data protection keychain by using the SecItemAdd function and setting kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain to true, but it does not work. Is there a better way to do this? ID: for id in identities { let identityParams: [String: Any] = [ kSecValueRef as String: id, kSecReturnPersistentRef as String: true, kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain as String: true ] let addIdentityStatus = SecItemAdd(identityParams as CFDictionary, nil) if addIdentityStatus == errSecSuccess { print("Successfully added the ID.: \(addIdentityStatus)") } else { print("Failed to add the ID.: \(addIdentityStatus)") } } Certificate: for cert in certificates { let certParams: [String: Any] = [ kSecValueRef as String: cert, kSecReturnPersistentRef as String: true, kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain as String: true ] let addCertStatus = SecItemAdd(certParams as CFDictionary, nil) if addCertStatus == errSecSuccess { print("Successfully added the certificate.: (\(addCertStatus))") } else { print("Failed to add the certificate.: (\(addCertStatus))") } } Private key: for privateKey in keys { let keyTag = UUID().uuidString.data(using: .utf8)! let keyParams: [String: Any] = [ kSecAttrApplicationTag as String: keyTag, kSecValueRef as String: privateKey, kSecReturnPersistentRef as String: true, kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain as String: true ] let addKeyStatus = SecItemAdd(keyParams as CFDictionary, nil) if addKeyStatus == errSecSuccess { print("Successfully added the private key.: \(addKeyStatus)") } else { print("Failed to add the private key.: \(addKeyStatus)") } }

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.

I am using the CryptoKit SecureEnclave enum to generate Secure Enclave keys. I've got a couple of questions: What is the lifetime of these keys? When I don't store them somewhere, how does the Secure Enclave know they are gone? Do backups impact these keys? I.e. can I lose access to the key when I restore a backup? Do these keys count to the total storage capacity of the Secure Enclave? If I recall correctly, the Secure Enclave has a limited storage capacity. Do the SecureEnclave key instances count towards this storage capacity? What is the dataRepresentation and how can I use this? I'd like to store the Secure Enclave (preferably not in the Keychain due to its limitations). Is it "okay" to store this elsewhere, for instance in a file or in the UserDefaults? Can the dataRepresentation be used in other apps? If I had the capability of extracting the dataRepresentation as an attacker, could I then rebuild that key in my malicious app, as the key can be rebuilt with the Secure Enclave on the same device, or are there measures in place to prevent this (sandbox, bundle id, etc.)

I want to implement webauthn using WKWebView for my mac application. I want to host the asaa file in the rpid. Below are my site configuration - Main domain - example.com Subdomain which has the sign-in view and where webauthn kicks in - signin.example.com RPID - example.com Where shall i host the asaa file at domain(example.com) or subdomain(signin.example.com)?

My high-level goal is to add support for Game Mode in a Java game, which launches via a macOS "launcher" app that runs the actual java game as a separate process (e.g. using the java command line tool). I asked this over in the Graphics & Games section and was told this, which is why I'm reposting this here. I'm uncertain how to speak to CLI tools and Java games launched from a macOS app. These sound like security and sandboxing questions which we recommend you ask about in those sections of the forums. The system seems to decide whether to enable Game Mode based on values in the Info.plist (e.g. for LSApplicationCategoryType and GCSupportsGameMode). However, the child process can't seem to see these values. Is there a way to change that? (The rest of this post is copied from my other forums post to provide additional context.) Imagine a native macOS app that acts as a "launcher" for a Java game.** For example, the "launcher" app might use the Swift Process API or a similar method to run the java command line tool (lets assume the user has installed Java themselves) to run the game. I have seen How to Enable Game Mode. If the native launcher app's Info.plist has the following keys set: LSApplicationCategoryType set to public.app-category.games LSSupportsGameMode set to true (for macOS 26+) GCSupportsGameMode set to true The launcher itself can cause Game Mode to activate if the launcher is fullscreened. However, if the launcher opens a Java process that opens a window, then the Java window is fullscreened, Game Mode doesn't seem to activate. In this case activating Game Mode for the launcher itself is unnecessary, but you'd expect Game Mode to activate when the actual game in the Java window is fullscreened. Is there a way to get Game Mode to activate in the latter case? ** The concrete case I'm thinking of is a third-party Minecraft Java Edition launcher, but the issue can also be demonstrated in a sample project (FB13786152). It seems like the official Minecraft launcher is able to do this, though it's not clear how. (Is its bundle identifier hardcoded in the OS to allow for this? Changing a sample app's bundle identifier to be the same as the official Minecraft launcher gets the behavior I want, but obviously this is not a practical solution.)

Trying to validate external reference identifiers with SecTrustEvaluateWithError Method by setting reference Ids to SecPolicyCreateSSL() & SecPolicyCreateWithProperties() But two concerns are - Validates for correct reference IDs but gives error for combination of wrong & correct reference Ids 398 days validity works mandatorily before reference Ids check. Is there any other to validate external reference Ids?, which give flexibility To pass multiple combinations of reference IDs string (wrong, correct, IP, DNS) To validate reference ID without days validity of 398. Please suggest. Any help here is highly appreciated.

Hello, I'm an application developer related to Apple system extensions. I developed an endpoint security system extension that can run normally before the 14.x system. However, after I upgraded to 15.x, I found that when I uninstalled and reinstalled my system extension, although the system extension was installed successfully, a system warning box would pop up when I clicked enable in the Settings, indicating a failure. I conducted the following test. I reinstalled a brand-new MAC 15.x system. When I installed my applications, the system extensions could be installed successfully and enabled normally. However, when I uninstalled and reinstalled, my system extension couldn't be enabled properly and a system warning popped up as well. I tried disabling SIP and enabling System Extension Developers, but it still didn't work. When the system warning box pops up, I can see some error log information through the console application, including an error related to Failed to authorize right 'com.apple.system-extensions.admin' by client '/System/Library/ExtensionKit/Extensions/SettingsSystemExtensionController.appex' [2256] for authorization created by '/System/Library/ExtensionKit/Extensions/SettingsSystemExtensionController.appex' [2256] (3,0) (-60005) (engine 179) as shown in the screenshot. The same problem, mentioned in Cannot approve some extensions in MacOS Sequoia , but there is no solution

I'm trying to export and re-import a P-256 private key that was originally generated via SecKeyCreateRandomKey(), but I keep running into roadblocks. The key is simply exported via SecItemExport() with format formatWrappedPKCS8, and I did set a password just to be sure. Do note that I must use the file-based keychain, as the data protection keychain requires a restricted entitlement and I'm not going to pay a yearly fee just to securely store some private keys for a personal project. The 7-day limit for unsigned/self-signed binaries isn't feasible either. Here's pretty much everything I could think of trying: Simply using SecItemImport() does import the key, but I cannot set kSecAttrLabel and more importantly: kSecAttrApplicationTag. There just isn't any way to pass these attributes upfront, so it's always imported as Imported Private Key with an empty comment. Keys don't support many attributes to begin with and I need something that's unique to my program but shared across all the relevant key entries, otherwise it's impossible to query for only my program's keys. kSecAttrLabel is already used for something else and is always unique, which really only leaves kSecAttrApplicationTag. I've already accepted that this can be changed via Keychain Access, as this attribute should end up as the entry's comment. At least, that's how it works with SecKeyCreateRandomKey() and SecItemCopyMatching(). I'm trying to get that same behaviour for imports. Running SecItemUpdate() afterwards to set these 2 attributes doesn't work either, as now the kSecAttrApplicationTag is suddenly used for the entry's label instead of the comment. Even setting kSecAttrComment (just to be certain) doesn't change the comment. I think kSecAttrApplicationTag might be a creation-time attribute only, and since SecItemImport() already created a SecKey I will never be able to set this. It likely falls back to updating the label because it needs to target something that is still mutable? Using SecItemImport() with a nil keychain (i.e. create a transient key), then persisting that with SecItemAdd() via kSecValueRef does allow me to set the 2 attributes, but now the ACL is lost. Or more precise: the ACL does seem to exist as any OS prompts do show the label I originally set for the ACL, but in Keychain Access it shows as Allow all applications to access this item. I'm looking to enable Confirm before allowing access and add my own program to the Always allow access by these applications list. Private keys outright being open to all programs is of course not acceptable, and I can indeed access them from other programs without any prompts. Changing the ACL via SecKeychainItemSetAccess() after SecItemAdd() doesn't seem to do anything. It apparently succeeds but nothing changes. I also reopened Keychain Access to make sure it's not a UI "caching" issue. Creating a transient key first, then getting the raw key via SecKeyCopyExternalRepresentation() and passing that to SecItemAdd() via kSecValueData results in The specified attribute does not exist. This error only disappears if I remove almost all of the attributes. I can pass only kSecValueData, kSecClass and kSecAttrApplicationTag, but then I get The specified item already exists in the keychain errors. I found a doc that explains what determines uniqueness, so here are the rest of the attributes I'm using for SecItemAdd(): kSecClass: not mentioned as part of the primary key but still required, otherwise you'll get One or more parameters passed to a function were not valid. kSecAttrLabel: needed for my use case and not part of the primary key either, but as I said this results in The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrApplicationLabel: The specified attribute does not exist. As I understand it this should be the SHA1 hash of the public key, passed as Data. Just omitting it would certainly be an option if the other attributes actually worked, but right now I'm passing it to try and construct a truly unique primary key. kSecAttrApplicationTag: The specified item already exists in the keychain. kSecAttrKeySizeInBits: The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrEffectiveKeySize: The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrKeyClass: The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrKeyType: The specified attribute does not exist. It looks like only kSecAttrApplicationTag is accepted, but still ignored for the primary key. Even entering something that is guaranteed to be unique still results in The specified item already exists in the keychain, so I think might actually be targeting literally any key. I decided to create a completely new keychain and import it there (which does succeed), but the key is completely broken. There's no Kind and Usage at the top of Keychain Access and the table view just below it shows symmetric key instead of private. The kSecAttrApplicationTag I'm passing is still being used as the label instead of the comment and there's no ACL. I can't even delete this key because Keychain Access complains that A missing value was detected. It seems like the key doesn't really contain anything unique for its primary key, so it will always match any existing key. Using SecKeyCreateWithData() and then using that key as the kSecValueRef for SecItemAdd() results in A required entitlement isn't present. I also have to add kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain: false to SecItemAdd() (even though that should already be the default) but then I get The specified item is no longer valid. It may have been deleted from the keychain. This occurs even if I decrypt the PKCS8 manually instead of via SecItemImport(), so it's at least not like it's detecting the transient key somehow. No combination of kSecAttrIsPermanent, kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain and kSecUseKeychain on either SecKeyCreateWithData() or SecItemAdd() changes anything. I also tried PKCS12 despite that it always expects an "identity" (key + cert), while I only have (and need) a private key. Exporting as formatPKCS12 and importing it with itemTypeAggregate (or itemTypeUnknown) does import the key, and now it's only missing the kSecAttrApplicationTag as the original label is automatically included in the PKCS12. The outItems parameter contains an empty list though, which sort of makes sense because I'm not importing a full "identity". I can at least target the key by kSecAttrLabel for SecItemUpdate(), but any attempt to update the comment once again changes the label so it's not really any better than before. SecPKCS12Import() doesn't even import anything at all, even though it does return errSecSuccess while also passing kSecImportExportKeychain explicitly. Is there literally no way?

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 Apple team, For our iPhone app (App Store build), a small subset of devices report DCAppAttestService.isSupported == false, preventing App Attest from being enabled. Approx. impact: 0.23% (352/153,791) iOS observed: Broadly 15.x–18.7 (also saw a few anomalous entries ios/26.0, likely client logging noise) Device models: Multiple generations (iPhone8–iPhone17); a few iPad7 entries present although the app targets iPhone Questions In iPhone main app context, what conditions can make isSupported return false on iOS 14+? Are there known device/iOS cases where temporary false can occur (SEP/TrustChain related)? Any recommended remediation (e.g., DFU restore)? Could you share logging guidance (Console.app subsystem/keywords) to investigate such cases? What fallback policy do you recommend when isSupported == false (e.g., SE-backed signature + DeviceCheck + risk rules), and any limitations? We can provide sysdiagnose/Console logs and more case details upon request. Thank you, —

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 recently turned on the enhanced security options for my macOS app in Xcode 26.0.1 by adding the Enhanced Security capability in the Signing and Capabilities tab. Then, Xcode adds the following key-value sets (with some other key-values) to my app's entitlements file. <key>com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version</key> <integer>1</integer> <key>com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions</key> <integer>2</integer> These values appear following the documentation about the enhanced security feature (Enabling enhanced security for your app) and the app works without any issues. However, when I submitted a new version to the Mac App Store, my submission was rejected, and I received the following message from the App Review team via the App Store Connect. Guideline 2.4.5(i) - Performance Your app incorrectly implements sandboxing, or it contains one or more entitlements with invalid values. Please review the included entitlements and sandboxing documentation and resolve this issue before resubmitting a new binary. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version" value must be boolean and true. Entitlement "com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions" value must be boolean and true. When I changed those values directly in the entitlements file based on this message, the app appears to still work. However, these settings are against the description in the documentation I mentioned above and against the settings Xcode inserted after changing the GUI setting view. So, my question is, which settings are actually correct to enable the Enhanced Security and the Additional Runtime Platform Restrictions?

In the macOS 14.0 SDK, environment and library constraints were introduced, which made defense against common attack vectors relatively simple (especially with the LightWeightCodeRequirements framework added in 14.4). Now, the application I'm working on must support macOS 13.0 too, so I was looking into alternatives that do work for those operating systems as well. What I found myself is that the SecCode/SecStaticCode APIs in the Security Framework do offer very similar fashion checks as the LightWeightCodeRequirements framework does: SecCodeCopySigningInformation can return values like signing identifier, team identifier, code requirement string and so on. SecStaticCodeCreateWithPath can return a SecStaticCode object to an executable/app bundle on the file system. Let's say, I would want to protect myself against launchd executable swap. From macOS 14.0 onward, I would use a Spawn Constraint for this, directly in the launchd.plist file. Before macOS 14.0, I would create a SecStaticCode object for the executable path found in the launchd.plist, and then examine its SecCodeCopySigningInformation dictionary. If the expectations are met, only then would I execute the launchd.plist-defined executable or connect to it via XPC. Are these two equivalent? If not, what are the differences?

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.

Hello, I recently installed an iOS app called SpyBuster by MacPaw. This app shows as list all my installed apps. How is this possible ? As a developer, I know this is prohibited by Apple - third party app to scan application workspace.

Hello, I’m storing some values in the Keychain with the attribute ‘ksecattraccessibleafterfirstunlockthisdeviceonly’ (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/ksecattraccessibleafterfirstunlockthisdeviceonly). When I migrate user data between iPhones via iCloud, this behaves as expected and the keys are not preserved. However, when I migrate using a direct connection between two devices, the keys are preserved, which seems to contradict the attribute’s intent. Is this a known behavior, and if so, is there a workaround?

I'm seeing some odd behavior which may be a bug. I've broken it down to a least common denominator to reproduce it. But maybe I'm doing something wrong. I am opening a file read-write. I'm then mapping the file read-only and private: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_PRIVATE, fd, 0); I then unmap the memory and close the file. After the close, eslogger shows me this: {"close":{"modified":false,[...],"was_mapped_writable":false}} Which makes sense. I then change the mmap statement to: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); I run the new code and and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false, [....], "was_mapped_writable":true}} Which also makes sense. I then run the original again (ie, with MAP_PRIVATE vs. MAP_SHARED) and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false,"was_mapped_writable":true,[...]} Which doesn't appear to be correct. Now if I just open and close the file (again, read-write) and don't mmap anything the close still shows: {"close":{ [...], "was_mapped_writable":true,"modified":false}} And the same is true if I open the file read-only. It will remain that way until I delete the file. If I recreate the file and try again, everything is good until I map it MAP_SHARED. I tried this with macOS 13.6.7 and macOS 15.0.1.