Hi! We are developing an authentication plugin for macOS that integrates with the system's authentication flow. The plugin is designed to prompt the user for approval via a push notification in our app before allowing access. The plugin is added as the first mechanism in the authenticate rule, followed by the default builtin:authenticate as a fallback. When the system requests authentication (e.g., during screen unlock), our plugin successfully displays the custom UI and sends a push notification to the user's device. However, I've encountered the following issue: If the user does not approve the push notification within ~30 seconds, the system resets the screen lock (expected behavior). If the user approves the push notification within approximately 30 seconds but doesn’t start entering their password before the timeout expires, the system still resets the screen lock before they can enter their password, effectively canceling the session. What I've Tried: Attempted to imitate mouse movement after the push button was clicked to keep the session active. Created a display sleep prevention assertion using IOKit to prevent the screen from turning off. Used the caffeinate command to keep the display and system awake. Tried setting the result as allow for the authorization request and passing an empty password to prevent the display from turning off. I also checked the system logs when this issue occurred and found the following messages: ___loginwindow: -[LWScreenLock (Private) askForPasswordSecAgent] | localUser = >timeout loginwindow: -[LWScreenLock handleUnlockResult:] _block_invoke | ERROR: Unexpected _lockRequestedBy of:7 sleeping screen loginwindow: SleepDisplay | enter powerd: Process (loginwindow) is requesting display idle___ These messages suggest that the loginwindow process encounters a timeout condition, followed by the display entering sleep mode. Despite my attempts to prevent this behavior, the screen lock still resets prematurely. Questions: Is there a documented (or undocumented) system timeout for the entire authentication flow during screen unlock that I cannot override? Are there any strategies for pausing or extending the authentication timeout to allow for complex authentication flows like push notifications? Any guidance or insights would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

We have been having very high response times in device check device validation service (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/accessing-and-modifying-per-device-data#Create-the-payload-for-a-device-validation-request) since 17 July at 19:10hs GMT. The service information page says the service was running in green status but that isn't the case and we currenly have stop consuming it. Is it being looked at? Are you aware of this issue? Can you give us an estimate of when it should be working correctly?

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 everyone, I’m working an Objective-C lib that performs Keychain operations, such as generating cryptographic keys and signing data. The lib will be used by my team in a Java program for macOS via JNI. When working with the traditional file-based Keychain (i.e., without access control flags), everything works smoothly, no issues at all. However, as soon as I try to generate a key using access control flags SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags, the Data Protection Keychain returns error -34018 (errSecMissingEntitlement) during SecKeyCreateRandomKey. This behavior is expected. To address this, I attempted to codesign my native dynamic library (.dylib) with an entitlement plist specifying various combinations of: keychain-access-groups com.apple.security.keychain etc. with: My Apple Development certificate Developer ID Application certificate Apple Distribution certificate None of these combinations made a difference, the error persists. I’d love to clarify: Is it supported to access Data Protection Keychain / Secure Enclave Keys in this type of use case? If so, what exact entitlements does macOS expect when calling SecKeyCreateRandomKey from a native library? I’d really appreciate any guidance or clarification. Thanks in advance! Best regards, Neil

General: Forums subtopic: Privacy & Security > General Forums tag: App Sandbox App Sandbox documentation App Sandbox Design Guide documentation — This is no longer available from Apple. There’s still some info in there that isn’t covered by the current docs but, with the latest updates, it’s pretty minimal (r. 110052019). Still, if you’re curious, you can consult an old copy [1]. App Sandbox Temporary Exception Entitlements archived documentation — To better understand the role of temporary exception entitlements, see this post. Embedding a command-line tool in a sandboxed app documentation Discovering and diagnosing App Sandbox violations (replaces the Viewing Sandbox Violation Reports forums post) Resolving App Sandbox Inheritance Problems forums post The Case for Sandboxing a Directly Distributed App forums post Implementing Script Attachment in a Sandboxed App forums post Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" [1] For example, this one archived by the Wayback Machine.

Script attachment enables advanced users to create powerful workflows that start in your app. NSUserScriptTask lets you implement script attachment even if your app is sandboxed. This post explains how to set that up. IMPORTANT Most sandboxed apps are sandboxed because they ship on the Mac App Store [1]. While I don’t work for App Review, and thus can’t make definitive statements on their behalf, I want to be clear that NSUserScriptTask is intended to be used to implement script attachment, not as a general-purpose sandbox bypass mechanism. If you have questions or comments, please put them in a new thread. Place it in the Privacy & Security > General subtopic, and tag it with App Sandbox. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" [1] Most but not all. There are good reasons to sandbox your app even if you distribute it directly. See The Case for Sandboxing a Directly Distributed App. Implementing Script Attachment in a Sandboxed App Some apps support script attachment, that is, they allow a user to configure the app to run a script when a particular event occurs. For example: A productivity app might let a user automate repetitive tasks by configuring a toolbar button to run a script. A mail client might let a user add a script that processes incoming mail. When adding script attachment to your app, consider whether your scripting mechanism is internal or external: An internal script is one that only affects the state of the app. A user script is one that operates as the user, that is, it can change the state of other apps or the system as a whole. Supporting user scripts in a sandboxed app is a conundrum. The App Sandbox prevents your app from changing the state of other apps, but that’s exactly what your app needs to do to support user scripts. NSUserScriptTask resolves this conundrum. Use it to run scripts that the user has placed in your app’s Script folder. Because these scripts were specifically installed by the user, their presence indicates user intent and the system runs them outside of your app’s sandbox. Provide easy access to your app’s Script folder Your application’s Scripts folder is hidden within ~/Library. To make it easier for the user to add scripts, add a button or menu item that uses NSWorkspace to show it in the Finder: let scriptsDir = try FileManager.default.url(for: .applicationScriptsDirectory, in: .userDomainMask, appropriateFor: nil, create: true) NSWorkspace.shared.activateFileViewerSelecting([scriptsDir]) Enumerate the available scripts To show a list of scripts to the user, enumerate the Scripts folder: let scriptsDir = try FileManager.default.url(for: .applicationScriptsDirectory, in: .userDomainMask, appropriateFor: nil, create: true) let scriptURLs = try FileManager.default.contentsOfDirectory(at: scriptsDir, includingPropertiesForKeys: [.localizedNameKey]) let scriptNames = try scriptURLs.map { url in return try url.resourceValues(forKeys: [.localizedNameKey]).localizedName! } This uses .localizedNameKey to get the name to display to the user. This takes care of various edge cases, for example, it removes the file name extension if it’s hidden. Run a script To run a script, instantiate an NSUserScriptTask object and call its execute() method: let script = try NSUserScriptTask(url: url) try await script.execute() Run a script with arguments NSUserScriptTask has three subclasses that support additional functionality depending on the type of the script. Use the NSUserUnixTask subsclass to run a Unix script and: Supply command-line arguments. Connect pipes to stdin, stdout, and stderr. Get the termination status. Use the NSUserAppleScriptTask subclass to run an AppleScript, executing either the run handler or a custom Apple event. Use the NSUserAutomatorTask subclass to run an Automator workflow, supplying an optional input. To determine what type of script you have, try casting it to each of the subclasses: let script: NSUserScriptTask = … switch script { case let script as NSUserUnixTask: … use Unix-specific functionality … case let script as NSUserAppleScriptTask: … use AppleScript-specific functionality … case let script as NSUserAutomatorTask: … use Automatic-specific functionality … default: … use generic functionality … }

Hi everyone, I’d like to clarify something regarding the behavior of Team IDs after an app transfer between Apple Developer accounts. I have an app update that enforces a force update for all users. My plan is to release this update under the current developer account, and then proceed with transferring the app to a different developer account shortly afterward. My concern is: once the transfer is complete, will users who download the same app version (released before the transfer) be logged out due to a change in Team ID? Specifically, does the transferred app continue to use the original Team ID (used to sign the last submitted build), or does the Team ID change immediately upon transfer — affecting Keychain access? Any insights or confirmation on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

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

I work for Brave, a browser with ~80M users. We want to introduce a new system for automatic updates called Omaha 4 (O4). It's the same system that powers automatic updates in Chrome. O4 runs as a separate application on users' systems. For Chrome, this works as follows: An app called GoogleUpdater.app regularly checks for updates in the background. When a new version is found, then GoogleUpdater.app installs it into Chrome's installation directory /Applications/Google Chrome.app. But consider what this means: A separate application, GoogleUpdater.app, is able to modify Google Chrome.app. This is especially surprising because, for example, the built-in Terminal.app is not able to modify Google Chrome.app. Here's how you can check this for yourself: (Re-)install Chrome with its DMG installer. Run the following command in Terminal: mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test. This works. Undo the command: rm -rf /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test Start Chrome and close it again. mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test now fails with "Operation not permitted". (These steps assume that Terminal does not have Full Disk Access and System Integrity Protection is enabled.) In other words, once Chrome was started at least once, another application (Terminal in this case) is no longer allowed to modify it. But at the same time, GoogleUpdater.app is able to modify Chrome. It regularly applies updates to the browser. For each update, this process begins with an mkdir call similarly to the one shown above. How is this possible? What is it in macOS that lets GoogleUpdater.app modify Chrome, but not another app such as Terminal? Note that Terminal is not sandboxed. I've checked that it's not related to codesigning or notarization issues. In our case, the main application (Brave) and the updater (BraveUpdater) are signed and notarized with the same certificate and have equivalent requirements, entitlements and provisioning profiles as Chrome and GoogleUpdater. The error that shows up in the Console for the disallowed mkdir call is: kernel (Sandbox) System Policy: mkdir(8917) deny(1) file-write-create /Applications/Google Chrome.app/foo (It's a similar error when BraveUpdater tries to install a new version into /Applications/Brave Browser.app.) The error goes away when I disable System Integrity Protection. But of course, we cannot ask users to do that. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

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

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apptrackingtransparency/attrackingmanager/authorizationstatus/notdetermined Note: Discussion If you call ATTrackingManager.trackingAuthorizationStatus in macOS, the result is always ATTrackingManager.AuthorizationStatus.notDetermined. So, does macOS support getting ATT?

Hi Apple Team and Community, We encountered a sudden and widespread failure related to the App Attest service on Friday, July 25, starting at around 9:22 AM UTC. After an extended investigation, our network engineers noted that the size of the attestation objects received from the attestKey call grew in size notably starting at that time. As a result, our firewall began blocking the requests from our app made to our servers with the Base64-encoded attestation objects in the payload, as these requests began triggering our firewall's max request length rule. Could Apple engineers please confirm whether there was any change rolled out by Apple at or around that time that would cause the attestation object size to increase? Can anyone else confirm seeing this? Any insights from Apple or others would be appreciated to ensure continued stability. Thanks!

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

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

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?

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

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).

hello, My organization has an outlook add-in that requires auth into our platform. As Microsoft forces Auth on MacOS to use WKWebView https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/dev/add-ins/concepts/browsers-used-by-office-web-add-ins, we are running into a situation that we cannot use passkeys as an auth method as we are unable to trigger WebAuthN flows. We’ve raised this in Microsoft side but they have deferred to Apple given WKWebView is Safari based. This is a big blocker for us to achieve a full passwordless future. Has anyone come across this situation? Thank you.

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

When we enable 3rd party authentication plugin using SFAuthorization window, then when user performs Lock Screen and then unlock the MAC. Now after unlock, if user tries to open Keychain Access, it is not getting opened. When trying to open Keychain Access, we are prompted for credentials but after providing the credentials Keychians are not getting opened. This is working on Sonoma 14.6.1 , but seeing this issue from macOS Sequoia onwards. Are there any suggested settings/actions to resolve this issue?