I am developing a daemon-based product that needs a cryptographic, non-spoofable proof of machine identity so a remote management server can grant permissions based on the physical machine. I was thinking to create a signing key in the Secure Enclave and use a certificate signed by that key as the machine identity. The problem is that the Secure Enclave key I can create is only accessible from user context, while my product runs as a system daemon and must not rely on user processes or launchAgents. Could you please advise on the recommended Apple-supported approaches for this use case ? Specifically, Is there a supported way for a system daemon to generate and use an unremovable Secure Enclave key during phases like the pre-logon, that doesn't have non user context (only the my application which created this key/certificate will have permission to use/delete it) If Secure Enclave access from a daemon is not supported, what Apple-recommended alternatives exist for providing a hardware-backed machine identity for system daemons? I'd rather avoid using system keychain, as its contents may be removed or used by root privileged users. The ideal solution would be that each Apple product, would come out with a non removable signing certificate, that represent the machine itself (lets say that the cetificate name use to represent the machine ID), and can be validated by verify that the root signer is "Apple Root CA"

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!

Hi , I did The MFA(2FA) of Email OTP For MacOS Login Screen using, Authorization Plugin, Using This git hub project. It is working For Login Screen , Im trying to Add The Same plugin for LockScreen but it is not working at lock Screen , Below is the reffrense theard For The issue , https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/127614, please Share The Code that should Present the NSwindow at Screen Saver (Lock Screen) MacOS .

Hello, I would like to seek clarification regarding the availability of the NFC Secure Element (SE) / ISO7816 entitlement by region, specifically for Indonesia. I recently contacted Apple Developer Support regarding the use of NFC for reading ISO7816-compatible cards. I was informed that, at this time, the NFC & Secure Element entitlement is not available in Indonesia. For technical planning and compliance purposes, I would like to confirm the following: Is the NFC Secure Element / ISO7816 entitlement currently restricted by region, and is Indonesia officially unsupported at this time? For apps distributed on the App Store in Indonesia, is Core NFC limited to NDEF and non–Secure Element tag reading only? Are there any publicly supported alternatives or recommended architectural approaches for NFC-based workflows in regions where the Secure Element entitlement is unavailable? Is there any public documentation or guidance that outlines regional availability for NFC Secure Element features? I understand that entitlement approvals and availability may vary by region and are handled on a case-by-case basis. Any clarification from Apple engineers or developers with experience in this area would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards.

I've been spending days trying to solve the memory leak in a small menu bar application I've wrote (SC Menu). I've used Instruments which shows the leaks and memory graph which shows unreleased allocations. This occurs when someone views a certificate on the smartcard. Basically it opens a new window and displays the certificate, the same way Keychain Access displays a certificate. Whenever I create an SFCertificateView instance and set setDetailsDisclosed(true) - a memory leak happens. Instruments highlights that line. import Cocoa import SecurityInterface class ViewCertsViewController: NSViewController { var selectedCert: SecIdentity? = nil override func viewDidLoad() { super.viewDidLoad() self.view = NSView(frame: NSRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: 500, height: 500)) self.view.wantsLayer = true var secRef: SecCertificate? = nil guard let selectedCert else { return } let certRefErr = SecIdentityCopyCertificate(selectedCert, &secRef) if certRefErr != errSecSuccess { os_log("Error getting certificate from identity: %{public}@", log: OSLog.default, type: .error, String(describing: certRefErr)) return } let scrollView = NSScrollView() scrollView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.borderType = .lineBorder scrollView.hasHorizontalScroller = true scrollView.hasVerticalScroller = true let certView = SFCertificateView() guard let secRef = secRef else { return } certView.setCertificate(secRef) certView.setDetailsDisclosed(true) certView.setDisplayTrust(true) certView.setEditableTrust(true) certView.setDisplayDetails(true) certView.setPolicies(SecPolicyCreateBasicX509()) certView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.documentView = certView view.addSubview(scrollView) // Layout constraints NSLayoutConstraint.activate([ scrollView.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.leadingAnchor), scrollView.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.trailingAnchor), scrollView.topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.topAnchor), scrollView.bottomAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.bottomAnchor), // Provide certificate view a width and height constraint certView.widthAnchor.constraint(equalTo: scrollView.widthAnchor), certView.heightAnchor.constraint(greaterThanOrEqualToConstant: 500) ]) } } https://github.com/boberito/sc_menu/blob/dev_2.0/smartcard_menu/ViewCertsViewController.swift Fairly simple.

I have a custom NSWindow that I want to exclude from screen capture by setting its sharing state to kCGWindowSharingStateSharingNone. The goal is to prevent this window from appearing in the content captured by ScreenCaptureKit. [window setSharingType:NSWindowSharingType::NSWindowSharingNone]; However, on macOS 15.4+ (Sequoia), the window is still captured by ScreenCaptureKit and appears in the shared content. Does anyone know if kCGWindowSharingStateSharingNone is still effective with ScreenCaptureKit on macOS 15.4 and later?

I downloaded a P12 file (containing a private key) from the company server, and retrieved the private key from this P12 file using a password : private func loadPrivateKeyFromPKCS12(path: String, password: String) throws -> SecKey? { let p12Data: Data do { p12Data = try Data(contentsOf: fileURL) } catch let readError { ... } let options: [CFString: Any] = [ kSecImportExportPassphrase: password as CFString ] var items: CFArray? let status = SecPKCS12Import(p12Data as CFData, options as CFDictionary, &items) guard status == errSecSuccess else { throw exception } var privateKey: SecKey? let idd = identity as! SecIdentity let _ = SecIdentityCopyPrivateKey(idd, &privateKey) return privateKey } However, when I use this private key to call SecKeyCreateSignature for data signing, a dialog box always pops up to ask user to input the Mac admin password. What confuses me is that this private key is clearly stored in the local P12 file, and there should be no access to the keychain involved in this process. Why does the system still require the user's login password for signing? Is it possible to perform silent signing (without the system dialog popping up) in this scenario?

(Xcode 26.2, iPhone 17 Pro) I can't seem to get hardware tag checks to work in an app launched without the special "Hardware Memory Tagging" diagnostics. In other words, I have been unable to reproduce the crash example at 6:40 in Apple's video "Secure your app with Memory Integrity Enforcement". When I write a heap overflow or a UAF, it is picked up perfectly provided I enable the "Hardware Memory Tagging" feature under Scheme Diagnostics. If I instead add the Enhanced Security capability with the memory-tagging related entitlements: I'm seeing distinct memory tags being assigned in pointers returned by malloc (without the capability, this is not the case) Tag mismatches are not being caught or enforced, regardless of soft mode The behaviour is the same whether I launch from Xcode without "Hardware Memory Tagging", or if I launch the app by tapping it on launchpad. In case it was related to debug builds, I also tried creating an ad hoc IPA and it didn't make any difference. I realise there's a wrinkle here that the debugger sets MallocTagAll=1, so possibly it will pick up a wider range of issues. However I would have expected that a straight UAF would be caught. For example, this test code demonstrates that tagging is active but it doesn't crash: #define PTR_TAG(p) ((unsigned)(((uintptr_t)(p) >> 56) & 0xF)) void *p1 = malloc(32); void *p2 = malloc(32); void *p3 = malloc(32); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p1 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p1, PTR_TAG(p1)); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p2 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p2, PTR_TAG(p2)); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p3 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p3, PTR_TAG(p3)); free(p2); void *p2_realloc = malloc(32); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p2 after free+malloc = %p (tag: %u)\n", p2_realloc, PTR_TAG(p2_realloc)); // Is p2_realloc the same address as p2 but different tag? os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Same address? %s\n", ((uintptr_t)p2 & 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFF) == ((uintptr_t)p2_realloc & 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFF) ? "YES" : "NO"); // Now try to use the OLD pointer p2 os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Attempting use-after-free via old pointer p2...\n"); volatile char c = *(volatile char *)p2; // Should this crash? os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Read succeeded! Value: %d\n", c); Example output: p1 = 0xf00000b71019660 (tag: 15) p2 = 0x200000b711958c0 (tag: 2) p3 = 0x300000b711958e0 (tag: 3) p2 after free+malloc = 0x700000b71019680 (tag: 7) Same address? NO Attempting use-after-free via old pointer p2... Read succeeded! Value: -55 For reference, these are my entitlements. [Dict] [Key] application-identifier [Value] [String] … [Key] com.apple.developer.team-identifier [Value] [String] … [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.checked-allocations [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.checked-allocations.enable-pure-data [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.dyld-ro [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version [Value] [Int] 1 [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.hardened-heap [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions [Value] [Int] 2 [Key] get-task-allow [Value] [Bool] true What do I need to do to make Memory Integrity Enforcement do something outside the debugger?

Is there any way for an iOS app to get a log of all Airdrop transfers originating in all apps on the iOS device e.g. from the last week?

Hi, A user logs in to the file vault, and DisableFDEAutoLogin is false. The file vault login succeeds, but the login to the selected user fails. The user gets the login screen again. If the user puts an invalid password to try and login again, the loginwindow:FDESupport plugin will change the user's password to the invalid one.

We've filed FB22448572 for this, but posting here in case others are hitting the same issue. After upgrading macOS from 26.3.2 to 26.4, SecItemCopyMatching returns errSecAuthFailed (-25293) when reading kSecClassGenericPassword items from the default login keychain. The keychain reports as unlocked, but all authenticated operations fail. The error doesn't self-resolve — we've observed it persisting for 7+ minutes across repeated calls and process restarts. The only workaround we've found is SecKeychainLock(nil) followed by SecKeychainUnlock(nil, 0, nil, false), which prompts the user for their password and clears the stale state. Apple's own security CLI tool also fails while the keychain is in this state: $ security show-keychain-info ~/Library/Keychains/login.keychain-db security: SecKeychainCopySettings .../login.keychain-db: The user name or passphrase you entered is not correct. The trigger seems to be process lifecycle — a new process accessing the keychain early in startup (e.g., from the app delegate) can hit this state after the OS upgrade. It's probabilistic: not every machine and not every restart, but once it happens, it sticks until manual intervention. We're an enterprise app using legacy keychain APIs (SecKeychainCopyDefault, kSecUseKeychain) deployed to thousands of managed devices. We've reproduced this on multiple machines (M1, M2) and have reports from customers in the field after the 26.4 upgrade. I noticed a possibly related thread — Calling SecKeychainUnlock with a locked keychain and an invalid password returns errSecSuccess on macOS 26.4 — where SecKeychainUnlock stopped properly validating passwords after 26.4. Our symptom is different (reads fail on an unlocked keychain rather than unlock succeeding with wrong password), but both appeared after 26.4 and both point to something changing in securityd's authentication handling. Wondering if these could be related. A couple of questions: Is there a known issue with securityd's keychain authentication after 26.4? Could this be related to the CVE-2026-28864 fix ("improved permissions checking" in the Security component)? Would migrating to the data protection keychain (kSecAttrAccessible instead of kSecUseKeychain) avoid this class of issue entirely? Is there a way to detect and clear this stale state programmatically without the user entering their password? Any guidance appreciated.

Hi, I am using CryptoKit in my app. I am getting an error sometimes with some users. I log the description to Firebase but I am not sure what is it exactly about.  CryptoKit.CryptoKitError error 2  CryptoKit.CryptoKitError error 3 I receive both of these errors. I also save debug prints to a log file and let users share them with me. Logs are line-by-line encrypted but after getting these errors in the app also decryption of log files doesn't work and it throws these errors too. I couldn't reproduce the same error by myself, and I can't reach the user's logs so I am a little blind about what triggers this. It would be helpful to understand what these errors mean. Thanks

I cannot find any reference to this within the Apple developer documents (or certainly searching for multiple possible keywords yields no results). The only reference I can find is to documents written in support of its announcement in 2002: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=huqjyh7k. Is there any further documentation on implementing or has the capability been deprecated?

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

We are experiencing a significant issue with macOS security alerts that began on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. This alert is incorrectly identifying output files from our snippet tests as malware, causing these files to be blocked and moved to the Trash. This is completely disrupting our automated testing workflows. Issue Description: Alert: We are seeing the "Malware Blocked and Moved to Trash" popup window. Affected Files: The security alert triggers when attempting to execute .par files generated as outputs from our snippet tests. These .par files are unique to each individual test run; they are not a single, static tool. System-Wide Impact: This issue is impacting multiple macOS hosts across our testing infrastructure. Timeline: The issue began abruptly on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. Before that time, our tests were functioning correctly. macOS Versions: The problem is occurring on hosts running both macOS 14.x and 15.x. Experimental Host: Even after upgrading an experimental host to macOS 15.6 beta 2, the issue persisted. Local execution: The issue can be reproduced locally. Observations: The security system is consistently flagging these snippet test output files as malware. Since each test generates a new .par file, and this issue is impacting all generated files, the root cause doesn't appear to be specific to the code within the .par files themselves. This issue is impacting all the snippet tests, making us believe that the root cause is not related to our code. The sudden and widespread nature of the issue strongly suggests a change in a security database or rule, rather than a change in our testing code. Questions: Could a recent update to the XProtect database be the cause of this false positive? Are there any known issues or recent changes in macOS security mechanisms that could cause this kind of widespread and sudden impact? What is the recommended way to diagnose and resolve this kind of false positive? We appreciate any guidance or assistance you can provide. Thank you.

Hello, I am developing a macOS menu bar window-management utility (similar in functionality to Magnet / Rectangle) that relies on the Accessibility (AXUIElement) API to move and resize windows and on global hotkeys. I am facing a consistent issue when App Sandbox is enabled. Summary: App Sandbox enabled Hardened Runtime enabled Apple Events entitlement enabled NSAccessibilityDescription present in Info.plist AXIsProcessTrustedWithOptions is called with prompt enabled Observed behavior: When App Sandbox is enabled, the Accessibility permission prompt never appears. The app cannot be manually added in System Settings → Privacy & Security → Accessibility. AXIsProcessTrusted always returns false. As a result, window snapping does not work. When App Sandbox is disabled: The Accessibility prompt appears correctly. The app functions as expected. This behavior occurs both: In local builds In TestFlight builds My questions: Is this expected behavior for sandboxed macOS apps that rely on Accessibility APIs? Are window-management utilities expected to ship without App Sandbox enabled? Is there any supported entitlement or configuration that allows a sandboxed app to request Accessibility permission? Thank you for any clarification.

I read online that there is no way to extract the call log from an iPhone. I want to develop an app to help people remember to call their mom, and if they did, the "nagging" would disappear automatically. I'm looking for any workaround to know when a user called someone, without having them log it manually.

Hi Forum, We’re building a security-focused SDK for iOS that includes SIM Binding and SIM Swap detection to help prevent fraud and unauthorised device access, particularly in the context of banking and fintech apps. We understand that iOS limits access to SIM-level data, and that previously available APIs (such as those in CoreTelephony, now deprecated from iOS 16 onwards) provide only limited support for these use cases. We have a few questions and would appreciate any guidance from the community or Apple engineers: Q1. Are there any best practices or Apple-recommended approaches for binding a SIM to a device or user account? Q2. Is there a reliable way to detect a SIM swap when the app is not running (e.g., via system callback, entitlement, or background mechanism)? Q3. Are fields like GID1, GID2, or ICCID accessible through any public APIs or entitlements (such as com.apple.coretelephony.IdentityAccess)? If so, what is the process to request access? Q4. For dual SIM and eSIM scenarios, is there a documented approach to identify which SIM is active or whether a SIM slot has changed? Q5. In a banking or regulated environment, is it possible for an app vendor (e.g., a bank) to acquire certain entitlements from Apple and securely expose that information to a security SDK like ours? What would be the compliant or recommended way to structure such a partnership? Thanks in advance for any insights!

First, I do not publish my application to the AppStore, but I need to customize a sandbox environment. It seems that sandbox-exec cannot configure entitlements, so I have used some other APIs, such as sandbox_compile_entitlements and sandbox_apply_container. When encountering the entitlement "com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-only", I am unsure how to correctly write sandbox profile to implement this. Can anyone help me?

I've contacted Apple support about this topic, and they've directed me to this forum. I regularly perform Pentests of iOS applications. To properly assess the security of iOS apps, I must bypass given security precaution taken by our customers, such as certificate pinning. According to a number of blog articles, this appears to only be viable on jailbroken devices. If a target application requires a modern version of iOS, the security assessment can't be properly performed. As it should be in Apple's best interest, to offer secure applications on the App Store, what's the recommended approach to allow intrusive pentesting of iOS apps?