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!

I have 2 basic questions related to Launch Constraints: [Q1] Are Launch Constraints supposed to work when SIP is disabled? From what I'm observing, when SIP is disabled, Launch Constraints (e.g. Launch Constraint Parent Process) are not enforced. I can understand that. But it's a bit confusing considering that the stack diagram in the WWDC 2023 session is placing the 'Environment Constraints' block under SIP, not above. Also the documentation only mentions SIP for the 'is-sip-protected' fact. [Q2] Is the SpawnConstraint key in legacy launchd plist files (i.e. inside /Library/Launch(Agents|Daemons)) officially supported? From what I'm seeing, it seems to be working when SIP is enabled. But the WWDC session and the documentation don't really talk about this case.

Can someone please guide me on the entire process of integrating ads in an IOS application using google's admob sdk? Not related to code but things related to Apple's privacy policy. Which options do need to select or specify in my app profile's privacy policy (identifier) section?

we can get token but when send to verity from apple. it reture Error : {"responseCode":"400","responseMessage":"Missing or incorrectly formatted device token payload"}

In my app, I use SecItem to store some data in the Keychain. I’d like to know — when a user sets up a new iPhone and transfers data from the old device, will those Keychain items be migrated or synced to the new device?

Issue Summary I'm encountering a DCError.invalidInput error when calling DCAppAttestService.shared.generateAssertion() in my App Attest implementation. This issue affects only a small subset of users - the majority of users can successfully complete both attestation and assertion flows without any issues. According to Apple Engineer feedback, there might be a small implementation issue in my code. Key Observations Success Rate: ~95% of users complete the flow successfully Failure Pattern: The remaining ~5% consistently fail at assertion generation Key Length: Logs show key length of 44 characters for both successful and failing cases Consistency: Users who experience the error tend to experience it consistently Platform: Issue observed across different iOS versions and device types Environment iOS App Attest implementation Using DCAppAttestService for both attestation and assertion Custom relying party server communication Issue affects ~5% of users consistently Key Implementation Details 1. Attestation Flow (Working) The attestation process works correctly: // Generate key and attest (successful for all users) self.attestService.generateKey { keyId, keyIdError in guard keyIdError == nil, let keyId = keyId else { return completionHandler(.failure(.dcError(keyIdError as! DCError))) } // Note: keyId length is consistently 44 characters for both successful and failing users // Attest key with Apple servers self.attestKey(keyId, clientData: clientData) { result in // ... verification with RP server // Key is successfully stored for ALL users (including those who later fail at assertion) } } 2. Assertion Flow (Failing for ~5% of Users with invalidInput) The assertion generation fails for a consistent subset of users: // Get assertion data from RP server self.assertRelyingParty.getAssertionData(kid, with: data) { result in switch result { case .success(let receivedData): let session = receivedData.session let clientData = receivedData.clientData let hash = clientData.toSHA256() // SHA256 hash of client data // THIS CALL FAILS WITH invalidInput for ~5% of users // Same keyId (44 chars) that worked for attestation self.attestService.generateAssertion(kid, clientDataHash: hash) { assertion, err in guard err == nil, let assertion = assertion else { // Error: DCError.invalidInput if let err = err as? DCError, err.code == .invalidKey { return reattestAndAssert(.invalidKey, completionHandler) } else { return completionHandler(.failure(.dcError(err as! DCError))) } } // ... verification logic } } } 3. Client Data Structure Client data JSON structure (identical for successful and failing users): // For attestation (works for all users) let clientData = ["challenge": receivedData.challenge] // For assertion (fails for ~5% of users with same structure) var clientData = ["challenge": receivedData.challenge] if let data = data { // Additional data for assertion clientData["account"] = data["account"] clientData["amount"] = data["amount"] } 4. SHA256 Hash Implementation extension Data { public func toSHA256() -> Data { return Data(SHA256.hash(data: self)) } } 5. Key Storage Implementation Using UserDefaults for key storage (works consistently for all users): private let keyStorageTag = "app-attest-keyid" func setKey(_ keyId: String) -> Result<(), KeyStorageError> { UserDefaults.standard.set(keyId, forKey: keyStorageTag) return .success(()) } func getKey() -> Result<String?, KeyStorageError> { let keyId = UserDefaults.standard.string(forKey: keyStorageTag) return .success(keyId) } Questions User-Specific Factors: Since this affects only ~5% of users consistently, could there be device-specific, iOS version-specific, or account-specific factors that cause invalidInput? Key State Validation: Is there any way to validate the state of an attested key before calling generateAssertion()? The key length (44 chars) appears normal for both successful and failing cases. Keychain vs UserDefaults: Could the issue be related to using UserDefaults instead of Keychain for key storage? Though this works for 95% of users. Race Conditions: Could there be subtle race conditions or timing issues that only affect certain users/devices? Error Recovery: Is there a recommended way to handle this error? Should we attempt re-attestation for these users? Additional Context & Debugging Attempts Consistent Failure: Users who experience this error typically experience it on every attempt Key Validation: Both successful and failing users have identical key formats (44 character strings) Device Diversity: Issue observed across different device models and iOS versions Server Logs: Our server successfully provides challenges and processes attestation for all users Re-attestation: Forcing re-attestation sometimes resolves the issue temporarily, but it often recurs The fact that 95% of users succeed with identical code suggests there might be some environmental or device-specific factor that we're not accounting for. Any insights into what could cause invalidInput for a subset of users would be invaluable.

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 Apple Team and Community, We've encountered a sudden and widespread failure with the App Attest service starting today across multiple production apps and regions. The previously working implementation is now consistently returning the following error on iOS: The operation couldn’t be completed. (com.apple.devicecheck.error error 4.) (serverUnavailable) Despite the green status on Apple’s System Status page, this appears to be a backend issue—possibly infrastructure or DNS-related. Notably: The issue affects multiple apps. It is reproducible across different geographies. No code changes were made recently to the attestation logic. We previously reported a similar concern in this thread: App Attest Attestation Failing, but this new occurrence seems unrelated to any client-side cause. Update: An Apple engineer in this thread(https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/782987) confirmed that the issue was due to a temporary DNS problem and has now been resolved. Can anyone else confirm seeing this today? Any insights from Apple would be appreciated to ensure continued stability. Thanks!

Hi, I'm looking at adding App Attest to an app, and I think I understand the mechanics of the attestation process, but I'm having trouble figuring out how development and testing are supposed to work. Two main questions: The "App Attest Environment" -- the documentation says that attestation requests made in the .development sandbox environment don't affect the app's risk metrics, but I'm not sure how to actually use this sandbox. My understanding is that one of the things App Attest does is to ensure that your app has been appropriately signed by the App Store, so it knows that it hasn't been tampered with. But the docs say that App Store builds (and Test Flight and Developer Enterprise Program) always use the .production environment. Does App Attest actually work for local developer-build apps if you have this entitlement set? Presumably only on hardware devices since it requires the Secure Enclave? Does our headend have to do something different when verifying the public key and subsequent attested requests for an app that's using the .development sandbox? The docs do mention that a headend server should potentially track two keys per device/user pair so that it can have a production and development key. How does the headend know if a key is from the sandbox environment? Thanks!

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 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?

In the hopes of saving others time, the updated demo project (i.e. the new Shiny) can be found from the video 'Resources' section under 'Performing fast account creation with passkeys'. The beta documentation can also be found from there. All of the new functionality is available only on *OS 26 at this time.

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.

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!

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 &lt;- 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

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 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!

We’ve identified an issue in our app where, upon clicking the "Call Customer Center" button, users are unexpectedly shown a logo and message option on a native pop-up window. However, this wasn't the case before, and it should only display a phone number to dial, which was given inside our code. This is incorrect and misleading for our users, as: We are a Canadian-based service and have no affiliation with US messaging chat. The messaging feature was never enabled or intended for our app. Our app should only initiate a phone call to our customer support center — no messages or branding from third parties should appear

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!

Hello! I do know apple does not support electron, but I do not think this is an electron related issue, rather something I am doing wrong. I'd be curious to find out why the keychain login is happenning after my app has been signed with the bundleid, entitlements, and provision profile. Before using the provision profile I did not have this issue, but it is needed for assessments feature. I'm trying to ship an Electron / macOS desktop app that must run inside Automatic Assessment Configuration. The build signs and notarizes successfully, and assessment mode itself starts on Apple-arm64 machines, but every single launch shows the system dialog that asks to allow access to the "login" keychain. The dialog appears on totally fresh user accounts, so it's not tied to anything I store there. It has happened ever since I have added the provision profile to the electron builder to finally test assessment out. entitlements.inherit.plist keys &lt;key&gt;com.apple.security.cs.allow-jit&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;com.apple.security.cs.allow-unsigned-executable-memory&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; entitlements.plist keys: &lt;key&gt;com.apple.security.cs.allow-jit&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;com.apple.security.cs.allow-unsigned-executable-memory&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;com.apple.developer.automatic-assessment-configuration&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; I'm honestly not sure whether the keychain is expected, but I have tried a lot of entitlement combinations to get rid of It. Electron builder is doing the signing, and we manually use the notary tool to notarize but probably irrelevant. mac: { notarize: false, target: 'dir', entitlements: 'buildResources/entitlements.mac.plist', provisioningProfile: 'buildResources/xyu.provisionprofile', entitlementsInherit: 'buildResources/entitlements.mac.inherit.plist', Any lead is welcome!