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

I have two applications, and I recently decided to add the Apple Sign In feature. Initially, I configured it for one of the apps as the Primary ID for this feature. Everything worked well, and I decided to add it to the second app. I made a mistake and used the First app as Primary ID using the "Group with an existing primary App ID" flag. Now, when I sign in using the second app, I don't see it in the list of apps in iPhone Settings for Apple Sign In; I only see the primary app. And with that, I no longer see a prompt for sharing/hiding email, and I am unable to revoke credentials correctly. I decided to change the Second app's Sign-in config and set it as the Primary ID for the feature. I was hoping to get two apps independent for the SignIn. However, it doesn't seem to make a difference. The second app behaves the same way, as long as the first app used SignIn, the second one always thinks that the user has already used that feature and never shows the correct prompt. Is there something I missed after changing the Configuration?

Since a few days, we are hitting AuthorizationError 1000 / 1001 whenever we try to use Sign in with Apple for a new app. We have added entitlements to the app in both release and debug, and setup the services id. Many other devs are complaining about the same issue lately, and it's possible to reproduce on a fresh app id, see this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/flutterhelp/comments/1lf6kmq/sign_in_with_apple_signup_not_completed

Hi everyone, I have a macOS application that uses Screen Recording permission. I build my app with an adhoc signature (not with a Developer ID certificate). For example, in version 1.0.0, I grant Screen Recording permission to the app. Later, I build a new version (1.1.0) and update by dragging the new app into the Applications folder to overwrite the previous one. However, when I launch the updated app, it asks for Screen Recording permission again, even though I have already granted it for the previous version. I don’t fully understand how TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control) determines when permissions need to be re-granted. Can anyone explain how TCC manages permissions for updated builds, especially with adhoc signatures? Is there any way to retain permissions between updates, or any best practices to avoid having users re-authorize permissions after every update?

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

I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. There have been substantial changes in this space recently. While much of this is now covered in the official docs (r. 92322409), I’ve updated this post to go into all the gory details. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the App & System Services > Core OS topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if your question is about app group containers, also include Files and Storage. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony There are two styles of app group ID: iOS-style app group IDs start with group., for example, group.eskimo1.test. macOS-style app group IDs start with your Team ID, for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. This difference has been the source of numerous weird problems over the years. Starting in Feb 2025, iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on macOS for all product types [1]. If you’re writing new code that uses app groups, use an iOS-style app group ID. If you have existing code that uses a macOS-style app group ID, consider how you might transition to the iOS style. IMPORTANT The Feb 2025 changes aren’t tied to an OS release but rather to a Developer website update. For more on this, see Feb 2025 Changes, below. [1] If your product is a standalone executable, like a daemon or agent, wrap it in an app-like structure, as explained in Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement. iOS-Style App Group IDs An iOS-style app group ID has the following features: It starts with the group. prefix, for example, group.eskimo1.test. You allocate it on the Developer website. This assigns the app group ID to your team. You then claim access to it by listing it in the App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. That claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile [1]. The Developer website will only let you include your team’s app group IDs in your profile. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. iOS-style app group IDs originated on iOS with iOS 3.0. They’ve always been supported on iOS’s child platforms (iPadOS, tvOS, visionOS, and watchOS). On the Mac: They’ve been supported by Mac Catalyst since that technology was introduced. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Starting in Feb 2025, they’re supported for other Mac products. [1] Strictly speaking macOS does not require that, but if your claim is not authorised by a profile then you might run into other problems. See Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. macOS-Style App Group IDs A macOS-style app group ID has the following features: It should start with your Team ID [1], for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. It can’t be explicitly allocated on the Developer website. Code that isn’t sandboxed doesn’t need to claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. [2] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted on macOS, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile [3]. However, if you claim an app group ID that’s not authorised in some way, you might run into problems. More on that later in this post. If you submit an app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense, that is, they either start with your Team ID (macOS style) or are assigned to your team (iOS style). [1] This is “should” because, historically, macOS has not actually required it. However, that’s now changing, with things like app group container protection. [2] This was true prior to macOS 15. It may still technically be true in macOS 15 and later, but the most important thing, access to the app group container, requires the entitlement because of app group container protection. [3] Technically it’s a validation-required entitlement, something that we’ll come back to in the Entitlements-Validated Flag section. Feb 2025 Changes On 21 Feb 2025 we rolled out a change to the Developer website that completes the support for iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Specifically, it’s now possible to create a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group ID. Note This change doesn’t affect Mac Catalyst or iOS Apps on Mac, which have always been able to use iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Prior to this change it was possible to use an iOS-style app group ID on the Mac but that might result in some weird behaviour. Later sections of this post describe some of those problems. Of course, that information is now only of historical interest because, if you’re using an iOS-style app group, you can and should authorise that use with a provisioning profile. We also started seeding Xcode 16.3, which has since been release. This is aware of the Developer website change, and its Signing & Capabilities editor actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. Note This Xcode behaviour is the only option for iOS and its child platforms. With Xcode 16.3, it’s now the default for macOS as well. If you have existing project, enable this behaviour using the Register App Groups build setting. Finally, we updated a number of app group documentation pages, including App Groups entitlement and Configuring app groups. Crossing the Streams In some circumstances you might need to have a single app that accesses both an iOS- and a macOS-style app group. For example: You have a macOS app. You want to migrate to an iOS-style app group ID, perhaps because you want to share an app group container with a Mac Catalyst app. But you also need to access existing content in a container identified by a macOS-style app group ID. Historically this caused problems (FB16664827) but, as of Jun 2025, this is fully supported (r. 148552377). When the Developer website generates a Mac provisioning profile for an App ID with the App Groups capability, it automatically adds TEAM_ID.* to the list of app group IDs authorised by that profile (where TEAM_ID is your Team ID). This allows the app to claim access to every iOS-style app group ID associated with the App ID and any macOS-style app group IDs for that team. This helps in two circumstances: It avoids any Mac App Store Connect submission problems, because App Store Connect can see that the app’s profile authorises its use of all the it app group IDs it claims access to. Outside of App Store — for example, when you directly distribute an app using Developer ID signing — you no longer have to rely on macOS granting implicit access to macOS-style app group IDs. Rather, such access is explicitly authorised by your profile. That ensures that your entitlements remain validated, as discussed in the Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. A Historical Interlude These different styles of app group IDs have historical roots: On iOS, third-party apps have always used provisioning profiles, and thus the App Groups entitlement is restricted just like any other entitlement. On macOS, support for app groups was introduced before macOS had general support for provisioning profiles [1], and thus the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted. The unrestricted nature of this entitlement poses two problems. The first is accidental collisions. How do you prevent folks from accidentally using an app group ID that’s in use by some other developer? On iOS this is easy: The Developer website assigns each app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. macOS achieved a similar result by using the Team ID as a prefix. The second problem is malicious reuse. How do you prevent a Mac app from accessing the app group containers of some other team? Again, this isn’t an issue on iOS because the App Groups entitlement is restricted. On macOS the solution was for the Mac App Store to prevent you from publishing an app that used an app group ID that’s used by another team. However, this only works for Mac App Store apps. Directly distributed apps were free to access app group containers of any other app. That was considered acceptable back when the Mac App Store was first introduced. That’s no longer the case, which is why macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. See App Group Container Protection, below. [1] I’m specifically talking about provisioning profiles for directly distributed apps, that is, apps using Developer ID signing. Entitlements-Validated Flag The fact that the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted on macOS is, when you think about it, a little odd. The purpose of entitlements is to gate access to functionality. If an entitlement isn’t restricted, it’s not much of a gate! For most unrestricted entitlements that’s not a problem. Specifically, for both the App Sandbox and Hardened Runtime entitlements, those are things you opt in to, so macOS is happy to accept the entitlement at face value. After all, if you want to cheat you can just not opt in [1]. However, this isn’t the case for the App Groups entitlement, which actually gates access to functionality. Dealing with this requires macOS to walk a fine line between security and compatibility. Part of that solution is the entitlements-validated flag. When a process runs an executable, macOS checks its entitlements. There are two categories: Restricted entitlements must be authorised by a provisioning profile. If your process runs an executable that claims a restricted entitlement that’s not authorised by a profile, the system traps. Unrestricted entitlements don’t have to be authorised by a provisioning profile; they can be used by any code at any time. However, the App Groups entitlement is a special type of unrestricted entitlement called a validation-required entitlement. If a process runs an executable that claims a validation-required entitlement and that claim is not authorised by a profile, the system allows the process to continue running but clears its entitlements-validated flag. Some subsystems gate functionality on the entitlements-validated flag. For example, the data protection keychain uses entitlements as part of its access control model, but refuses to honour those entitlements if the entitlement-validated flag has been cleared. Note If you’re curious about this flag, use the procinfo subcommand of launchctl to view it. For example: % sudo launchctl procinfo `pgrep Test20230126` … code signing info = valid … entitlements validated … If the flag has been cleared, this line will be missing from the code signing info section. Historically this was a serious problem because it prevented you from creating an app that uses both app groups and the data protection keychain [2] (r. 104859788). Fortunately that’s no longer an issue because the Developer website now lets you include the App Groups entitlement in macOS provisioning profiles. [1] From the perspective of macOS checking entitlements at runtime. There are other checks: The App Sandbox is mandatory for Mac App Store apps, but that’s checked when you upload the app to App Store Connect. Directly distributed apps must be notarised to pass Gatekeeper, and the notary service requires that all executables enable the hardened runtime. [2] See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain a historical oddity associated with keychain access. The Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps article says: Application groups When you collect related apps into an application group using the App Groups entitlement, they share access to a group container, and gain the ability to message each other in certain ways. You can use app group names as keychain access group names, without adding them to the Keychain Access Groups entitlement. On iOS this makes a lot of sense: The App Groups entitlement is a restricted entitlement on iOS. The Developer website assigns each iOS-style app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. The required group. prefix means that these keychain access groups can’t collide with other keychain access groups, which all start with an App ID prefix (there’s also Apple-only keychain access groups that start with other prefixes, like apple). However, this didn’t work on macOS [1] because the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted there. However, with the Feb 2025 changes it should now be possible to use an iOS-style app group ID as a keychain access group on macOS. Note I say “should” because I’ve not actually tried it (-: Keep in mind that standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on all platforms, using the restricted Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for Mac Catalyst apps and iOS Apps on Mac. Not Entirely Unsatisfied When you launch a Mac app that uses app groups you might see this log entry: type: error time: 10:41:35.858009+0000 process: taskgated-helper subsystem: com.apple.ManagedClient category: ProvisioningProfiles message: com.example.apple-samplecode.Test92322409: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups Note The exact format of that log entry, and the circumstances under which it’s generated, varies by platform. On macOS 13.0.1 I was able to generate it by running a sandboxed app that claims a macOS-style app group ID in the App Groups entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. It means that the App Groups entitlement claims an entitlement that’s not authorised by a provisioning profile. On iOS this would trap, but on macOS the system allows the process to continue running. It does, however, clear the entitlements-validate flag. See Entitlements-Validated Flag for an in-depth discussion of this. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to authorise your app group ID claims with a provisioning profile. If there’s some reason you can’t do that, watch out for potential problems with: The data protection keychain — See the discussion of that in the Entitlements-Validated Flag and App Groups and the Keychain sections, both above. App group container protection — See App Group Container Protection, below. App Group Container Protection macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. To access an app group container without user intervention: Claim access to the app group by listing its ID in the App Groups entitlement. Locate the container by calling the containerURL(forSecurityApplicationGroupIdentifier:) method. Ensure that at least one of the following criteria are met: Your app is deployed via the Mac App Store (A). Or via TestFlight when running on macOS 15.1 or later (B). Or the app group ID starts with your app’s Team ID (C). Or your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D) [1]. If your app doesn’t follow these rules, the system prompts the user to approve its access to the container. If granted, that consent applies only for the duration of that app instance. For more on this, see: The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15 Release Notes The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15.1 Release Notes WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy, starting at 12:23 The above criteria mean that you rarely run into the app group authorisation prompt. If you encounter a case where that happens, feel free to start a thread here on DevForums. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Note Prior to the Feb 2025 change, things generally worked out fine when you app was deployed but you might’ve run into problems during development. That’s no longer the case. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Revision History 2025-08-12 Added a reference to the Register App Groups build setting. 2025-07-28 Updated the Crossing the Streams section for the Jun 2025 change. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-04-16 Rewrote the document now that iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on the Mac. Changed the title from App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight! to App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony 2025-02-25 Fixed the Xcode version number mentioned in yesterday’s update. 2025-02-24 Added a quick update about the iOS-style app group IDs on macOS issue. 2024-11-05 Further clarified app group container protection. Reworked some other sections to account for this new reality. 2024-10-29 Clarified the points in App Group Container Protection. 2024-10-23 Fleshed out the discussion of app group container protection on macOS 15. 2024-09-04 Added information about app group container protection on macOS 15. 2023-01-31 Renamed the Not Entirely Unsatisfactory section to Not Entirely Unsatisfied. Updated it to describe the real impact of that log message. 2022-12-12 First posted.

Hey there, im getting Sign up not complete! even with the official template https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationservices/implementing-user-authentication-with-sign-in-with-apple my developer account is recently renewed, which it has expired for a bit i am using automatic managed signing I have a feel something went wrong my apple developer account id, and also this cause me getting invalid client when sign in with app on web app.

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?

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

Confirmation on "Sign in with Apple JS" Web Implementation Compatibility Hello Developers We are trying to implement "Sign in with Apple JS" on our e-commerce website, which is built on a SaaS platform called Ticimax in Turkey. Our platform provider (Ticimax) claims that a web-based implementation of "Sign in with Apple" is not currently possible. They state this is due to "Apple's browser security policies" that prevent consistent and secure support across all major browsers, particularly Safari with its privacy features. Could you please confirm if there are any fundamental security policies or technical restrictions imposed by Apple that would prevent a standard, secure implementation of "Sign in with Apple JS" on a typical e-commerce website? We know many global websites use this feature successfully. We need to know if our provider's claim has a technical basis from Apple's perspective, or if this is a standard implementation challenge that developers are expected to handle (e.g., using pop-ups instead of redirects to comply with ITP). Any official clarification or documentation you can provide on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hello. I have issue with implementing "Sign in with Apple" on my website. As folow, I have created: App ID identifier: com.livnobus.app (G2F5N5UHYZ) Service ID identifier: com.livnobus.client (B25ZN8P84U) with option enabled "Sign in with Apple" and configuration (Primary App ID and Webiste URLs) Key ID: 43N8XKUW7S with option enabled "Sign in with Apple" and configuration (Primary App ID and Grouped App Ids) When I click "Sign in with Apple" on my website (https://dev.livnobus.com/auth/login), system redirect me to https://appleid.apple.com/ and error show "invalid_client". Redirect URL on my web site is: https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?client_id=com.livnobus.client&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fdev.livnobus.com%2Fauth%2Fapple%2Fcallback&scope=name%20email&response_type=code&response_mode=form_post&state=eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO&nonce=e7c7a242-1977-47ea-9013-98820c24bfba.eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO There was old Service ID identifier com.livnobus.app-client, for which I lost private KEY, so I have created new one: com.livnobus.client With old Service ID com.livnobus.app-client, https://appleid.apple.com/ shows me Apple form for sign in, but with new Service ID com.livnobus.client there is error "invalid_client" https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?client_id=com.livnobus.app-client&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fdev.livnobus.com%2Fauth%2Fapple%2Fcallback&scope=name%20email&response_type=code&response_mode=form_post&state=eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO&nonce=e7c7a242-1977-47ea-9013-98820c24bfba.eGAgdpLrvskJc26RbTizc9TGwxnL6KAEJOf68pmO These changes I have made last Friday, and since then I can't use "Sign in with Apple" on my website. Thanks!

Hey folks, I'm seeing an issue where my iOS app is getting an "unknown" error when US users try to sign in with Apple. It works fine for users in other countries like the UK, Singapore, and Taiwan. Could it be related to my developer account not being based in the US? Or have I missed something in my settings? Thanks in advance!

For security reasons, my application needs to prohibit external devices. If it is determined that the current phone is connected to any external devices, including non MFI authenticated devices, the app will exit. Please tell me how to do it? Thanks for your help.

Hi all, I’m building a password manager app for iOS. The app implements an ASCredentialProviderExtension and has the entitlement com.apple.developer.authentication-services.autofill-credential-provider. From a UX perspective, I’d like to help users enable my app under: Settings → General → AutoFill & Passwords What I’ve observed: Calling UIApplication.openSettingsURLString only opens my app’s own Settings page, not the AutoFill list. Some apps (e.g. Google Authenticator) appear to redirect users directly into the AutoFill Passwords & Passkeys screen when you tap “Enable AutoFill.” 1Password goes even further: when you tap “Enable” in 1Password App, it shows a system pop-up, prompts for Face ID, and then enables 1Password as the AutoFill provider without the user ever leaving the app. Questions: Is there a public API or entitlement that allows apps to deep-link users directly to the AutoFill Passwords & Passkeys screen? Is there a supported API to programmatically request that my app be enabled as an AutoFill provider (similar to what 1Password seems to achieve)? If not, what is the recommended approach for guiding users through this flow? Thanks in advance!

We are developing an app that uses Authentication Services to authenticate users. According to the documentation, this framework will open the default web browser if it supports auth session handling, and Safari otherwise. This is not entirely true, and users will be frustrated! macOS version: Sequoia 15.5; Safari version: 18.5. When: The default browser is not Safari, and supports auth session handling (Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge as examples); and - The Safari app is already running; The auth flow will: Present the confirmation dialog box with the default browser icon. Good! Open a Safari window, instead of the default browser's one. Bad! Respond with "User Cancelled" error to the app, after making the end user believe the auth was good. Very Bad!! If the app retries the auth session, the default browser window will open as expected, and it will work as expected. However, requiring users to authenticate twice is a very bad users experience... This issue does not reproduce, when either: Safari is not running at the moment of auth session start; The default browser does not support auth session handling; or - Safari is the default browser. Fellow developers, be warned! Apple engineers, feedback #18426939 is waiting for you. Cheers!

I added a feature to my app that retrieves only app settings (no personal data) from my API hosted on Cloudflare Workers. The app does not send, collect, track, or share any user data, and I do not store or process any personal information. Technical details such as IP address, user agent, and device information may be automatically transmitted as part of the internet protocol when the request is made, but my app does not log or use them. Cloudflare may collect this information. Question: Does this count as “data collection” for App Store Connect purposes, or can I select “No Data Collected”?

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.

Greetings, We are struggling to implement device binding according to your documentation. We are generation a nonce value in backend like this: public static String generateNonce(int byteLength) { byte[] randomBytes = new byte[byteLength]; new SecureRandom().nextBytes(randomBytes); return Base64.getUrlEncoder().withoutPadding().encodeToString(randomBytes); } And our mobile client implement the attestation flow like this: @implementation AppAttestModule - (NSData *)sha256FromString:(NSString *)input { const char *str = [input UTF8String]; unsigned char result[CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; CC_SHA256(str, (CC_LONG)strlen(str), result); return [NSData dataWithBytes:result length:CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; } RCT_EXPORT_MODULE(); RCT_EXPORT_METHOD(generateAttestation:(NSString *)nonce resolver:(RCTPromiseResolveBlock)resolve rejecter:(RCTPromiseRejectBlock)reject) { if (@available(iOS 14.0, *)) { DCAppAttestService *service = [DCAppAttestService sharedService]; if (![service isSupported]) { reject(@"not_supported", @"App Attest is not supported on this device.", nil); return; } NSData *nonceData = [self sha256FromString:nonce]; NSUserDefaults *defaults = [NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults]; NSString *savedKeyId = [defaults stringForKey:@"AppAttestKeyId"]; NSString *savedAttestation = [defaults stringForKey:@"AppAttestAttestationData"]; void (^resolveWithValues)(NSString *keyId, NSData *assertion, NSString *attestationB64) = ^(NSString *keyId, NSData *assertion, NSString *attestationB64) { NSString *assertionB64 = [assertion base64EncodedStringWithOptions:0]; resolve(@{ @"nonce": nonce, @"signature": assertionB64, @"deviceType": @"IOS", @"attestationData": attestationB64 ?: @"", @"keyId": keyId }); }; void (^handleAssertion)(NSString *keyId, NSString *attestationB64) = ^(NSString *keyId, NSString *attestationB64) { [service generateAssertion:keyId clientDataHash:nonceData completionHandler:^(NSData *assertion, NSError *assertError) { if (!assertion) { reject(@"assertion_error", @"Failed to generate assertion", assertError); return; } resolveWithValues(keyId, assertion, attestationB64); }]; }; if (savedKeyId && savedAttestation) { handleAssertion(savedKeyId, savedAttestation); } else { [service generateKeyWithCompletionHandler:^(NSString *keyId, NSError *keyError) { if (!keyId) { reject(@"keygen_error", @"Failed to generate key", keyError); return; } [service attestKey:keyId clientDataHash:nonceData completionHandler:^(NSData *attestation, NSError *attestError) { if (!attestation) { reject(@"attestation_error", @"Failed to generate attestation", attestError); return; } NSString *attestationB64 = [attestation base64EncodedStringWithOptions:0]; [defaults setObject:keyId forKey:@"AppAttestKeyId"]; [defaults setObject:attestationB64 forKey:@"AppAttestAttestationData"]; [defaults synchronize]; handleAssertion(keyId, attestationB64); }]; }]; } } else { reject(@"ios_version", @"App Attest requires iOS 14+", nil); } } @end For validation we are extracting the nonce from the certificate like this: private static byte[] extractNonceFromAttestationCert(X509Certificate certificate) throws IOException { byte[] extensionValue = certificate.getExtensionValue("1.2.840.113635.100.8.2"); if (Objects.isNull(extensionValue)) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("Apple App Attest nonce extension not found in certificate."); } ASN1Primitive extensionPrimitive = ASN1Primitive.fromByteArray(extensionValue); ASN1OctetString outerOctet = ASN1OctetString.getInstance(extensionPrimitive); ASN1Sequence sequence = (ASN1Sequence) ASN1Primitive.fromByteArray(outerOctet.getOctets()); ASN1TaggedObject taggedObject = (ASN1TaggedObject) sequence.getObjectAt(0); ASN1OctetString nonceOctet = ASN1OctetString.getInstance(taggedObject.getObject()); return nonceOctet.getOctets(); } And for the verification we are using this method: private OptionalMethodResult<Void> verifyNonce(X509Certificate certificate, String expectedNonce, byte[] authData) { byte[] expectedNonceHash; try { byte[] nonceBytes = MessageDigest.getInstance("SHA-256").digest(expectedNonce.getBytes()); byte[] combined = ByteBuffer.allocate(authData.length + nonceBytes.length).put(authData).put(nonceBytes).array(); expectedNonceHash = MessageDigest.getInstance("SHA-256").digest(combined); } catch (NoSuchAlgorithmException e) { log.error("Error while validations iOS attestation: {}", e.getMessage(), e); return OptionalMethodResult.ofError(deviceBindError.getChallengeNotMatchedError()); } byte[] actualNonceFromCert; try { actualNonceFromCert = extractNonceFromAttestationCert(certificate); } catch (Exception e) { log.error("Error while extracting nonce from certificate: {}", e.getMessage(), e); return OptionalMethodResult.ofError(deviceBindError.getChallengeNotMatchedError()); } if (!Arrays.equals(expectedNonceHash, actualNonceFromCert)) { return OptionalMethodResult.ofError(deviceBindError.getChallengeNotMatchedError()); } return OptionalMethodResult.empty(); } But the values did not matched. What are we doing wrong here? Thanks.

Hi everyone, I'm developing an iOS app using the AppsFlyer SDK. I understand that starting with iOS 14.5, if a user denies the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) permission, we are not allowed to access the IDFA or perform cross-app tracking. However, I’d like to clarify which in-app events are still legally and technically safe to send when the user denies ATT permission. Specifically, I want to know: Is it acceptable to send events like onboarding_completed, paywall_viewed, subscription_started, subscribe, subscribe_price, or app_opened if they are not linked to IDFA or any form of user tracking? Would sending such internal behavioral events (used purely for SKAdNetwork performance tracking or in-app analytics) violate Apple’s privacy policy if no device identifiers are attached? Additionally, if these events are sent in fully anonymous form (i.e., not associated with IDFA, user ID, email, or any identifiable metadata), does Apple still consider this a privacy concern? In other words, can onboarding_completed, paywall_viewed, subsribe, subscribe_price, etc., be sent in anonymous format without violating ATT policies? Are there any official Apple guidelines or best practices that outline what types of events are considered compliant in the absence of ATT consent? My goal is to remain 100% compliant with Apple’s policies while still analyzing meaningful user behavior to improve the in-app experience. Any clarification or pointers to documentation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Hello Developers, I have ran into a problem while sending mail to apple private relay email. We have built a mobile application where user can sign up through apple and they can sign up using hide-my-email feature. Which provides private relay address for us. Now we want to communicate with them using private relay mail address. The technology we are using to send emails are amazon SES, have done SPF, DMIK, DMARC and added domains in apple identity services for mail communication, passed an SPF check as well. But still mail is not getting delivered what am i doing wrong or apple doesn't support third party apps for sending emails to private relay? Is there any other way to achieve this please let me know Using the same body as attached in image is working fine for rest emails.