General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Privacy Resources Security Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

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.

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

Hey all, Question for the masses.... Does the Yubikey authentication have a OS dependency and it only works with a stable, public OS? Does Azure/Okta/Yubikey beta OS26? My CEO installed iPadOS 26 on his iPad and was not able to authenticate via Yubikey into our company environment. I ran the same scenario on my iPad using iPadOS 26 and I had the same results. Downgrading to iPAdOS doesn't pose these issues. I'm assuming something isn't fine-tuned yet?

I'm trying to add a generic password to the keychain and get back the persistent ID for it, and give it .userPresence access control. Unfortunately, if I include that, I get paramError back from SecItemAdd. Here's the code: @discardableResult func set(username: String, hostname: String?, password: String, comment: String? = nil) throws -> PasswordEntry { // Delete any existing matching password… if let existing = try? getEntry(forUsername: username, hostname: hostname) { try deletePassword(withID: existing.id) } // Store the new password… var label = username if let hostname { label = label + "@" + hostname } var item: [String: Any] = [ kSecClass as String : kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrDescription as String : "TermPass Password", kSecAttrGeneric as String : self.bundleID.data(using: .utf8)!, kSecAttrLabel as String : label, kSecAttrAccount as String : username, kSecValueData as String : password.data(using: .utf8)!, kSecReturnData as String : true, kSecReturnPersistentRef as String: true, ] if self.synchronizable { item[kSecAttrSynchronizable as String] = kCFBooleanTrue! } if let hostname { item[kSecAttrService as String] = hostname } if let comment { item[kSecAttrComment as String] = comment } // Apply access control to require the user to prove presence when // retrieving this password… var error: Unmanaged<CFError>? guard let accessControl = SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(nil, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, .userPresence, &error) else { let cfError = error!.takeUnretainedValue() as Error throw cfError } item[kSecAttrAccessControl as String] = accessControl item[kSecAttrAccessible as String] = kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly var result: AnyObject! let status = SecItemAdd(item as CFDictionary, &result) try Errors.throwIfError(osstatus: status) load() guard let secItem = result as? [String : Any], let persistentRef = secItem[kSecValuePersistentRef as String] as? Data else { throw Errors.malformedItem } let entry = PasswordEntry(id: persistentRef, username: username, hostname: hostname, password: password, comment: comment) return entry } (Note that I also tried it omitting kSecAttrAccessible, but it had no effect.) This code works fine if I omit setting kSecAttrAccessControl. Any ideas? TIA!

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?

Hello, Is there any way to detect if the iOS screen is currently being shared via FaceTime or iPhone Mirroring? Our application relies on this information to help ensure that users are not accessing it from one location while physically being in another.

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!

In one of my apps I would like to find out if users have their device set up to authenticate with their Apple Watch. According to the documentation (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/localauthentication/lapolicy/deviceownerauthenticationwithcompanion) this would be done by evaluating the LAPolicy like this: var error: NSError? var canEvaluateCompanion = false if #available(iOS 18.0, *) { canEvaluateCompanion = context.canEvaluatePolicy(.deviceOwnerAuthenticationWithCompanion, error: &error) } But when I run this on my iPhone 16 Pro (iOS 18.5) with a paired Apple Watch SE 2nd Gen (watchOS 11.5) it always returns false and the error is -1000 "No companion device available". But authentication with my watch is definitely enabled, because I regularly unlock my phone with the watch. Other evaluations of using biometrics just works as expected. Anything that I am missing?

In some crashlog files, there are additional pieces of information related to codesigning. I can understand what most of themcorresponds to (ID, TeamID, Flags, Validation Category). But there is one I have some doubt about: Trust Level. As far as I can tell (or at least what Google and other search engines say), this is an unsigned 32 bit integer that defines the trust level with -1 being untrusted, 0, being basically an Apple executable and other potential bigger values corresponding to App Store binaries, Developer ID signature, etc. Yet, I'm not able to find a corresponding detailed documentation about this on Apple's developer website. I also had a look at the LightweightCodeRequirements "include" file and there does not seem to be such a field available. [Q] Is there any official documentation listing the different values for this trust level value and providing a clear description of what it corresponds to?

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

As I had mentioned earlier, I was facing two issues after the initial update, but I’m happy to inform you that both of those issues have now been resolved. However, after updating to iOS 26.0 (23A5297m), I’ve started experiencing a new issue related to overheating. Since yesterday, my iPhone has been getting extremely hot while charging. It also became very hot after clicking just a few photos. The same heating issue occurred again today during charging. This problem only started after the latest update. Kindly look into this issue and advise on how to resolve it.

Hello, I am currently researching to develop an application where I want to apply the MacOS updates without the password prompt shown to the users. I did some research on this and understand that an MDM solution can apply these patches without user intervention. Are there any other ways we can achieve this? Any leads are much 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?

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 actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. 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 2025-07-28 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.

Recently, we received an user enquiry regarding the inability to perform bookings for the app. After investigation, we found that the issue appears to be caused by the failure of the Apple DeviceCheck service. Based on our checks, approximately 0.01% of requests fail each day (e.g., on 26 June: 6 failures out of 44,544 requests) when using Apple DeviceCheck. Could you please assist in raising the following enquiries with Apple Support? What is the typical failure rate of Apple DeviceCheck? Are there any reliability metrics or benchmarks for its performance? How can the failures be prevented, or is there a recommended retry mechanism to handle such failures? Does the iOS version affect the performance or reliability of Apple DeviceCheck? Are there known issues or limitations with specific iOS versions? How long does the token remain valid, and when should a new one be retrieved? Does using a jailbroken device affect the functionality of Apple DeviceCheck?

Hello, We’ve resumed the migration process after a break. Since my colleague is no longer with us, I had to go through the steps again myself. As before, we’re trying to migrate "Sign In with Apple" users from tenant TENANT_A with client_id=CLIENT_ID_A to tenant TENANT_B with client_id=CLIENT_ID_B I followed the procedure described here: [Apple Developer Documentation](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3159-migrating-sign-in-with-apple-users-for-an-app-transfer – Migrating Sign In with Apple Users, essentially repeating what my coworker previously attempted in coordination with your employee Stephanie. Here’s a summary of the steps and the issue we’re facing: STEP 1 - get authcode for TEAM A curl --location 'https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token' --header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' --data-urlencode 'grant_type=client_credentials' --data-urlencode 'scope=user.migration' --data-urlencode 'client_id=pl.CLIEND_ID_A' --data-urlencode 'client_secret=<TEAM_A_SECRET>' I receive response: { "access_token": "<ACCESS_TOKEN_TEAM_A>", "token_type": "Bearer", "expires_in": 3600 } STEP 2 - get authcode for TEAB B curl --location 'https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token' --header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' --data-urlencode 'grant_type=client_credentials' --data-urlencode 'scope=user.migration' --data-urlencode 'client_id=CLIENT_ID_B' --data-urlencode 'client_secret=<TEAB_B_SECRET>' I receive response: { "access_token":"<ACCESS_TOKEN_TEAB_B>", "token_type": "Bearer", "expires_in": 3600 } STEP 3 - get transfer_sub from TEAM A curl --location 'https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo' --header 'Authorization: Bearer <ACCESS_TOKEN_TEAM_A>' --header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' --data-urlencode 'client_id=CLIENT_ID_A' --data-urlencode 'client_secret=<TEAM_A_SECRET>' --data-urlencode 'sub=USER_SUB_FROM_TEAM_A' --data-urlencode 'target=TENANT_B' I receive response: { "transfer_sub": "USER_SUB_FROM_TEAM_B" } STEP 4 - Team B exchanges transfer identifers curl --location 'https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo' --header 'Authorization: Bearer <ACCESS_TOKEN_TEAM_B' --header 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' --data-urlencode 'client_id=CLIENT_ID_B' --data-urlencode 'client_secret=<TEAM_B_SECRET>' I receive response: { "error": "invalid_request" } We’ve created a new client_id under tenant B and want to migrate users there. However, we skipped the step described in Step 3 of the documentation(https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3159-migrating-sign-in-with-apple-users-for-an-app-transfer#3-Team-A-initiates-app-transfer-to-Team-B), which involves initiating an app transfer. The reason is that this client_id is used solely for web authentication, not for a mobile app, so we don’t have an app to transfer. Based on our analysis and your documentation, it seems this flow only works if the client_id matches across both tenants, which can only be achieved through an app transfer, something we cannot proceed with. Apple previously insisted that we migrate these users, but as shown above, we’re stuck. Is there any alternative flow available, or can you assist us in completing this migration?

Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for your continued support. My name is Sato from atmos. We are currently working with a vendor to implement Apple Sign In as a login method for our app, but we are encountering some issues and would like to contact you about them. The Apple Sign In functionality itself is almost complete, but during verification, email relay is not permitted by Apple when Apple Sign In is used with a non-public email address, making it impossible to complete email relay verification for users. We have reviewed the settings in “/account/resources/services/configure,” checked your FAQ, and explored all other possible solutions within our scope, but the situation remains unchanged. Would it be possible for your team to confirm the cause of the email relay not being permitted? Thank you for your assistance. atmos Sato Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Hello, I want to access the Docker socket API from inside the macOS App Sandbox. The method queries the API using curl with --unix-socket. However, the Sandbox blocks the request, as shown by the log: curl(22299) deny(1) network-outbound /Users/user/.docker/run/docker.sock Outgoing network traffic is generally allowed, but access to the Docker Unix socket is denied. Here’s the code I’m using: private func executeDockerAPI() -> String { let process = Process() let pipe = Pipe() process.executableURL = URL(fileURLWithPath: "/usr/bin/curl") process.arguments = [ "--unix-socket", "/Users/user/.docker/run/docker.sock", "http://127.0.0.1/containers/json" ] process.standardOutput = pipe process.standardError = pipe do { try process.run() process.waitUntilExit() let data = pipe.fileHandleForReading.readDataToEndOfFile() if let output = String(data: data, encoding: .utf8) { return output } else { return "Error while decoding" } } catch { return "Error running command: \(error.localizedDescription)" } } Is there any entitlement or sandbox configuration I’m missing to allow access to /Users/user/.docker/run/docker.sock from inside the sandbox?

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.

Hello. Some of my users are signing in using "Sign in with Apple" and choosing the "Hide My Email" option. As expected, Apple generates a private relay email address. However, emails that we send to these addresses are not being delivered — the users report that they are not receiving anything. We’ve configured our email sending domains in the Apple Developer portal, and all domains have been successfully verified with SPF records marked as OK. Our system is sending the emails as usual, and we're not receiving any bounce-back or error messages. Everything looks fine on our end. Is there something specific we need to configure to ensure emails sent to privaterelay.appleid.com addresses are delivered correctly? Are there any known limitations or additional requirements for using Apple's private relay service? Thank you!