I am currently working on Fraud System Detection that will be used by one of the financial institutions. Those tools are related to ensuring user security. Our goal is to identify features that can trigger an early warning system for attempted fraud. We have identified three uncertain variables: Whether the user is having a conversation while using our app, Whether the user has specific screen sharing apps on their phone, Whether the user has enabled VPN connection. Here my doubts appear: Can we check the presence of a telephone conversation if we are not a VOIP application? Can we check the presence of installed programs using Universal Link and canOpenUrl(_:) method? Can we read "SCOPED" key from CFNetworkCopySystemProxySettings() dictionary? I will be glad for any advice and help.

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

I’m having an issue with my Credential Provider Extension for passkey registration. On the browser I click on registration, in IOS i can select my App for passkey registration with a continue button. Wenn I click the continue button the prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration:) function is called but the MainInterface is not shown —it only appears when I click the continue button a second time. Here’s a simplified version of my prepareInterface method: override func prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration registrationRequest: ASCredentialRequest) { guard let request = registrationRequest as? ASPasskeyCredentialRequest, let identity = request.credentialIdentity as? ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity else { extensionContext.cancelRequest(withError: ASExtensionError(.failed)) return } self.identity = identity self.request = request log.info("prepareInterface called successfully") } In viewDidAppear, I trigger FaceID authentication and complete the registration process if register is true. However, the UI only shows after a second “Continue” tap. Has anyone encountered this behavior or have suggestions on how to ensure the UI appears immediately after prepareInterface is called? Could it be a timing or lifecycle issue with the extension context? Thanks for any insights!

Hi , I have a requirement like, Develop an app for iPad and app uses .net core apis. App will be in kiosk mode, and app doesn't have any type of authentication even OTP also. As the apis will be publishing to all over internet, how can we achieve security to apis? Kindly provide suggestions for this implementation

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.

Hello, I have now been looking for a while of a way to get the number of MAU of my appstore app through the apple connect API. I ended up thinking i might actually be able to compute it with https://developer.apple.com/documentation/analytics-reports/app-sessions this App Sessions report. My question is thus the following : Does the Sessions number actually gives me the number of all sessions, or only those from opt-in users ? It says that it is based on users who have agreed to share their data with Apple and developers, so I was wondering whether or not through the use of the methods described on this page https://developer.apple.com/documentation/analytics-reports/privacy, it meant that the data was anonymized/encoded such that it would be close to the actual Sessions number, or if it meant it only counted opt-in users to compute the Sessions numer. Thank you for your time, I hope I made myself as clear as possible. Ask me if you want more precisions or if you don't understand my question.

I'm looking for confirmation on the security aspects of fdesetup authrestart when used on a FileVault-enabled Mac. As I understand it, this command temporarily stores the decryption key in memory to allow the system to restart without requiring manual entry of the FileVault password. However, I have a few security-related concerns: Storage of the Decryption Key: Where exactly is the key stored during an authenticated restart? Is it protected within the Secure Enclave (for Apple Silicon Macs) or the T2 Security Chip on Intel Macs? Key Lifetime & Wiping: At what point is the decryption key erased from memory? Does it persist in any form after the system has fully rebooted? Protection Against Physical Attacks: If an attacker gains physical access to the machine before the restart completes, is there any possibility that they could extract the decryption key from memory? Cold Boot Attack Resistance: Is there any risk that advanced forensic techniques (such as freezing RAM to retain data) could be used to recover the decryption key after issuing an authenticated restart? Malware Resistance: Could a compromised system (e.g., root access by an attacker) intercept or misuse the decryption key before the restart? I understand that on Apple Silicon and T2-equipped Macs, FileVault keys are tied to hardware-based encryption, making unauthorized access difficult. However, I'd like to confirm whether Authenticated Restart introduces any new risks compared to a standard FileVault-enabled boot process.

Wondering if others have encountered this issue with PSSO 2.0. We are observing that if, after registration, a user changes their IDP password, they may be prompted for their previous password in order to unlock the Keychain. We are trying to determine if this is expected behavior or if there is a way to avoid it. To reproduce this, the flow would be as follows: user registers with PSSO user logs out and logs back in with their IDP password user is authenticated (and not prompted for previous password) user logs out user changes their IDP password on another machine user logs in and is prompted to use their previous password to unlock the Keychain. Failure to provide the previous password nukes the Keychain, which is not an outcome we want. Any insight anyone has on this issue would be most welcome. Thanks

Hello -- I am developing an Authentication Plug-in for the purpose of invoking login with no user interaction (headless). There seems to be sufficient documentation and sample code on how to implement a plug-in and mechanism, and debug the same, which is great. What I am trying to understand is exactly how to modify the login right (system.login.console) in order to accomplish my goal. Question 1: I had the idea of installing my mechanism as the first mechanism of the login right, and when invoked to set the username and password into the engine’s context, in the belief that this would negate the system from needing to display the login screen. I didn’t modify or remove any other mechanisms. This did not work, in the sense that the login screen was still shown. Should this work in theory? Question 2: I then tried modifying the login right to remove anything that interacted with the user, leaving only the following: <array> <string>builtin:prelogin</string> <string>builtin:login-begin</string> <string>builtin:forward-login,privileged</string> <string>builtin:auto-login,privileged</string> <string>MyAuthPlugin:customauth,privileged</string> <string>PKINITMechanism:auth,privileged</string> <string>builtin:login-success</string> <string>HomeDirMechanism:login,privileged</string> <string>HomeDirMechanism:status</string> <string>MCXMechanism:login</string> <string>CryptoTokenKit:login</string> </array> The mechanisms I removed were: <string>builtin:policy-banner</string> <string>loginwindow:login</string> <string>builtin:reset-password,privileged</string> <string>loginwindow:FDESupport,privileged</string> <string>builtin:authenticate,privileged</string> <string>loginwindow:success</string> <string>loginwindow:done</string> In place of builtin:authenticate I supplied my own mechanism to verify the user’s password using OD and then set the username and password in the context. This attempt appears to have failed quite badly, as authd reported an error almost immediately (I believe it was related to the AuthEngine failing to init). There’s very little information to go on as to what each of these mechanisms do, and which are required, etc. Am I on the wrong track in attempting this? What would be the correct approach?

Hello, I have created an app for both iOs and Android where upon speaking two trigger words, the listening app sends a text and then calls to an inputted designated phone contact. The Android version works perfectly. The iOs version also works perfectly but the iOs app emiits a PopUp for each, the text and then the call asking "Do you really want to send the text -or- make the call". Basically, I input the contact info and I spoke the trigger words. So, yes I want to send the text and make the call. So, I have to click the two PopUps then the device sends and calls. Is there a way to suppress the PopUps in any way? The app is designed for emergencies. So, a dely to anser a popup is not at all good. Maybe by telling the device to allow auto calls and texts from my app? Any and all help on this issue will be very welcomed... Thanks :)

Hi, is it legal to use open APIs to get the users's country country code using the Ip address in the app? I mean I want to know the user country for the game leaderboards data, and there are sites say this is free and open. So, I have two questions, first, is this making the user calling open api to get its country code concept legal? second question, what if these sites suddenly decided that it is not legal to use their apis for commercial use, and i miss that announcement; will you remove my app from the store? or what action will you take exactly?

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!

Hi Team, How can we fetch the macOS password requirement(for setting a new password) that are inforce during login for users? Is there a way to get this info in swift programming?

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

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

WebAuthn Level 3 § 5.1.3 Step 22 Item 4 states the steps a user agent MUST follow when "conditional" mediation is used in conjunction with required user verification: Let userVerification be the effective user verification requirement for credential creation, a Boolean value, as follows. If pkOptions.authenticatorSelection.userVerification is set to required If options.mediation is set to conditional and user verification cannot be collected during the ceremony, throw a ConstraintError DOMException. Let userVerification be true. On my iPhone 15 Pro Max running iOS 18.5, Safari + Passwords does not exhibit this behavior; instead an error is not reported and user verification is not performed (i.e., the UV bit is 0). Per the spec this results in a registration ceremony failure on the server which is made all the more "annoying" since the credential was created in Passwords forcing a user to then delete the credential. : If the Relying Party requires user verification for this registration, verify that the UV bit of the flags in authData is set. In contrast when I use Google Password Manager + Chrome on a Samsung Galaxy S24 running Android 15, user verification is enforced and the UV bit is 1. Either the UV bit should be 1 after enforcing user verification or an error should be thrown since user verification cannot be performed.

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

I’d like to confirm something regarding the hosting of the apple-app-site-association (AASA) file. We have a server that publicly hosts the AASA file and is accessible globally. However, this server sits behind an additional security layer (a security server/reverse proxy). My question is: Will this security layer affect Apple’s ability to access and validate the AASA file for Universal Links or App Clips? Are there specific requirements (e.g. headers, redirects, TLS versions, etc.) that we need to ensure the security server does not block or modify? Any guidance or best practices would be appreciated. Thanks!

I have my custom Authplugin implemented at login (system.login.console), and I want to remove password requirement validation/authentication from system.login.console authorization right. Do you see any functionality loss in completely removing password need at login. And is there any reference which can help me here to acheive this?

Quinn, in your post "App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight!", you mention that an app must meet at least one of four criteria to access an app group container without user intervention: 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]. Our app is distributed directly (Developer ID), so it doesn't meet the first two criteria. We already had the app group ID set up to match the iOS ID (without our Team ID) and changing it now would affect our users already-stored data, so criteria C isn't really an option either. That brings us to criteria D. We've added the App Groups Capability to our App ID on the Developer site and creating a Developer ID provisioning profile with this App ID. However, for some reason the App Group Capability is not included in the provisioning profile. How then do we go about satisfying criteria D ("your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D)")? If this is impossible, how can we migrate our user's data away from the affected container?