We are implementing Platform SSO with Secure Enclave–based authentication. In a standard (post-enrollment) flow, everything behaves as expected: Authentication uses urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer The Secure Enclave–backed credential is used correctly However, when using Automated Device Enrollment (ADE) with Simplified Setup, we observe different behavior: After device registration, Platform SSO triggers a login request to our IdP That request uses grant_type=password Instead of the expected urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:jwt-bearer This occurs even though: The configuration specifies Secure Enclave as the authentication method The same configuration works as expected outside ADE Questions: Is this password grant during ADE / Simplified Setup an expected bootstrap flow? Is there any official documentation describing this? This behavior is currently undocumented, and clarification would help ensure correct IdP implementation.

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!

Hi, I’m currently implementing App Attest attestation validation on the development server. However, I’m receiving a 403 Forbidden response when I POST a CBOR-encoded payload to the following endpoint: curl -X POST -H "Content-Type: application/cbor" --data-binary @payload.cbor 'https://data-development.appattest.apple.com' Here’s how I’m generating the CBOR payload in Java: Map<String, Object> payload = new HashMap<>(); payload.put("attestation", attestationBytes); // byte[] from DCAppAttestService payload.put("clientDataHash", clientDataHash); // SHA-256 hash of the challenge (byte[]) payload.put("keyId", keyIdBytes); // Base64-decoded keyId (byte[]) payload.put("appId", TEAM_ID + "." + BUNDLE_ID); // e.g., "ABCDE12345.com.example.app" ObjectMapper cborMapper = new ObjectMapper(new CBORFactory()); byte[] cborBody = cborMapper.writeValueAsBytes(payload); I’m unsure whether the endpoint is rejecting the payload format or if the endpoint itself is incorrect for this stage. I’d appreciate clarification on the following: 1. Is https://data-development.appattest.apple.com the correct endpoint for key attestation in a development environment? 2. Should this endpoint accept CBOR-encoded payloads, or is it only for JSON-based assertion validation? 3. Is there a current official Apple documentation that lists: • the correct URLs for key attestation and assertion validation (production and development), • or any server-side example code (e.g., Java, Python) for handling attestation/validation on the backend? So far, I couldn’t find an official document that explicitly describes the expected HTTP endpoints for these operations. If there’s a newer guide or updated API reference, I’d appreciate a link. Thanks in advance for your help.

Hello, I'm receiving an unknown error instead of the excluded credentials error when using the "Save on another device" option for Passkey creation. When creating the ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider request to pass to the ASAuthorizationController. The excludedCredentials property is used to add a list of credentials to exclude in the registration process. This is to prevent duplicate passkeys from being created if one already exists for the user. When trying to create a duplicate passkey using the same device, the ASAuthorizationControllerDelegate method authorizationController(controller, didCompleteWithError:) is called. The error received has localized description “At least one credential matches an entry of the excludeCredentials list in the platform attached authenticator." When trying to create a duplicate passkey using the “Save on another device” option. The delegate method is called, but the error received has code 1000 ("com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError" - code: 1000). Which maps to the unknown error case in ASAuthorization error type.

Steps to reproduce: register a passkey on device A authenticate on device A, using the prf extension and a constant salt. Note the prf output go to device B. wait for iCloud sync authenticate on device B using the prf extension and the same constant salt. Note the prf output The prf outputs are different. Note: Repeat the authentication on each device. The prf output is identical for a given device, which seems to point towards the inclusion of a device specific component in the prf derivation. In my scenario, I need the prf output to be the same regardless of the device since I use it as the recovery key for my app data. Could you confirm that this is the expected behavior or not? Thanks,

Hey, there are plans to design a government app. When a citizen will login they will see their passport, driving license etc... What is the solution of avoiding mandatory in-app user data deletion?

With the new ios 26 update, certain numbers will be filtered into other inboxes within imessage. What numbers are classified as "known", and will not be moved into these filters. Do they need to be a contact in your phone, or if a business texts you how will that be filtered?

Hi Apple team, For our iPhone app (App Store build), a small subset of devices report DCAppAttestService.isSupported == false, preventing App Attest from being enabled. Approx. impact: 0.23% (352/153,791) iOS observed: Broadly 15.x–18.7 (also saw a few anomalous entries ios/26.0, likely client logging noise) Device models: Multiple generations (iPhone8–iPhone17); a few iPad7 entries present although the app targets iPhone Questions In iPhone main app context, what conditions can make isSupported return false on iOS 14+? Are there known device/iOS cases where temporary false can occur (SEP/TrustChain related)? Any recommended remediation (e.g., DFU restore)? Could you share logging guidance (Console.app subsystem/keywords) to investigate such cases? What fallback policy do you recommend when isSupported == false (e.g., SE-backed signature + DeviceCheck + risk rules), and any limitations? We can provide sysdiagnose/Console logs and more case details upon request. Thank you, —

DTS regularly receives questions about how to preserve keychain items across an App ID change, and so I thought I’d post a comprehensive answer here for the benefit of all. If you have any questions or comments, please start a new thread here on the forums. Put it in the Privacy & Security > General subtopic and tag it with Security. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access The list of keychain access groups your app can access is determined by three entitlements. For the details, see Sharing Access to Keychain Items Among a Collection of Apps. If your app changes its App ID prefix, this list changes and you’re likely to lose access to existing keychain items. This situation crops up under two circumstances: When you migrate your app from using a unique App ID prefix to using your Team ID as its App ID prefix. When you transfer your app to another team. In both cases you have to plan carefully for this change. If you only learn about the problem after you’ve made the change, consider undoing the change to give you time to come up with a plan before continuing. Note On macOS, the information in this post only applies to the data protection keychain. For more information about the subtleties of the keychain on macOS, see On Mac Keychains. For more about App ID prefix changes, see Technote 2311 Managing Multiple App ID Prefixes and QA1726 Resolving the Potential Loss of Keychain Access warning. Migrate From a Unique App ID Prefix to Your Team ID Historically each app was assigned its own App ID prefix. This is no longer the case. Best practice is for apps to use their Team ID as their App ID prefix. This enables multiple neat features, including keychain item sharing and pasteboard sharing. If you have an app that uses a unique App ID prefix, consider migrating it to use your Team ID. This is a good thing in general, as long as you manage the migration process carefully. Your app’s keychain access group list is built from three entitlements: keychain-access-groups — For more on this, see Keychain Access Groups Entitlement. application-identifier (com.apple.application-identifier on macOS) com.apple.security.application-groups — For more on this, see App Groups Entitlement. Keycahin access groups from the third bullet are call app group identified keychain access groups, or AGI keychain access groups for short. IMPORTANT A macOS app can only use an AGI keychain access group if all of its entitlement claims are validated by a provisioning profile. See App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony for more about this concept. Keychain access groups from the first two bullets depend on the App ID prefix. If that changes, you lose access to any keychain items in those groups. WARNING Think carefully before using the keychain to store secrets that are the only way to access irreplaceable user data. While the keychain is very reliable, there are situations where a keychain item can be lost and it’s bad if it takes the user’s data with it. In some cases losing access to keychain items is not a big deal. For example, if your app uses the keychain to manage a single login credential, losing that is likely to be acceptable. The user can recover by logging in again. In other cases losing access to keychain items is unacceptable. For example, your app might manage access to dozens of different servers, each with unique login credentials. Your users will be grumpy if you require them to log in to all those servers again. In such situations you must carefully plan your migration. The key thing to understand is that an app group is tied to your team, not your App ID prefix, and thus your app retains access to AGI keychain access groups across an App ID prefix change. This suggests the following approach: Release a version of your app that moves keychain items from other keychain access groups to an AGI keychain access group. Give your users time to update to this new version, run it, and so move their keychain items. When you’re confident that the bulk of your users have done this, change your App ID prefix. The approach has one obvious caveat: It’s hard to judge how long to wait at step 2. Transfer Your App to Another Team Historically there was no supported way to maintain access to keychain items across an app transfer. That’s no longer the case, but you must still plan the transfer carefully. The overall approach is: Identify an app group ID to transfer. This could be an existing app group ID, but in many cases you’ll want to register a new app group ID solely for this purpose. Use the old team (the transferor) to release a version of your app that moves keychain items from other keychain access groups to the AGI keychain access group for this app group ID. Give your users time to update to this new version, run it, and so move their keychain items. When you’re confident that the bulk of your users have done this, initiate the app transfer. Once that’s complete, transfer the app group ID you selected in step 1. See App Store Connect Help > Transfer an app > Overview of app transfer > Apps using App Groups. Publish an update to your app from the new team (the transferee). When a user installs this version, it will have access to your app group, and hence your keychain items. WARNING Once you transfer the app group, the old team won’t be able to publish a new version of any app that uses this app group. That makes step 1 in the process critical. If you have an existing app group that’s used solely by the app being transferred — for example, an app group that you use to share state between the app and its app extensions — then choosing that app group ID makes sense. On the other hand, choosing the ID of an app group that’s share between this app and some unrelated app, one that’s not being transferred, would be bad, because any updates to that other app will lose access to the app group. There are some other significant caveats: The process doesn’t work for Mac apps because Mac apps that have ever used an app group can’t be transferred. See App Store Connect Help > Transfer an app > App transfer criteria. If and when that changes, you’ll need to choose an iOS-style app group ID for your AGI keychain access group. For more about the difference between iOS- and macOS-style app group IDs, see App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony. The current transfer process of app groups exposes a small window where some other team can ‘steal’ your app group ID. We have a bug on file to improve that process (r. 171616887). The process works best when transferring between two teams that are both under the control of the same entity. If that’s not the case, take steps to ensure that the old team transfers the app group in step 5. When you submit the app from the new team (step 6), App Store Connect will warn you about a potential loss of keychain access. That warning is talking about keychain items in normal keychain access groups. Items in an AGI keychain access group will still be accessible as long as you transfer the app group. Alternative Approaches for App Transfer In addition to the technique described in the previous section, there are a some alternative approaches you should at consider: Do nothing Do not transfer your app Get creative Do Nothing In this case the user loses all the secrets that your app stored in the keychain. This may be acceptable for certain apps. For example, if your app uses the keychain to manage a single login credential, losing that is likely to be acceptable. The user can recover by logging in again. Do Not Transfer Another option is to not transfer your app. Instead, ship a new version of the app from the new team and have the old app recommend that the user upgrade. There are a number of advantages to this approach. The first is that there’s absolutely no risk of losing any user data. The two apps are completely independent. The second advantage is that the user can install both apps on their device at the same time. This opens up a variety of potential migration paths. For example, you might ship an update to the old app with an export feature that saves the user’s state, including their secrets, to a suitably encrypted file, and then match that with an import facility on the new app. Finally, this approach offers flexible timing. The user can complete their migration at their leisure. However, there are a bunch of clouds to go with these silver linings: Your users might never migrate to the new app. If this is a paid app, or an app with in-app purchase, the user will have to buy things again. You lose the original app’s history, ratings, reviews, and so on. Get Creative Finally, you could attempt something creative. For example, you might: Publish a new version of the app that supports exporting the user’s state, including the secrets. Tell your users to do this, with a deadline. Transfer the app and then, when the deadline expires, publish the new version with an import feature. Frankly, this isn’t very practical. The problem is with step 2: There’s no good way to get all your users to do the export, and if they don’t do it before the deadline there’s no way to do it after. Test Before You Ship Once you have a new version of your app, with the new App ID prefix, it’s time to test. To run a day-to-day test: On a test device, install the existing version of the app from the App Store. Use the app to generate keychain items as a normal user would. For example, if you store login credentials in the keychain, use the app to save such a credential. In Xcode, run the new version of your app. Check that the keychain items you created in step 2 still work. After you upload this new version to App Store Connect, use TestFlight to run an internal test: On a test device, install the existing version of the app from the App Store. Use the app to generate keychain items as a normal user. For example, if you store login credentials in the keychain, use the app to save such a credential. Use TestFlight to update the app to your new version. Check that the keychain items you created in step 2 still work. Do this before you release the app to your beta testers and then again before releasing it to customers. WARNING These TestFlight test are your last chance to ensure that everything works. If you detect an error at this stage, you still have a chance to fix it. Revision History 2026-04-07 Added the Test Before You Ship section. 2026-03-31 Rewrote the Transfer Your App to Another Team section to describe a new approach for preserving access to keychain items across app transfers. Moved the previous discussion into a new Alternative Approaches for App Transfer section. Clarified that a macOS program can now use an app group as a keychain access group as long as its entitlements are validated. Made numerous editorial changes. 2022-05-17 First posted.

WebAuthn Level 3 § 6.3.2 Step 2 states the authenticator must : Check if at least one of the specified combinations of PublicKeyCredentialType and cryptographic parameters in credTypesAndPubKeyAlgs is supported. If not, return an error code equivalent to "NotSupportedError" and terminate the operation. On my iPhone 15 Pro Max running iOS 18.5, Safari + Passwords does not exhibit this behavior; instead an error is not reported and an ES256 credential is created when an RP passes a non-empty sequence that does not contain {"type":"public-key","alg":-7} (e.g., [{"type":"public-key","alg":-8}]). When I use Chromium 138.0.7204.92 on my laptop running Arch Linux in conjunction with the Passwords app (connected via the "hybrid" protocol), a credential is not created and instead an error is reported per the spec.

I'm experiencing a strange issue where ASWebAuthenticationSession works perfectly when running from Xcode (both Debug and Release), but fails on TestFlight builds. The setup: iOS app using ASWebAuthenticationSession for OIDC login (Keycloak) Custom URL scheme callback (myapp://) prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = false The issue: When using iOS Keychain autofill (with Face ID/Touch ID or normal iphone pw, that auto-submits the form) -> works perfectly When manually typing credentials and clicking the login button -> fails with white screen When it fails, the form POST from Keycloak back to my server (/signin-oidc) never reaches the server at all. The authentication session just shows a white screen. Reproduced on: Multiple devices (iPhone 15 Pro, etc.) iOS 18.x Xcode 16.x Multiple TestFlight testers confirmed same behavior What I've tried: Clearing Safari cookies/data prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = true and false Different SameSite cookie policies on server Verified custom URL scheme is registered and works (testing myapp://test in Safari opens the app) Why custom URL scheme instead of Universal Links: We couldn't get Universal Links to trigger from a js redirect (window.location.href) within ASWebAuthenticationSession. Only custom URL schemes seemed to be intercepted. If there's a way to make Universal Links work in this context, without a manual user-interaction we'd be happy to try. iOS Keychain autofill works The only working path is iOS Keychain autofill that requires iphone-authentication and auto-submits the form. Any manual form submission fails, but only on TestFlight - not Xcode builds. Has anyone encountered this or know a workaround?

Hi all, We are developing an iOS app that includes private user-to-user chats, commercial offer details with monetary value, and customer identification data. In line with OWASP MASVS-PLATFORM-3 requirements regarding unintentional sensitive data exposure, we need to protect these specific screens from screenshots and screen recording. We have carefully reviewed the relevant App Review Guidelines (2.5.1 on public APIs, 2.5.2 on self-contained bundles, 5.1.1 on privacy) and the related Human Interface Guidelines. From this analysis we have observed the following: iOS does not expose a public API to globally disable screen capture (no direct equivalent of Android's FLAG_SECURE). The SwiftUI .privacySensitive() modifier is effective for Lock Screen widgets and Always-On Display, but it does not appear to prevent screenshots or screen recording of an app's main UI while in the foreground. A number of widely distributed App Store apps (banking, authenticator, secure messaging) implement some form of screenshot protection on sensitive screens. Several established open-source libraries leverage the system behavior of UITextField with isSecureTextEntry as a wrapping container for arbitrary views, in order to achieve pixel-level protection for sensitive content. We would appreciate clarification on the following points: For privacy-driven protection of sensitive screens (private chats, customer data, monetized offers), is there an officially recommended approach we may have missed? Are there public APIs intended specifically for this use case beyond .privacySensitive()? Is the practice of leveraging UITextField with isSecureTextEntry as a wrapping container for arbitrary views considered an acceptable use of public APIs under Guideline 2.5.1, or does it carry App Review risk? Are there official recommendations or documentation for apps handling sensitive personal data that wish to align with industry standards such as OWASP MASVS-PLATFORM-3 for screenshot and screen recording leakage prevention? The intended use is strictly limited to a small number of screens marked as containing sensitive data (private messages, deal details, customer information). The protection would be selective and clearly communicated to the user via in-app messaging, not global to the app. Thanks in advance for any clarification, including pointers to existing documentation or threads we may have missed. Deployment target: iOS 15+

When implementing a custom right in macOS authorizationdb, the mechanism array element builtin:authenticate is displaying the message 'Enter the name and password of a user in the "(null)" group to allow this.' on the macOS credential prompt UI popup. I am trying to find a fix to avoid the reference to null group in the message label that is displayed just above the username and password input fields. The current plist uses class as the key and value as the evaluate-mechanisms. The mechanisms array includes mechanism array with elements "builtin:login-begin", "mycustombundle:mycustompreaction", "builtin:authenticate", "mycustombundle:mycustommechanism". I have tried specifying group in the plist, have tried setting hint in the MechanismInvoke for group, username, security, authority, prompt, reason among several other hints into the context duing the execution of mycustombundle:mycustompreaction, but none seem to fix the "(null)" in the message label. Any help is greately appreciated. There is not much of any documentation for developers implementing custom authorization in macOS.

I'm currently reviewing the various DCError cases defined in Apple’s DeviceCheck framework (reference: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/dcerror-swift.struct). To better understand how to handle these in production, I’m looking for a clear breakdown of: Which specific DCError values can occur during service.generateKey, service.attestKey, and service.generateAssertion The realworld scenarios or conditions that typically cause each error for each method. If anyone has insight on how these errors arise and what conditions trigger them, I’d appreciate your input.

Hello everyone, I've noticed some unusual behavior while debugging my application on the iOS 26 beta. My standard testing process relies on the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) authorization status being reset whenever I uninstall and reinstall my app. This is crucial for me to test the permission flow. However, on the current beta, I've observed the following: 1 I installed my app on a device running the iOS 26 beta for the first time. The ATTrackingManager.requestTrackingAuthorization dialog appeared as expected. 2 I completely uninstalled the application. 3 I then reinstalled the app. Unexpected Result: The tracking permission dialog did not appear. And more importantly, the device's advertisingIdentifier appears to have remained unchanged. This is highly unusual, as the IDFA is expected to be reset with a fresh app installation. My question: Is this an intentional change, and is there a fundamental shift in how the operating system handles the persistence of the IDFA or the authorization status? Or could this be a bug in the iOS 26 beta? Any information or confirmation on this behavior would be greatly appreciated.

Hi everyone, I'm experiencing an intermittent issue with Keychain data loss on the latest iOS Beta 2. In about 7% of cases, users report that previously saved Keychain items are missing when the app is relaunched — either after a cold start or simply after being killed and reopened. Here are the key observations: The issue occurs sporadically, mostly once per affected user, but in 3 cases it has happened 4 times. No explicit deletion is triggered from the app. No system logs or error messages from Apple indicate any Keychain-related actions. The app attempts to access Keychain items, but they are no longer available. This behavior is inconsistent with previous iOS versions and is not reproducible in development environments. This raises concerns about: Whether this is a bug in the beta or an intentional change in Keychain behavior. Whether this could affect production apps when the final iOS version is released. The lack of any warning or documentation from Apple regarding this behavior. Has anyone else encountered similar issues? Any insights, workarounds, or official clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

We are facing an issue with Keychain sharing across our apps after our Team ID was updated. Below are the steps we have already tried and the current observations: Steps we have performed so far: After our Team ID changed, we opened and re-saved all the provisioning profiles. We created a Keychain Access Group: xxxx.net.soti.mobicontrol (net.soti.mobicontrol is one bundle id of one of the app) and added it to the entitlements of all related apps. We are saving and reading certificates using this access group only. Below is a sample code snippet we are using for the query: [genericPasswordQuery setObject:(id)kSecClassGenericPassword forKey:(id)kSecClass]; [genericPasswordQuery setObject:identifier forKey:(id)kSecAttrGeneric]; [genericPasswordQuery setObject:accessGroup forKey:(id)kSecAttrAccessGroup]; [genericPasswordQuery setObject:(id)kSecMatchLimitOne forKey:(id)kSecMatchLimit]; [genericPasswordQuery setObject:(id)kCFBooleanTrue forKey:(id)kSecReturnAttributes]; Issues we are facing: Keychain items are not being shared consistently across apps. We receive different errors at different times: Sometimes errSecDuplicateItem (-25299), even when there is no item in the Keychain. Sometimes it works in a debug build but fails in Ad Hoc / TestFlight builds. The behavior is inconsistent and unpredictable. Expectation / Clarification Needed from Apple: Are we missing any additional configuration steps after the Team ID update? Is there a known issue with Keychain Access Groups not working correctly in certain build types (Debug vs AdHoc/TestFlight)? Guidance on why we are intermittently getting -25299 and how to properly reset/re-add items in the Keychain. Any additional entitlement / provisioning profile configuration that we should double-check. Request you to please raise a support ticket with Apple Developer Technical Support including the above details, so that we can get guidance on the correct setup and resolve this issue.

I’m using a custom Installer plug-in (InstallerPane) to collect sensitive user input (username/password) during install. After the payload is laid down, I need to send those values to a newly installed agent (LaunchAgent) to persist them. What I tried I expose an XPC Mach service from the agent and have the plug-in call it. On the agent side I validate the XPC client using the audit token → SecCodeCopyGuestWithAttributes → SecCodeCheckValidity. However, the client process is InstallerRemotePluginService-* (Apple’s view service that hosts all plug-ins), so the signature I see is Apple’s, not mine. I can’t distinguish which plug-in made the call. Any suggestion on better approach ?

I am using the CryptoTokenKit API in order to communicate with smart cards through NFC, with TKSmartCardSlotNFCSession. I call the createNFCSlotWithMessage method from TKSmartCardSlotManager, which displays successfuly the NFC dialog. However, when I put any smart card next to the phone, the NFC dialog shuts down instantly. I notice the following log in the system console: -[_NFReaderSession(Entitlement) validateAID:allowsPrefixMatch:]:317 Non-permissible identifier: A000000308000010000100 When I add the A000000308000010000100 AID mentioned in the error message to the Info.plist of my application, the NFC dialog does not shut down anymore and I am able to communicate with the smart card (using TKSmartCard). This behavior has been reproduced on an iPhone 16e, iOS 26.4. This AID does not correspond to anything in the smart card. It seems to be related to PIV, but this behavior also occurs with cards that are not PIV (PKCS#15...). Also, with an implementation using CoreNFC API instead of CryptoTokenKit API, this AID is not needed to be able to communicate with the card, so it seems CryptoTokenKit-specific. I did not find anything related to this in the documentation, have I missed something here ? Is this a special AID that is required all the time to work with NFC through CryptoTokenKit ?

Hi, I am developing an app that checks if biometric authentication capabilities (Face ID and Touch ID) are available on a device. I have a few questions: Do I need to include a privacy string in my app to use the LAContext's canEvaluatePolicy function? This function checks if biometric authentication is available on the device, but does not actually trigger the authentication. From my testing, it seems like a privacy declaration is only required when using LAContext's evaluatePolicy function, which would trigger the biometric authentication. Can you confirm if this is the expected behavior across all iOS versions and iPhone models? When exactly does the biometric authentication permission pop-up appear for users - is it when calling canEvaluatePolicy or evaluatePolicy? I want to ensure my users have a seamless experience. Please let me know if you have any insights on these questions. I want to make sure I'm handling the biometric authentication functionality correctly in my app. Thank you!