Hi, we were recently approved for the com.apple.developer.web-browser.public-key-credential entitlement and have added it to our app. It initially worked as expected for a couple of days, but then it stopped working. We're now seeing the same error as before adding the entitlement: Told not to present authorization sheet: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServicesCore.AuthorizationError Code=1 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 "(null)" Do you have any insights into what might be causing this issue? Thank you!

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

Since Sun 15th Jun 04:30 (UTC+7) we received lots of following error that causes our device test failure. Could Apple please investigate further? ############################# Operations could not be completed. (com.apple.devicecheck.error error 4.) (serverUnavailable)

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

General: Forums subtopic: Privacy & Security > General Forums tag: App Sandbox App Sandbox documentation App Sandbox Design Guide documentation — This is no longer available from Apple. There’s still some info in there that isn’t covered by the current docs but, with the latest updates, it’s pretty minimal (r. 110052019). Still, if you’re curious, you can consult an old copy [1]. App Sandbox Temporary Exception Entitlements archived documentation — To better understand the role of temporary exception entitlements, see this post. Embedding a command-line tool in a sandboxed app documentation Discovering and diagnosing App Sandbox violations (replaces the Viewing Sandbox Violation Reports forums post) Resolving App Sandbox Inheritance Problems forums post The Case for Sandboxing a Directly Distributed App forums post Implementing Script Attachment in a Sandboxed App forums post Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" [1] For example, this one archived by the Wayback Machine.

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.

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

Is there a way (in code or on the OAuth2 server/webpage) to specify the desired window size when using ASWebAuthenticationSession on macOS? I haven't found anything, and we would prefer the window to be narrower. For one of our users, the window is even stretched to the full screen width which looks completely broken…

Hi all, I'm using a CryptoTokenKit (CTK) extension to perform code signing without having the private key stored on my laptop. The extension currently only supports the rsaSignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA256 algorithm: func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, supports operation: TKTokenOperation, keyObjectID: TKToken.ObjectID, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) -> Bool { return algorithm.isAlgorithm(SecKeyAlgorithm.rsaSignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA256) } This setup works perfectly with codesign, and signing completes without any issues. However, when I try to use productsign, the system correctly detects and delegates signing to my CTK extension, but it seems to always request rsaSignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA1 instead: productsign --timestamp --sign <identity> unsigned.pkg signed.pkg productsign: using timestamp authority for signature productsign: signing product with identity "Developer ID Installer: <org> (<team>)" from keychain (null) ... Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-50 "algid:sign:RSA:digest-PKCS1v15:SHA1: algorithm not supported by the key" ... productsign: error: Failed to sign the product. From what I understand, older versions of macOS used SHA1 for code signing, but codesign has since moved to SHA256 (at least when legacy compatibility isn't a concern). Oddly, productsign still seems to default to SHA1, even in 2025. Is there a known way to force productsign to use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for the signature digest algorithm? Or is there some flag or configuration I'm missing? Thanks in advance!

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?

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

Hi. We are writing to report a critical issue we've encountered following the recent release of iOS 26 beta 6. After updating our test devices, we discovered that our application is no longer able to establish HTTPS connections to several of our managed FQDNs. This issue was not present in beta 5 and appears to be a direct result of changes introduced in beta 6. The specific FQDNs that are currently unreachable are: d.socdm.com i.socdm.com tg.scodm.com We have reviewed the official iOS & iPadOS 26 Beta 6 Release Notes, particularly the updates related to TLS. While the notes mention changes, we have confirmed that our servers for all affected FQDNs support TLS 1.2, so we believe they should still be compliant. We have also investigated several of Apple's support documents regarding TLS connection requirements (e.g., HT214774, HT214041), but the information does not seem to apply to our situation, and we are currently unable to identify the root cause of this connection failure. https://support.apple.com/en-us/102028 https://support.apple.com/en-us/103214 Although we hope this issue might be resolved in beta 7 or later, the official release is fast approaching, and this has become a critical concern for us. Could you please provide any advice or insight into what might be causing this issue? Any guidance on potential changes in the networking or security frameworks in beta 6 that could affect TLS connections would be greatly appreciated. We have attached the relevant code snippet that triggers the error, along with the corresponding Xcode logs, for your review. Thank you for your time and assistance. #import "ViewController.h" @interface ViewController () @end @implementation ViewController - (void)viewDidLoad { [super viewDidLoad]; NSURL *url = [NSURL URLWithString:@"https://i.socdm.com/sdk/js/adg-script-loader-b-stg.js"]; NSMutableURLRequest *req = [NSMutableURLRequest requestWithURL:url cachePolicy:NSURLRequestReloadIgnoringLocalCacheData timeoutInterval:30.0]; [self sendWithRequest:req completionHandler:^(NSData *_Nullable data, NSHTTPURLResponse *_Nonnull response, NSError *_Nullable error) { if (error){ NSLog(@"Error occurred: %@", error.localizedDescription); return; }else{ NSLog(@"Success! Status Code: %ld", (long)response.statusCode); } }]; } - (void) sendWithRequest:(NSMutableURLRequest *)request completionHandler:(void (^ _Nullable)(NSData *_Nullable data, NSHTTPURLResponse *response, NSError *_Nullable error))completionHandler { NSURLSessionConfiguration *configuration = [NSURLSessionConfiguration defaultSessionConfiguration]; NSURLSession *session = nil; session = [NSURLSession sessionWithConfiguration:configuration delegate:self delegateQueue:nil]; NSURLSessionTask *task = [session dataTaskWithRequest:request completionHandler:^(NSData *data, NSURLResponse *response, NSError *error) { [session finishTasksAndInvalidate]; NSHTTPURLResponse *httpResponse = (NSHTTPURLResponse *) response; if (error) { if (completionHandler) { completionHandler(nil, httpResponse, error); } } else { if (completionHandler) { completionHandler(data, httpResponse, nil); } } }]; [task resume]; } @end error Connection 1: default TLS Trust evaluation failed(-9807) Connection 1: TLS Trust encountered error 3:-9807 Connection 1: encountered error(3:-9807) Task <C50BB081-E1DA-40FF-A1E5-A03A2C4CB733>.<1> HTTP load failed, 0/0 bytes (error code: -1202 [3:-9807]) Task <C50BB081-E1DA-40FF-A1E5-A03A2C4CB733>.<1> finished with error [-1202] Error Domain=NSURLErrorDomain Code=-1202 "The certificate for this server is invalid. You might be connecting to a server that is pretending to be “i.socdm.com” which could put your confidential information at risk." UserInfo={NSLocalizedRecoverySuggestion=Would you like to connect to the server anyway?, _kCFStreamErrorDomainKey=3, NSErrorPeerCertificateChainKey=( "<cert(0x10621ca00) s: *.socdm.com i: GlobalSign RSA OV SSL CA 2018>", "<cert(0x106324e00) s: GlobalSign RSA OV SSL CA 2018 i: GlobalSign>" ), NSErrorClientCertificateStateKey=0, NSErrorFailingURLKey=https://i.socdm.com/sdk/js/adg-script-loader-b-stg.js, NSErrorFailingURLStringKey=https://i.socdm.com/sdk/js/adg-script-loader-b-stg.js, NSUnderlyingError=0x1062bf960 {Error Domain=kCFErrorDomainCFNetwork Code=-1202 "(null)" UserInfo={_kCFStreamPropertySSLClientCertificateState=0, kCFStreamPropertySSLPeerTrust=<SecTrustRef: 0x10609d140>, _kCFNetworkCFStreamSSLErrorOriginalValue=-9807, _kCFStreamErrorDomainKey=3, _kCFStreamErrorCodeKey=-9807, kCFStreamPropertySSLPeerCertificates=( "<cert(0x10621ca00) s: *.socdm.com i: GlobalSign RSA OV SSL CA 2018>", "<cert(0x106324e00) s: GlobalSign RSA OV SSL CA 2018 i: GlobalSign>" )}}, _NSURLErrorRelatedURLSessionTaskErrorKey=( "LocalDataTask <C50BB081-E1DA-40FF-A1E5-A03A2C4CB733>.<1>" ), _kCFStreamErrorCodeKey=-9807, _NSURLErrorFailingURLSessionTaskErrorKey=LocalDataTask <C50BB081-E1DA-40FF-A1E5-A03A2C4CB733>.<1>, NSURLErrorFailingURLPeerTrustErrorKey=<SecTrustRef: 0x10609d140>, NSLocalizedDescription=The certificate for this server is invalid. You might be connecting to a server that is pretending to be “i.socdm.com” which could put your confidential information at risk.} Error occurred: The certificate for this server is invalid. You might be connecting to a server that is pretending to be “i.socdm.com” which could put your confidential information at risk. 折りたたむ

On Sonoma beta 7, if system.login.screensaver is updated to use “authenticate-session-owner-or-admin”, and then Lock Screen is not hiding the macOS Desktop. Step1. Update system.login.screensaver authorizationdb rule to use “authenticate-session-owner-or-admin”( to get old SFAutorizationPluginView at Lock Screen ). Step 2. Once the rule is in place after logout and login, now click on Apple icon and select “Lock Screen”. Even after selecting Lock Screen, complete macOS Desktop is visible with no control for the user to unlock the screen. To gain access we have to restart the MAC.

Hi Apple Devs, For our app, we utilize passkeys for account creation (not MFA). This is mainly for user privacy, as there is 0 PII associated with passkey account creation, but it additionally also satisfies the 4.8: Login Services requirement for the App Store. However, we're getting blocked in Apple Review. Because the AASA does not get fetched immediately upon app install, the reviewers are not able to create an account immediately via passkeys, and then they reject the build. I'm optimistic I can mitigate the above. But even if we pass Apple Review, this is a pretty catastrophic issue for user security and experience. There are reports that 5% of users cannot create passkeys immediately (https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/756740). That is a nontrivial amount of users, and this large of an amount distorts how app developers design onboarding and authentication flows towards less secure experiences: App developers are incentivized to not require MFA setup on account creation because requiring it causes significant churn, which is bad for user security. If they continue with it anyways, for mitigation, developers are essentially forced to add in copy into their app saying something along the lines of "We have no ability to force Apple to fetch the config required to continue sign up, so try again in a few minutes, you'll just have to wait." You can't even implement a fallback method. There's no way to check if the AASA is available before launching the ASAuthorizationController so you can't mitigate a portion of users encountering an error!! Any app that wants to use the PRF extension to encrypt core functionality (again, good for user privacy) simply cannot exist because the app simply does not work for an unspecified amount of time for a nontrivial portion of users. It feels like a. Apple should provide a syscall API that we can call to force SWCD to verify the AASA or b. implement a config based on package name for the app store such that the installation will immediately include a verified AASA from Apple's CDN. Flicking the config on would require talking with Apple. If this existed, this entire class of error would go away. It feels pretty shocking that there isn't a mitigation in place for this already given that it incentivizes app developers to pursue strictly less secure and less private authentication practices.

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

Hello, We are working on integrating app integrity verification into our service application, following Apple's App Attest and DeviceCheck guide. Our server issues a challenge to the client, which then sends the challenge, attestation, and keyId in CBOR format to Apple's App Attest server for verification. However, we are unable to reach both https://attest.apple.com and https://attest.development.apple.com due to network issues. These attempts have been made from both our internal corporate network and mobile hotspot environments. Despite adjusting DNS settings and other configurations, the issue persists. Are there alternative methods or solutions to address this problem? Any recommended network configurations or guidelines to successfully connect to Apple's App Attest servers would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

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!

Hello Experts, I am in need of your help with this feedback from the App Reviewer. Issue Description: One or more purpose strings in the app do not sufficiently explain the use of protected resources. Purpose strings must clearly and completely describe the app's use of data and, in most cases, provide an example of how the data will be used. Next Steps: Update the location purpose string to explain how the app will use the requested information and provide a specific example of how the data will be used. See the attached screenshot. Resources: Purpose strings must clearly describe how an app uses the ability, data, or resource. The following are hypothetical examples of unclear purpose strings that would not pass review: "App would like to access your Contacts" "App needs microphone access" Feedback #2 "Regarding 5.1.1, we understand why your app needs access to location. However, the permission request alert does not sufficiently explain this to your users before accessing the location. To resolve this issue, it would be appropriate to revise the location permission request, specify why your app needs access, and provide an example of how your app will use the user's data. To learn more about purpose string requirements, watch a video from App Review with tips for writing clear purpose strings. We look forward to reviewing your app once the appropriate changes have been made." May I know how can I update my purpose string? I appealed on the first feedback by explaining what is the purpose of it but got the Feedback #2. TYIA!!

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.