Since October 3rd, I've stopped receiving responses to the Private Access Tokens challenge. I'm using this link: https://demo-issuer.private-access-tokens.fastly.com/.well-known/token-issuer-directory. I receive tokens from Fastly and return a header to the iOS app, but then I don't receive another authentication request from iOS. The user has automatic verification enabled on their phone. The problem is global and affects all my mobile app users. Has anyone encountered a similar problem and found a solution?

What Has Been Implemented Replaced the default loginwindow:login with a custom authorization plugin. The plugin: Performs primary OTP authentication. Displays a custom password prompt. Validates the password using Open Directory (OD) APIs. Next Scenario was handling password change Password change is simulated via: sudo pwpolicy -u robo -setpolicy "newPasswordRequired=1" On next login: Plugin retrieves the old password. OD API returns kODErrorCredentialsPasswordChangeRequired. Triggers a custom change password window to collect and set new password. Issue Observed : After changing password: The user’s login keychain resets. Custom entries under the login keychain are removed. We have tried few solutions Using API, SecKeychainChangePassword(...) Using CLI, security set-keychain-password -o oldpwd -p newpwd ~/Library/Keychains/login.keychain-db These approaches appear to successfully change the keychain password, but: On launching Keychain Access, two password prompts appear, after authentication, Keychain Access window doesn't appear (no app visibility). Question: Is there a reliable way (API or CLI) to reset or update the user’s login keychain password from within the custom authorization plugin, so: The keychain is not reset or lost. Keychain Access works normally post-login. The password update experience is seamless. Thank you for your help and I appreciate your time and consideration

Quinn, you've often suggested that to validate the other side of an XPC connection, we should use the audit token. But that's not available from the XPC object, whereas the PID is. So everyone uses the PID. While looking for something completely unrelated, I found this in the SecCode.h file OSStatus SecCodeCreateWithXPCMessage(xpc_object_t message, SecCSFlags flags, SecCodeRef * __nonnull CF_RETURNS_RETAINED target); Would this be the preferred way to do this now? At least from 11.0 and up. Like I said, I was looking for something completely unrelated and found this and don't have the cycles right now to try it. But it looks promising from the description and I wanted to check in with you about it in case you can say yes or no before I get a chance to test it. Thanks

Thanks all for reading my post. A bit of context: We just finished an app transfer to our developer account. We successfully signed and generated the new release. We are already able to roll it out in testflight were we found an issue. We store valuable data in the Keychain like Authentication tokens, once the new app is installed over the old one we are experiencing a loss of all data as the keychain become "untrusted". This is worst case scenario for us because all users will immediately lose the access to the app and hence the whole system. Questions: Is there a way to solve this issue, something like migration of the Keychain data? We came to know the standard migration path: Release a version that copies items from the old access groups to a new group based on com.apple.security.application-groups (App Groups). Wait for most users to update and run the migration. Then perform the App ID prefix change. Is this still the best method? Any improvements or new tools available since the 2022 DTS post? The problem with this is that the app is already on our account and that might need to rollback the transfer. Right? How long should we realistically wait for user migration before making the prefix change? Is there a way to measure migration completion? Thank you in advance!

I’m implementing a custom Authorization right with the following rule: <key>authenticate-user</key> <true/> <key>allow-root</key> <true/> <key>class</key> <string>user</string> <key>group</key> <string>admin</string> The currently logged-in user is a standard user, and I’ve created a hidden admin account, e.g. _hiddenadmin, which has UID≠0 but belongs to the admin group. From my Authorization Plug-in, I would like to programmatically satisfy this right using _hiddenadmin’s credentials, even though _hiddenadmin is not the logged-in user. My question: Is there a way to programmatically satisfy an authenticate-user right from an Authorization Plug-in using credentials of another (non-session) user?

I lived with knowledge that one needs to provide his login password to unlock the login keychain. This does not seem to be entirely true after upgrading Tahoe to 26.4. For example, on 26.3: Go to ~/Library/Keychains Copy login.keychain-db to different name, say test.keychain-db. Double-click on test.keychain-db -> this should open Keychain Access with test in Custom keychains section, it will appear locked. Select test keychain and press Cmd+L to unlock it. When prompted, provide your login password. Result: the keychain is unlocked. When I preform above sequence of steps on 26.4 I am not able to unlock the copied keychain (the original login keychain appears implicitly unlocked).

I have reached out to support and they simply tell me they are unable to help me, first redirecting me to generic Apple support, after following up they provided the explanation that they only handle administrative tasks and to post on the forums. I am unable to change my App Tracking Transparency it provides no real error, though network traffic shows a 409 HTTP response from the backend API when trying to save. Here is a screenshot of the result when trying to save. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get this resolved? I've commented back to the reviewers and they simply provided help documentation. I have a technical issue and am unable to get anyone to help resolve this.

Hi , I did The MFA(2FA) of Email OTP For MacOS Login Screen using, Authorization Plugin, Using This git hub project. It is working For Login Screen , Im trying to Add The Same plugin for LockScreen but it is not working at lock Screen , Below is the reffrense theard For The issue , https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/127614, please Share The Code that should Present the NSwindow at Screen Saver (Lock Screen) MacOS .

We are using the CryptoTokenKit framework, specifically the classes TKSmartCardSlotManager, TKSmartCardSlot, and TKSmartCard, to communicate with smart cards through external USB readers on iOS and iPadOS. In most cases, we are able to detect readers via TKSmartCardSlotManager, and send APDU commands using transmitRequest method, with the following code (where self->_slot and self->_card are previously created TkSmartCardSlot and TkSmartCard, respectively): #import <CryptoTokenKit/CryptoTokenKit.h> - (NSData *)sendCardCommand:(NSData *)command { if (!self->_card || !self->_card.valid || self->_slot.state != TKSmartCardSlotStateValidCard) return nil; NSMutableData *res = [[NSMutableData alloc] init]; NSError *sessionError = nil; [self->_card inSessionWithError:&sessionError executeBlock:^BOOL(NSError **error) { dispatch_semaphore_t semaphore = dispatch_semaphore_create(0); try { [self->_card transmitRequest:command reply:^(NSData * _Nullable response, NSError* _Nullable apduError) { if (apduError != nil) self->_error = apduError; else [res appendData: response]; dispatch_semaphore_signal(semaphore); }]; } catch (NSException *exception) { dispatch_semaphore_signal(semaphore); } dispatch_semaphore_wait(semaphore, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER); if (res.length == 0) return NO; return YES; }]; return res; } However, with certain other USB smart card readers, we occasionally encounter APDU communication failures when calling transmitRequest (for instance, with a HID Global OMNIKEY 5422), which returns the following error: "Domain: CryptoTokenKit Code: -2". Once a failure occurs and transmitRequest starts returning this error, all subsequent calls to transmitRequest fail with the same error. This persists even when: A different smart card is inserted The same card is reinserted A different USB reader (previously working correctly) is connected The TKSmartCard object is recreated via makeSmartCard The slot state changes (observed via KVO) All internal objects (TKSmartCard, TKSmartCardSlot) are reset in the application At this point, the system appears to be stuck in a non-recoverable state which affects all readers and cards, including those that were previously functioning correctly. The only way to recover from this state is terminating and restarting the application which is running the code. After restarting the app, everything works normally again. We have created a bug report: FB22339746. The issue has been reproduced on iOS 26.4 and 18.5. Also on iPadOS 18.1. Anyone has already faced a similar issue? Could it be related to some internal state of TKSmartCardSlotManager?

I am developing a daemon-based product that needs a cryptographic, non-spoofable proof of machine identity so a remote management server can grant permissions based on the physical machine. I was thinking to create a signing key in the Secure Enclave and use a certificate signed by that key as the machine identity. The problem is that the Secure Enclave key I can create is only accessible from user context, while my product runs as a system daemon and must not rely on user processes or launchAgents. Could you please advise on the recommended Apple-supported approaches for this use case ? Specifically, Is there a supported way for a system daemon to generate and use an unremovable Secure Enclave key during phases like the pre-logon, that doesn't have non user context (only the my application which created this key/certificate will have permission to use/delete it) If Secure Enclave access from a daemon is not supported, what Apple-recommended alternatives exist for providing a hardware-backed machine identity for system daemons? I'd rather avoid using system keychain, as its contents may be removed or used by root privileged users. The ideal solution would be that each Apple product, would come out with a non removable signing certificate, that represent the machine itself (lets say that the cetificate name use to represent the machine ID), and can be validated by verify that the root signer is "Apple Root CA"

I’m developing an iOS application and aiming to install a PKCS#12 (.p12) certificate into the com.apple.token keychain access group so that Microsoft Edge for iOS, managed via MDM/Intune, can read and use it for client certificate authentication. I’m attempting to save to the com.apple.token keychain access group, but I’m getting error -34018 (errSecMissingEntitlement) and the item isn’t saved. This occurs on both a physical device and the simulator. I’m using SecItemAdd from the Security framework to store it. Is this the correct approach? https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/secitemadd(::) I have added com.apple.token to Keychain Sharing. I have also added com.apple.token to the app’s entitlements. Here is the code I’m using to observe this behavior: public static func installToTokenGroup(p12Data: Data, password: String) throws -> SecIdentity { // First, import the P12 to get the identity let options: [String: Any] = [ kSecImportExportPassphrase as String: password ] var items: CFArray? let importStatus = SecPKCS12Import(p12Data as CFData, options as CFDictionary, &items) guard importStatus == errSecSuccess, let array = items as? [[String: Any]], let dict = array.first else { throw NSError(domain: NSOSStatusErrorDomain, code: Int(importStatus), userInfo: [NSLocalizedDescriptionKey: "Failed to import P12: \(importStatus)"]) } let identity = dict[kSecImportItemIdentity as String] as! SecIdentity let addQuery: [String: Any] = [ kSecClass as String: kSecClassIdentity, kSecValueRef as String: identity, kSecAttrLabel as String: kSecAttrAccessGroupToken, kSecAttrAccessible as String: kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock, kSecAttrAccessGroup as String: kSecAttrAccessGroupToken ] let status = SecItemAdd(addQuery as CFDictionary, nil) if status != errSecSuccess && status != errSecDuplicateItem { throw NSError(domain: NSOSStatusErrorDomain, code: Int(status), userInfo: [NSLocalizedDescriptionKey: "Failed to add to token group: \(status)"]) } return identity }

I've been spending days trying to solve the memory leak in a small menu bar application I've wrote (SC Menu). I've used Instruments which shows the leaks and memory graph which shows unreleased allocations. This occurs when someone views a certificate on the smartcard. Basically it opens a new window and displays the certificate, the same way Keychain Access displays a certificate. Whenever I create an SFCertificateView instance and set setDetailsDisclosed(true) - a memory leak happens. Instruments highlights that line. import Cocoa import SecurityInterface class ViewCertsViewController: NSViewController { var selectedCert: SecIdentity? = nil override func viewDidLoad() { super.viewDidLoad() self.view = NSView(frame: NSRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: 500, height: 500)) self.view.wantsLayer = true var secRef: SecCertificate? = nil guard let selectedCert else { return } let certRefErr = SecIdentityCopyCertificate(selectedCert, &secRef) if certRefErr != errSecSuccess { os_log("Error getting certificate from identity: %{public}@", log: OSLog.default, type: .error, String(describing: certRefErr)) return } let scrollView = NSScrollView() scrollView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.borderType = .lineBorder scrollView.hasHorizontalScroller = true scrollView.hasVerticalScroller = true let certView = SFCertificateView() guard let secRef = secRef else { return } certView.setCertificate(secRef) certView.setDetailsDisclosed(true) certView.setDisplayTrust(true) certView.setEditableTrust(true) certView.setDisplayDetails(true) certView.setPolicies(SecPolicyCreateBasicX509()) certView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.documentView = certView view.addSubview(scrollView) // Layout constraints NSLayoutConstraint.activate([ scrollView.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.leadingAnchor), scrollView.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.trailingAnchor), scrollView.topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.topAnchor), scrollView.bottomAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.bottomAnchor), // Provide certificate view a width and height constraint certView.widthAnchor.constraint(equalTo: scrollView.widthAnchor), certView.heightAnchor.constraint(greaterThanOrEqualToConstant: 500) ]) } } https://github.com/boberito/sc_menu/blob/dev_2.0/smartcard_menu/ViewCertsViewController.swift Fairly simple.

Hello, I would like to seek clarification regarding the availability of the NFC Secure Element (SE) / ISO7816 entitlement by region, specifically for Indonesia. I recently contacted Apple Developer Support regarding the use of NFC for reading ISO7816-compatible cards. I was informed that, at this time, the NFC & Secure Element entitlement is not available in Indonesia. For technical planning and compliance purposes, I would like to confirm the following: Is the NFC Secure Element / ISO7816 entitlement currently restricted by region, and is Indonesia officially unsupported at this time? For apps distributed on the App Store in Indonesia, is Core NFC limited to NDEF and non–Secure Element tag reading only? Are there any publicly supported alternatives or recommended architectural approaches for NFC-based workflows in regions where the Secure Element entitlement is unavailable? Is there any public documentation or guidance that outlines regional availability for NFC Secure Element features? I understand that entitlement approvals and availability may vary by region and are handled on a case-by-case basis. Any clarification from Apple engineers or developers with experience in this area would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards.

I'm seeing some odd behavior which may be a bug. I've broken it down to a least common denominator to reproduce it. But maybe I'm doing something wrong. I am opening a file read-write. I'm then mapping the file read-only and private: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_PRIVATE, fd, 0); I then unmap the memory and close the file. After the close, eslogger shows me this: {"close":{"modified":false,[...],"was_mapped_writable":false}} Which makes sense. I then change the mmap statement to: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); I run the new code and and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false, [....], "was_mapped_writable":true}} Which also makes sense. I then run the original again (ie, with MAP_PRIVATE vs. MAP_SHARED) and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false,"was_mapped_writable":true,[...]} Which doesn't appear to be correct. Now if I just open and close the file (again, read-write) and don't mmap anything the close still shows: {"close":{ [...], "was_mapped_writable":true,"modified":false}} And the same is true if I open the file read-only. It will remain that way until I delete the file. If I recreate the file and try again, everything is good until I map it MAP_SHARED. I tried this with macOS 13.6.7 and macOS 15.0.1.

Hi, 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.

Hello! I do know apple does not support electron, but I do not think this is an electron related issue, rather something I am doing wrong. I'd be curious to find out why the keychain login is happenning after my app has been signed with the bundleid, entitlements, and provision profile. Before using the provision profile I did not have this issue, but it is needed for assessments feature. I'm trying to ship an Electron / macOS desktop app that must run inside Automatic Assessment Configuration. The build signs and notarizes successfully, and assessment mode itself starts on Apple-arm64 machines, but every single launch shows the system dialog that asks to allow access to the "login" keychain. The dialog appears on totally fresh user accounts, so it's not tied to anything I store there. It has happened ever since I have added the provision profile to the electron builder to finally test assessment out. entitlements.inherit.plist keys &lt;key&gt;com.apple.security.cs.allow-jit&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;com.apple.security.cs.allow-unsigned-executable-memory&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; entitlements.plist keys: &lt;key&gt;com.apple.security.cs.allow-jit&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;com.apple.security.cs.allow-unsigned-executable-memory&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;com.apple.developer.automatic-assessment-configuration&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; I'm honestly not sure whether the keychain is expected, but I have tried a lot of entitlement combinations to get rid of It. Electron builder is doing the signing, and we manually use the notary tool to notarize but probably irrelevant. mac: { notarize: false, target: 'dir', entitlements: 'buildResources/entitlements.mac.plist', provisioningProfile: 'buildResources/xyu.provisionprofile', entitlementsInherit: 'buildResources/entitlements.mac.inherit.plist', Any lead is welcome!

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!

Hi, I have a set of plugins which are registered for login. One of them is a custom ui view for the login screen. The scenario: 1.DisableFDEAutoLogin is false. 2.The User logs in to the file vault login screen. 3.The security plugins are activated, and working. 4.We get any kind of an error from the plugins, and therefore the login fails. 5.We get a native login screen, after the denial of authorization. 6.In case that DisableFDEAutoLogin is true, I do get the custom login screen, after the file vault login. My question: Why dont I see the custom login screen, after the auto login fails? Cheers Sivan

Hi, I have an application that uses SecureEnclave keys to protect secrets. By passing an LAContext object to the Secure Enclave operations, authentication state can be preserved across decrypt operations, and you do not need to re-authenticate for doing different operations. However, for security reasons, I would like to avoid that it is possible to do operations in batch with certain keys generated by the Secure Enclave, by any application. This would avoid malicious binaries to batch-extract all the secrets that are protected by a key from my Secure Enclave, and force to re-authenticate on every operation. Is there a way to prevent batch operations without re-authenticating for Secure Enclave keys? thanks, Remko

Estou compartilhando algumas observações técnicas sobre Crash Detection / Emergency SOS no ecossistema Apple, com base em eventos amplamente observados em 2022 e 2024, quando houve chamadas automáticas em massa para serviços de emergência. A ideia aqui não é discutir UX superficial ou “edge cases isolados”, mas sim comportamento sistêmico em escala, algo que acredito ser relevante para qualquer time que trabalhe com sistemas críticos orientados a eventos físicos. Contexto resumido A partir do iPhone 14, a Detecção de Acidente passou a correlacionar múltiplos sensores (acelerômetros de alta faixa, giroscópio, GPS, microfones) para inferir eventos de impacto severo e acionar automaticamente chamadas de emergência. Em 2022, isso resultou em um volume significativo de falsos positivos, especialmente em atividades com alta aceleração (esqui, snowboard, parques de diversão). Em 2024, apesar de ajustes, houve recorrência localizada do mesmo padrão. Ponto técnico central O problema não parece ser hardware, nem um “bug pontual”, mas sim o estado intermediário de decisão: Aceleração ≠ acidente Ruído ≠ impacto real Movimento extremo ≠ incapacidade humana Quando o classificador entra em estado ambíguo, o sistema depende de uma janela curta de confirmação humana (toque/voz). Em ambientes ruidosos, com o usuário em movimento ou fisicamente ativo, essa confirmação frequentemente falha. O sistema então assume incapacidade e executa a ação fail-safe: chamada automática. Do ponto de vista de engenharia de segurança, isso é compreensível. Do ponto de vista de escala, é explosivo. Papel da Siri A Siri não “decide” o acidente, mas é um elo sensível na cadeia humano–máquina. Falhas de compreensão por ruído, idioma, respiração ofegante ou ausência de resposta acabam sendo interpretadas como sinal de emergência real. Isso é funcionalmente equivalente ao que vemos em sistemas automotivos como o eCall europeu, quando a confirmação humana é inexistente ou degradada. O dilema estrutural Há um trade-off claro e inevitável: Reduzir falsos negativos (não perder um acidente real) Aumentar falsos positivos (chamadas indevidas) Para o usuário individual, errar “para mais” faz sentido. Para serviços públicos de emergência, milhões de dispositivos errando “para mais” criam ruído operacional real. Por que isso importa para developers A Apple hoje opera, na prática, um dos maiores sistemas privados de segurança pessoal automatizada do mundo, interagindo diretamente com infraestrutura pública crítica. Isso coloca Crash Detection / SOS na mesma categoria de sistemas safety-critical, onde: UX é parte da segurança Algoritmos precisam ser auditáveis “Human-in-the-loop” não pode ser apenas nominal Reflexões abertas Alguns pontos que, como developer, acho que merecem discussão: Janelas de confirmação humana adaptativas ao contexto (atividade física, ruído). Cancelamento visual mais agressivo em cenários de alto movimento. Perfis de sensibilidade por tipo de atividade, claramente comunicados. Critérios adicionais antes da chamada automática quando o risco de falso positivo é estatisticamente alto. Não é um problema simples, nem exclusivo da Apple. É um problema de software crítico em contato direto com o mundo físico, operando em escala planetária. Justamente por isso, acho que vale uma discussão técnica aberta, sem ruído emocional. Curioso para ouvir perspectivas de quem trabalha com sistemas similares (automotivo, wearables, safety-critical, ML embarcado). — Rafa