Hello I'm using Auth0 for handling auth in my app When the user wants to sign in, it will show the auth system pop-up And when the user wants to log out it shows the same pop-up My issue is how to replace the Sign In text in this pop-up to show Sign Out instead of Sign In when the user wants to sign out?

Hello everyone, I'm developing a FIDO2 service using the AuthenticationServices framework. I've run into an issue when a user manually deletes a passkey from their password manager. When this happens, the ASAuthorizationError I get doesn't clearly indicate that the passkey is missing. The error code is 1001, and the localizedDescription is "The operation couldn't be completed. No credentials available for login." The userInfo also contains "NSLocalizedFailureReason": "No credentials available for login." My concern is that these localized strings will change depending on the user's device language, making it unreliable for me to programmatically check for a "no credentials" scenario. Is there a more precise way to determine that the user has no passkey, without relying on localized string values? Thank you for your help.

Testing my security agent plugin on Tahoe and find that when unlocking the screen, I now get an extra window that pops up over the SFAuthorizationPluginView that says "macOS You must enter a password to unlock the screen" with a Cancel (enabled) and OK button (disabled). See the attached photo. This is new with Tahoe. When unlocking the screen, I see the standard username and password entry view and I enter my password and click OK. That is when this new view appears. I can only click cancel so there is no way to complete authenticating.

We are using SecPKCS12Import C API in our application to import a self seigned public key certificate. We tried to run the application for the first time on Tahoe and it failed with OSStatus -26275 error. The release notes didn't mention any deprecation or change in the API as per https://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos-release-notes/macos-26-release-notes. Are we missing anything? There are no other changes done to our application.

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.

Greetings, We are struggling to implement device binding according to your documentation. We are generation a nonce value in backend like this: public static String generateNonce(int byteLength) { byte[] randomBytes = new byte[byteLength]; new SecureRandom().nextBytes(randomBytes); return Base64.getUrlEncoder().withoutPadding().encodeToString(randomBytes); } And our mobile client implement the attestation flow like this: @implementation AppAttestModule - (NSData *)sha256FromString:(NSString *)input { const char *str = [input UTF8String]; unsigned char result[CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; CC_SHA256(str, (CC_LONG)strlen(str), result); return [NSData dataWithBytes:result length:CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; } RCT_EXPORT_MODULE(); RCT_EXPORT_METHOD(generateAttestation:(NSString *)nonce resolver:(RCTPromiseResolveBlock)resolve rejecter:(RCTPromiseRejectBlock)reject) { if (@available(iOS 14.0, *)) { DCAppAttestService *service = [DCAppAttestService sharedService]; if (![service isSupported]) { reject(@"not_supported", @"App Attest is not supported on this device.", nil); return; } NSData *nonceData = [self sha256FromString:nonce]; NSUserDefaults *defaults = [NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults]; NSString *savedKeyId = [defaults stringForKey:@"AppAttestKeyId"]; NSString *savedAttestation = [defaults stringForKey:@"AppAttestAttestationData"]; void (^resolveWithValues)(NSString *keyId, NSData *assertion, NSString *attestationB64) = ^(NSString *keyId, NSData *assertion, NSString *attestationB64) { NSString *assertionB64 = [assertion base64EncodedStringWithOptions:0]; resolve(@{ @"nonce": nonce, @"signature": assertionB64, @"deviceType": @"IOS", @"attestationData": attestationB64 ?: @"", @"keyId": keyId }); }; void (^handleAssertion)(NSString *keyId, NSString *attestationB64) = ^(NSString *keyId, NSString *attestationB64) { [service generateAssertion:keyId clientDataHash:nonceData completionHandler:^(NSData *assertion, NSError *assertError) { if (!assertion) { reject(@"assertion_error", @"Failed to generate assertion", assertError); return; } resolveWithValues(keyId, assertion, attestationB64); }]; }; if (savedKeyId && savedAttestation) { handleAssertion(savedKeyId, savedAttestation); } else { [service generateKeyWithCompletionHandler:^(NSString *keyId, NSError *keyError) { if (!keyId) { reject(@"keygen_error", @"Failed to generate key", keyError); return; } [service attestKey:keyId clientDataHash:nonceData completionHandler:^(NSData *attestation, NSError *attestError) { if (!attestation) { reject(@"attestation_error", @"Failed to generate attestation", attestError); return; } NSString *attestationB64 = [attestation base64EncodedStringWithOptions:0]; [defaults setObject:keyId forKey:@"AppAttestKeyId"]; [defaults setObject:attestationB64 forKey:@"AppAttestAttestationData"]; [defaults synchronize]; handleAssertion(keyId, attestationB64); }]; }]; } } else { reject(@"ios_version", @"App Attest requires iOS 14+", nil); } } @end For validation we are extracting the nonce from the certificate like this: private static byte[] extractNonceFromAttestationCert(X509Certificate certificate) throws IOException { byte[] extensionValue = certificate.getExtensionValue("1.2.840.113635.100.8.2"); if (Objects.isNull(extensionValue)) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("Apple App Attest nonce extension not found in certificate."); } ASN1Primitive extensionPrimitive = ASN1Primitive.fromByteArray(extensionValue); ASN1OctetString outerOctet = ASN1OctetString.getInstance(extensionPrimitive); ASN1Sequence sequence = (ASN1Sequence) ASN1Primitive.fromByteArray(outerOctet.getOctets()); ASN1TaggedObject taggedObject = (ASN1TaggedObject) sequence.getObjectAt(0); ASN1OctetString nonceOctet = ASN1OctetString.getInstance(taggedObject.getObject()); return nonceOctet.getOctets(); } And for the verification we are using this method: private OptionalMethodResult<Void> verifyNonce(X509Certificate certificate, String expectedNonce, byte[] authData) { byte[] expectedNonceHash; try { byte[] nonceBytes = MessageDigest.getInstance("SHA-256").digest(expectedNonce.getBytes()); byte[] combined = ByteBuffer.allocate(authData.length + nonceBytes.length).put(authData).put(nonceBytes).array(); expectedNonceHash = MessageDigest.getInstance("SHA-256").digest(combined); } catch (NoSuchAlgorithmException e) { log.error("Error while validations iOS attestation: {}", e.getMessage(), e); return OptionalMethodResult.ofError(deviceBindError.getChallengeNotMatchedError()); } byte[] actualNonceFromCert; try { actualNonceFromCert = extractNonceFromAttestationCert(certificate); } catch (Exception e) { log.error("Error while extracting nonce from certificate: {}", e.getMessage(), e); return OptionalMethodResult.ofError(deviceBindError.getChallengeNotMatchedError()); } if (!Arrays.equals(expectedNonceHash, actualNonceFromCert)) { return OptionalMethodResult.ofError(deviceBindError.getChallengeNotMatchedError()); } return OptionalMethodResult.empty(); } But the values did not matched. What are we doing wrong here? Thanks.

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!

I added a feature to my app that retrieves only app settings (no personal data) from my API hosted on Cloudflare Workers. The app does not send, collect, track, or share any user data, and I do not store or process any personal information. Technical details such as IP address, user agent, and device information may be automatically transmitted as part of the internet protocol when the request is made, but my app does not log or use them. Cloudflare may collect this information. Question: Does this count as “data collection” for App Store Connect purposes, or can I select “No Data Collected”?

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

Hello, We recently implemented SSL pinning in our iOS app (Objective-C) using the common approach of embedding the server certificate (.cer) in the app bundle and comparing it in URLSession:didReceiveChallenge:. This worked fine initially, but when our backend team updated the server certificate (same domain, new cert from CA), the app immediately started failing because the bundled certificate no longer matched. We’d like to avoid shipping and updating our app every time the server’s certificate changes. Instead, we are looking for the Apple-recommended / correct approach to implement SSL pinning without embedding the actual certificate file in the app bundle. Specifically: . Is there a supported way to implement pinning based on the public key hash or SPKI hash (like sha256/... pins) rather than the full certificate? . How can this be safely implemented using NSURLSession / SecTrustEvaluate (iOS 15+ APIs, considering that SecTrustGetCertificateAtIndex is deprecated)? . Are there Apple-endorsed best practices for handling certificate rotation while still maintaining strong pinning? Any guidance or code samples would be greatly appreciated. We want to make sure we are following best practices and not relying on brittle implementations. Thanks in advance!

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!

Using the SDK, I've printed out some log messages when I enter the wrong password: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] invoke 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] general: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] progname: 'SecurityAgentHelper-arm64' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] OS version: 'Version 15.5 (Build 24F74)' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] pid: '818' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] ppid: '1' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] euid: '92' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.086 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] uid: '92' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] session: 0x186e9 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] attributes: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] is root: f 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] has graphics: t 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] has TTY: t 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] is remote: f 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] auth session: 0x0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.087 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] context: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.088 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] authentication-failure: --S -14090 2025-08-20 15:58:14.088 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] pam_result: X-S 9 2025-08-20 15:58:14.089 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] hints: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.089 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] authorize-right: "system.login.console" 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-path: "/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app" 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-pid: 807 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-type: 'LDNB' 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-uid: 0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-audit-token: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] 00 00 00 00 27 03 00 00 e9 86 01 00 68 08 00 00 ....'.......h... 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-pid: 807 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] flags: 259 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] reason: 0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] tries: 1 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] immutable hints: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-apple-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] client-firstparty-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-apple-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.090 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] creator-firstparty-signed: true 2025-08-20 15:58:14.091 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] arguments: 2025-08-20 15:58:14.091 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] none 2025-08-20 15:58:14.108 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] LAContext: LAContext[4:8:112] 2025-08-20 15:58:14.119 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] token identities: 0 2025-08-20 15:58:14.120 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[818:1efd] [com.example.apple-samplecode.LoggingAuthPlugin:mechanism] token watcher: <TKTokenWatcher: 0x11410ee70> Specifically, is there a manual/link somewhere that can allow me to interpret: authentication-failure: --S -14090 and pam_result: X-S 9

Has anybody else experienced something similar? This is on the login screen. I call update() and it doesn't call me back with view() 2025-08-21 17:04:38.669 Db SecurityAgentHelper-arm64[1134:2df1] [***:LoginView] calling update() Then silence...

Hello, I am currently working on iOS application development using Swift, targeting iOS 17 and above, and need to implement mTLS for network connections. In the registration API flow, the app generates a private key and CSR on the device, sends the CSR to the server (via the registration API), and receives back the signed client certificate (CRT) along with the intermediate/CA certificate. These certificates are then imported on the device. The challenge I am facing is pairing the received CRT with the previously generated private key in order to create a SecIdentity. Could you please suggest the correct approach to generate a SecIdentity in this scenario? If there are any sample code snippets, WWDC videos, or documentation references available, I would greatly appreciate it if you could share them. Thank you for your guidance.

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.

I am trying to setup remote Java debugging between two machines running macOS (15.6 and 26). I am able to get the Java program to listen on a socket. However, I can connect to that socket only from the same machine, not from another machine on my local network. I use nc to test the connection. It reports Connection refused when trying to connect from the other machine. This issue sounds like it could be caused by the Java program lacking Local Network system permission. I am familiar with that issue arising when a program attempts to connect to a port on the local network. In that case, a dialog is displayed and System Settings can be used to grant Local Network permission to the client program. I don't know whether the same permission is required on the program that is receiving client requests. If it is, then I don't know how to grant that permission. There is no dialog, and System Settings does not provide any obvious way to grant permission to a program that I specify. Note that a Java application is a program run by the java command, not a bundled application. The java command contains a hard-wired Info.plist which, annoyingly, requests permission to use the microphone, but not Local Network access.

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?

Using the simplified sign-in with tvOS and a third party password manager, I receive a complete ASPasswordCredential, and I can easily log into my app. When I do the same thing but with Apple's password manager as the source, I receive an ASPasswordCredential that includes the email address, but the password is an empty string. I have tried deleting the credentials from Apple Passwords and regenerating them with a new login to the app's website. I have tried restarting my iPhone. Is this the expected behavior? How should I be getting a password from Apple's Password app with an ASAuthorizationPasswordRequest?

I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. There have been substantial changes in this space recently. While much of this is now covered in the official docs (r. 92322409), I’ve updated this post to go into all the gory details. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the App & System Services > Core OS topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if your question is about app group containers, also include Files and Storage. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony There are two styles of app group ID: iOS-style app group IDs start with group., for example, group.eskimo1.test. macOS-style app group IDs start with your Team ID, for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. This difference has been the source of numerous weird problems over the years. Starting in Feb 2025, iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on macOS for all product types [1]. If you’re writing new code that uses app groups, use an iOS-style app group ID. If you have existing code that uses a macOS-style app group ID, consider how you might transition to the iOS style. IMPORTANT The Feb 2025 changes aren’t tied to an OS release but rather to a Developer website update. For more on this, see Feb 2025 Changes, below. [1] If your product is a standalone executable, like a daemon or agent, wrap it in an app-like structure, as explained in Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement. iOS-Style App Group IDs An iOS-style app group ID has the following features: It starts with the group. prefix, for example, group.eskimo1.test. You allocate it on the Developer website. This assigns the app group ID to your team. You then claim access to it by listing it in the App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. That claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile [1]. The Developer website will only let you include your team’s app group IDs in your profile. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. iOS-style app group IDs originated on iOS with iOS 3.0. They’ve always been supported on iOS’s child platforms (iPadOS, tvOS, visionOS, and watchOS). On the Mac: They’ve been supported by Mac Catalyst since that technology was introduced. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Starting in Feb 2025, they’re supported for other Mac products. [1] Strictly speaking macOS does not require that, but if your claim is not authorised by a profile then you might run into other problems. See Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. macOS-Style App Group IDs A macOS-style app group ID has the following features: It should start with your Team ID [1], for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. It can’t be explicitly allocated on the Developer website. Code that isn’t sandboxed doesn’t need to claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. [2] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted on macOS, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile [3]. However, if you claim an app group ID that’s not authorised in some way, you might run into problems. More on that later in this post. If you submit an app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense, that is, they either start with your Team ID (macOS style) or are assigned to your team (iOS style). [1] This is “should” because, historically, macOS has not actually required it. However, that’s now changing, with things like app group container protection. [2] This was true prior to macOS 15. It may still technically be true in macOS 15 and later, but the most important thing, access to the app group container, requires the entitlement because of app group container protection. [3] Technically it’s a validation-required entitlement, something that we’ll come back to in the Entitlements-Validated Flag section. Feb 2025 Changes On 21 Feb 2025 we rolled out a change to the Developer website that completes the support for iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Specifically, it’s now possible to create a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group ID. Note This change doesn’t affect Mac Catalyst or iOS Apps on Mac, which have always been able to use iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Prior to this change it was possible to use an iOS-style app group ID on the Mac but that might result in some weird behaviour. Later sections of this post describe some of those problems. Of course, that information is now only of historical interest because, if you’re using an iOS-style app group, you can and should authorise that use with a provisioning profile. We also started seeding Xcode 16.3, which has since been release. This is aware of the Developer website change, and its Signing & Capabilities editor actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. Note This Xcode behaviour is the only option for iOS and its child platforms. With Xcode 16.3, it’s now the default for macOS as well. If you have existing project, enable this behaviour using the Register App Groups build setting. Finally, we updated a number of app group documentation pages, including App Groups entitlement and Configuring app groups. Crossing the Streams In some circumstances you might need to have a single app that accesses both an iOS- and a macOS-style app group. For example: You have a macOS app. You want to migrate to an iOS-style app group ID, perhaps because you want to share an app group container with a Mac Catalyst app. But you also need to access existing content in a container identified by a macOS-style app group ID. Historically this caused problems (FB16664827) but, as of Jun 2025, this is fully supported (r. 148552377). When the Developer website generates a Mac provisioning profile for an App ID with the App Groups capability, it automatically adds TEAM_ID.* to the list of app group IDs authorised by that profile (where TEAM_ID is your Team ID). This allows the app to claim access to every iOS-style app group ID associated with the App ID and any macOS-style app group IDs for that team. This helps in two circumstances: It avoids any Mac App Store Connect submission problems, because App Store Connect can see that the app’s profile authorises its use of all the it app group IDs it claims access to. Outside of App Store — for example, when you directly distribute an app using Developer ID signing — you no longer have to rely on macOS granting implicit access to macOS-style app group IDs. Rather, such access is explicitly authorised by your profile. That ensures that your entitlements remain validated, as discussed in the Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. A Historical Interlude These different styles of app group IDs have historical roots: On iOS, third-party apps have always used provisioning profiles, and thus the App Groups entitlement is restricted just like any other entitlement. On macOS, support for app groups was introduced before macOS had general support for provisioning profiles [1], and thus the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted. The unrestricted nature of this entitlement poses two problems. The first is accidental collisions. How do you prevent folks from accidentally using an app group ID that’s in use by some other developer? On iOS this is easy: The Developer website assigns each app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. macOS achieved a similar result by using the Team ID as a prefix. The second problem is malicious reuse. How do you prevent a Mac app from accessing the app group containers of some other team? Again, this isn’t an issue on iOS because the App Groups entitlement is restricted. On macOS the solution was for the Mac App Store to prevent you from publishing an app that used an app group ID that’s used by another team. However, this only works for Mac App Store apps. Directly distributed apps were free to access app group containers of any other app. That was considered acceptable back when the Mac App Store was first introduced. That’s no longer the case, which is why macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. See App Group Container Protection, below. [1] I’m specifically talking about provisioning profiles for directly distributed apps, that is, apps using Developer ID signing. Entitlements-Validated Flag The fact that the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted on macOS is, when you think about it, a little odd. The purpose of entitlements is to gate access to functionality. If an entitlement isn’t restricted, it’s not much of a gate! For most unrestricted entitlements that’s not a problem. Specifically, for both the App Sandbox and Hardened Runtime entitlements, those are things you opt in to, so macOS is happy to accept the entitlement at face value. After all, if you want to cheat you can just not opt in [1]. However, this isn’t the case for the App Groups entitlement, which actually gates access to functionality. Dealing with this requires macOS to walk a fine line between security and compatibility. Part of that solution is the entitlements-validated flag. When a process runs an executable, macOS checks its entitlements. There are two categories: Restricted entitlements must be authorised by a provisioning profile. If your process runs an executable that claims a restricted entitlement that’s not authorised by a profile, the system traps. Unrestricted entitlements don’t have to be authorised by a provisioning profile; they can be used by any code at any time. However, the App Groups entitlement is a special type of unrestricted entitlement called a validation-required entitlement. If a process runs an executable that claims a validation-required entitlement and that claim is not authorised by a profile, the system allows the process to continue running but clears its entitlements-validated flag. Some subsystems gate functionality on the entitlements-validated flag. For example, the data protection keychain uses entitlements as part of its access control model, but refuses to honour those entitlements if the entitlement-validated flag has been cleared. Note If you’re curious about this flag, use the procinfo subcommand of launchctl to view it. For example: % sudo launchctl procinfo `pgrep Test20230126` … code signing info = valid … entitlements validated … If the flag has been cleared, this line will be missing from the code signing info section. Historically this was a serious problem because it prevented you from creating an app that uses both app groups and the data protection keychain [2] (r. 104859788). Fortunately that’s no longer an issue because the Developer website now lets you include the App Groups entitlement in macOS provisioning profiles. [1] From the perspective of macOS checking entitlements at runtime. There are other checks: The App Sandbox is mandatory for Mac App Store apps, but that’s checked when you upload the app to App Store Connect. Directly distributed apps must be notarised to pass Gatekeeper, and the notary service requires that all executables enable the hardened runtime. [2] See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain a historical oddity associated with keychain access. The Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps article says: Application groups When you collect related apps into an application group using the App Groups entitlement, they share access to a group container, and gain the ability to message each other in certain ways. You can use app group names as keychain access group names, without adding them to the Keychain Access Groups entitlement. On iOS this makes a lot of sense: The App Groups entitlement is a restricted entitlement on iOS. The Developer website assigns each iOS-style app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. The required group. prefix means that these keychain access groups can’t collide with other keychain access groups, which all start with an App ID prefix (there’s also Apple-only keychain access groups that start with other prefixes, like apple). However, this didn’t work on macOS [1] because the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted there. However, with the Feb 2025 changes it should now be possible to use an iOS-style app group ID as a keychain access group on macOS. Note I say “should” because I’ve not actually tried it (-: Keep in mind that standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on all platforms, using the restricted Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for Mac Catalyst apps and iOS Apps on Mac. Not Entirely Unsatisfied When you launch a Mac app that uses app groups you might see this log entry: type: error time: 10:41:35.858009+0000 process: taskgated-helper subsystem: com.apple.ManagedClient category: ProvisioningProfiles message: com.example.apple-samplecode.Test92322409: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups Note The exact format of that log entry, and the circumstances under which it’s generated, varies by platform. On macOS 13.0.1 I was able to generate it by running a sandboxed app that claims a macOS-style app group ID in the App Groups entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. It means that the App Groups entitlement claims an entitlement that’s not authorised by a provisioning profile. On iOS this would trap, but on macOS the system allows the process to continue running. It does, however, clear the entitlements-validate flag. See Entitlements-Validated Flag for an in-depth discussion of this. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to authorise your app group ID claims with a provisioning profile. If there’s some reason you can’t do that, watch out for potential problems with: The data protection keychain — See the discussion of that in the Entitlements-Validated Flag and App Groups and the Keychain sections, both above. App group container protection — See App Group Container Protection, below. App Group Container Protection macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. To access an app group container without user intervention: Claim access to the app group by listing its ID in the App Groups entitlement. Locate the container by calling the containerURL(forSecurityApplicationGroupIdentifier:) method. Ensure that at least one of the following criteria are met: Your app is deployed via the Mac App Store (A). Or via TestFlight when running on macOS 15.1 or later (B). Or the app group ID starts with your app’s Team ID (C). Or your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D) [1]. If your app doesn’t follow these rules, the system prompts the user to approve its access to the container. If granted, that consent applies only for the duration of that app instance. For more on this, see: The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15 Release Notes The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15.1 Release Notes WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy, starting at 12:23 The above criteria mean that you rarely run into the app group authorisation prompt. If you encounter a case where that happens, feel free to start a thread here on DevForums. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Note Prior to the Feb 2025 change, things generally worked out fine when you app was deployed but you might’ve run into problems during development. That’s no longer the case. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Revision History 2025-08-12 Added a reference to the Register App Groups build setting. 2025-07-28 Updated the Crossing the Streams section for the Jun 2025 change. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-04-16 Rewrote the document now that iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on the Mac. Changed the title from App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight! to App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony 2025-02-25 Fixed the Xcode version number mentioned in yesterday’s update. 2025-02-24 Added a quick update about the iOS-style app group IDs on macOS issue. 2024-11-05 Further clarified app group container protection. Reworked some other sections to account for this new reality. 2024-10-29 Clarified the points in App Group Container Protection. 2024-10-23 Fleshed out the discussion of app group container protection on macOS 15. 2024-09-04 Added information about app group container protection on macOS 15. 2023-01-31 Renamed the Not Entirely Unsatisfactory section to Not Entirely Unsatisfied. Updated it to describe the real impact of that log message. 2022-12-12 First posted.