I have an Autofill Passkey Provider working for Safari and Chrome via WebAuthn protocol. Unfortunately, Chrome will not offer my extension as a logon credential provider unless I add the credential to the ASCredentialIdentityStore. I wonder what is the best way to access the ASCredentialIdentityStore from an AutoFill extension? I understand I cannot access it directly from the extension context, so what is the best way to trigger my container app to run, based on a new WebAuthn registration? The best I can think of so far is for the www site to provide an App Link to launch my container app as part of the registration ceremony. Safari will offer my extension even without adding it to the ASCredentialIdentityStore, so I guess I should file a request with Chrome to work this way too, given difficulty of syncing ASCredentialIdentityStore with WebAuthn registration.

Hello, When using ASWebAuthenticationSession with an HTTPS callback URL (Universal Link), I receive the following error: Authorization error: The operation couldn't be completed. Application with identifier jp.xxxx.yyyy.dev is not associated with domain xxxx-example.go.link. Using HTTPS callbacks requires Associated Domains using the webcredentials service type for xxxx-example.go.link. I checked Apple’s official documentation but couldn’t find any clear statement that webcredentials is required when using HTTPS callbacks in ASWebAuthenticationSession. What I’d like to confirm: Is webcredentials officially required when using HTTPS as a callback URL with ASWebAuthenticationSession? If so, is there any official documentation or technical note that states this requirement? Environment iOS 18.6.2 Xcode 16.4 Any clarification or official references would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

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.

Hi everyone, I'm developing an iOS app using the AppsFlyer SDK. I understand that starting with iOS 14.5, if a user denies the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) permission, we are not allowed to access the IDFA or perform cross-app tracking. However, I’d like to clarify which in-app events are still legally and technically safe to send when the user denies ATT permission. Specifically, I want to know: Is it acceptable to send events like onboarding_completed, paywall_viewed, subscription_started, subscribe, subscribe_price, or app_opened if they are not linked to IDFA or any form of user tracking? Would sending such internal behavioral events (used purely for SKAdNetwork performance tracking or in-app analytics) violate Apple’s privacy policy if no device identifiers are attached? Additionally, if these events are sent in fully anonymous form (i.e., not associated with IDFA, user ID, email, or any identifiable metadata), does Apple still consider this a privacy concern? In other words, can onboarding_completed, paywall_viewed, subsribe, subscribe_price, etc., be sent in anonymous format without violating ATT policies? Are there any official Apple guidelines or best practices that outline what types of events are considered compliant in the absence of ATT consent? My goal is to remain 100% compliant with Apple’s policies while still analyzing meaningful user behavior to improve the in-app experience. Any clarification or pointers to documentation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

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

I am working on a SDK which helps identify the device authenticity. I am in need of something which can confirm the firmware/Hardware/OS is signed by Apple and is authentic. There will be no tempering to device?

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

Pretty much the headline. the func transactionHistory() needs to return the transaction location. This seems so rudimentary, yet it is missing from the docs. Unless I'm missing something, please add this feature or point me in the right direction. Alternatively, is there a way for my app to get notified of the transaction immediately as it happens? I have to get transactions historically which leaves me with no way to determine where they happened in the past.

Hello! We have code that extracts macOS Installer package (.pkg, .mpkg) signature information using APIs defined in <xar/xar.h> The code opens the package using ‘xar_open’ API like this. func open(file: String) throws(XarError) { xarfile = xar_open(file, READ) if xarfile == nil { throw .fileOpenError } } This code produces a clang warning in our CI build system when built for macOS 12 and up. 'xar_open' was deprecated in macOS 12.0: xar is a deprecated file format and should not be used. Question #1: What is the appropriate / more preferred way to extract signature information from an Installer package given that xar related APIs are deprecated? We use xar APIs to validate the package signature prior to installation to prevent packagers not signed by our team ID from being installed. Question #2: “xar is a deprecated file format and should not be used.”. Does this phrase refer to the file format that should be avoided or the API that extract signature information? We distribute our product using Developer ID method that using pkg/mpkg formats which I believe internally follow the same structure as xar files. I hope this message does not mean we should rethink the distribution method for our products. Thank you. Filed FB FB17148233 as well.

Hey everyone, I'm working on a password manager app for iOS and I'm trying to implement the new iOS 18 feature that lets users enable autofill directly from within the app. I know this exists because I've seen it in action in another app. They've clearly figured it out, but I'm struggling to find any documentation or info about the specific API. Has anyone else had any luck finding this? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Regarding the issue of login controls remaining on screen for a few seconds when using a subclass of SFAuthorizationPluginView, I wanted to inquire whether any progress has been made on resolving it. To recap, per notes I found in the QAuthPlugins sample code: Due to a bug (FB12074874), the use of an SFAuthorizationPluginView subclass can cause the login controls to remain onscreen for a significant amount of time (roughly 5 seconds) after login is complete, resulting in them being onscreen at the same time as the Finder’s menu bar and the Dock. The exact circumstances under which this happens are not well understood, but one factor seems to be running on a laptop where the main display is mirrored to an external display. Specifically, I would like to know: If there any other information about how the issue is reproduced? For my part I can say that it reproduces with out the use of a mirrored display. So far it reproduces for all of our developers and testers, all of the time. Are there any known workarounds? Is there any expectation that this issue will be addressed? Thank you so much!

Hi everyone, I am trying to use ASWebAuthenticationSession to authorize user using OAuth2. Service Webcredentials is set. /.well-known/apple-app-site-association file is set. When using API for iOS > 17.4 using new init with callback: .https(...) everything works as expected, however i cannot make .init(url: ,callbackURLScheme: ....) to work. How can i intercept callback using iOS <17.4? Do I really need to use universal links? callbackURL = https://mydomain.com/auth/callback

For security reasons, my application needs to prohibit external devices. If it is determined that the current phone is connected to any external devices, including non MFI authenticated devices, the app will exit. Please tell me how to do it? Thanks for your help.

Hi, It may be a stupid question, but we really wonder if there is a way for MDM to push a unique mTLS cert to our iOS application or if it can populate a client certificate in the iOS where our application can access it. Like browser app, how do browser mTLS certs get pushed? Thanks, Ying

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

I am working on improving Keychain item storage secured with Face ID using SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags. The implementation uses the .biometryAny flag as shown below: SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags( kCFAllocatorDefault, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, .biometryAny, &amp;error ) While this approach generally works as expected, I encountered a specific edge case during testing. On iOS 18.3.1 with Xcode 15.4, the following sequence causes the Keychain item to become inaccessible: Navigate to Settings &gt; Face ID &amp; Passcode and select Reset Face ID. Before setting up a new Face ID, tap the Back button to exit the setup process. Reopen the Face ID setup and complete the enrollment. Return to the app—previously stored Keychain items protected by .biometryAny are no longer available. This behavior appears to be a change introduced in recent iOS versions. In versions prior to iOS 15, resetting or deleting Face ID entries did not invalidate existing Keychain items protected by .biometryAny. This difference in behavior between iOS versions raises questions about the changes to biometric protection handling. Any suggestions are welcomed that might shine a light on what the best practice to use keychain access control and prevent the data to become unavailable.

Hello, I'm exploring the Secure Enclave APIs, and I'm wondering if it's possible to "cryptographically" determine if a block of data was signed on the Secure Enclave. When I sign a block of data using the Secure Enclave (which implies using a key pair automatically generated by the enclave) and distribute the public key to others, is there any way to verify if the message was encrypted on it / its private key was generated by it? In other words, what I'm trying to achieve is to make sure that the public key hasn't been tampered with until it reaches its destination (including on-device threats, since otherwise I could've used a normal keychain item, perhaps?). For the purpose of this example, I'm not necessarily interested in figuring out if the key was signed on a certain device's enclave, but rather on any Secure Enclave. So, using something derived from the enclave's GID Key (described in the Apple Platform Security guide) would work for this.

We recently transferred two applications to a different account, both of which utilize Keychain and shared app containers. Before transferring the first application, we anticipated losing access to the Keychain and took proactive measures by backing up data to the app’s private container in the final release prior to the transfer. During the app transfer process, we removed the shared container group ID from the old account and recreated it under the new account. In our testing, Keychain restoration from the local backup was successful, and users experienced no disruptions. However, after releasing the application, we observed that approximately 25% of our users not only lost their Keychain data as expected but also their shared app container data. As we have been unable to reproduce this issue internally, we are seeking your guidance on how to prevent a similar situation when transferring our second application. At this stage, we have not yet released any updates from the new account, and the Keychain data remains backed up in the app’s private container. We would appreciate any insights or recommendations you can provide to ensure a smooth transition for our users and make sure we can keep the data in shared container.

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

Why does the following code generate a public key that can't be parsed by openssl? import Security import CryptoKit func generateKeys() throws -> (privateKey: SecKey, publicKey: SecKey) { let query: [String: Any] = [ kSecAttrKeyType as String: kSecAttrKeyTypeECSECPrimeRandom, kSecAttrKeySizeInBits as String: 256, kSecAttrIsPermanent as String: false ] var error: Unmanaged<CFError>? guard let privateKey = SecKeyCreateRandomKey(query as CFDictionary, &error) else { throw error!.takeRetainedValue() } let publicKey = SecKeyCopyPublicKey(privateKey)! return (privateKey, publicKey) } extension SecKey { func exportBase64EncodedKey() -> String { var error: Unmanaged<CFError>? guard let data = SecKeyCopyExternalRepresentation(self, &error) else { fatalError("Failed to export key: \(error!.takeRetainedValue())") } return (data as Data).base64EncodedString(options: [.lineLength64Characters]) } } func printPublicKey() { let keyPair = try! generateKeys() let encodedPublicKey = keyPair.publicKey.exportBase64EncodedKey() var header = "-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----" var footer = "-----END PUBLIC KEY-----" var pemKey = "\(header)\n\(encodedPublicKey)\n\(footer)\n" print(pemKey) } printPublicKey() when parsing the key I get this: openssl pkey -pubin -in new_public_key.pem -text -noout Could not find private key of Public Key from new_public_key.pem 404278EC01000000:error:1E08010C:DECODER routines:OSSL_DECODER_from_bio:unsupported:crypto/encode_decode/decoder_lib.c:102:No supported data to decode. Replacing kSecAttrKeyTypeECSECPrimeRandom with kSecAttrKeyTypeRSA and a bigger key size (e.g. 2048) gives me a working public key that can be parsed by Openssl. Thanks!