Hi Apple, Currently we want to have enhancement for SMS OTP that we want to implement OTP Autofill, But after do some research we're stuck with option that the OTP only show in keyboard suggestion, is there any way for making OTP is automatically filled without user have to click the keyboard suggestion when receiving the SMS. Thanks Best Regards, Admiral Sultano Harly.

Xcode 26.x + iOS 26.x MTE Compatibility Feedback Reporter：Third-party App Developer Date：2026 Environments：Xcode 26.2 / 26.4, iOS 26.2 / 26.4 SDK, iPhone 17 Pro, Third-party App (Swift/C++/Python/Boost) Core Issue MTE (Memory Tagging Extension) under Memory Integrity Enforcement generates extensive false positives for valid high-performance memory operations in third-party apps, causing crashes. No official configuration exists to bypass these false positives, severely impacting stability and development costs. Key Problems 1. Widespread False Positives (Valid Code Crashes) After enabling MTE (Soft/Hard Mode), legitimate industrial-standard operations crash: Swift/ C++ containers: Array.append, resize, std::vector reallocation Custom memory pools / Boost lockfree queues:no UAF/corruption Memory reallocation:Legitimate free-reuse patterns are judged as tag mismatches. 2. MTE Hard Mode Incompatibility iOS 26.4 opens MTE Hard Mode for third-party apps, but it immediately crashes apps using standard high-performance memory management. No whitelist/exception mechanism for third-party developers. 3. MTE Soft Mode Limitations Detects far fewer issues than actual memory corruption reports. Only generates 1 simulated report per process, hiding multiple potential issues. Impact Stability: Apps crash in production when MTE is enabled. Cost: Massive code changes required to abandon memory pools/lockfree structures for system malloc. Ecosystem: Popular libraries (Python, Boost) are incompatible. Recommendations Optimize MTE rules: Add system-level exceptions for valid container resizing and memory pool operations. Provide exemptions: Allow per-region/module MTE exceptions for high-performance modules. Support runtimes: Officially support common third-party runtimes (Python/Boost) or provide system-level exemptions. Improve debugging: Increase MTE Soft Mode coverage and allow multiple reports per process.

Hi,is there an option to mark the file or folder or item stored in user defaults ... not to be backed up when doing unencrypted backup in iTunes?We are developing iOS app that contains sensitive data. But even if we enable Data Protection for the iOS app it can be backed up on mac unencrypted using iTunes. Is there a way to allow backing up content only if the backup is encrypted?

I am developing a Flutter iOS application and encountering a crash when using biometric authentication (Face ID) via the local_auth plugin. ■ Environment Flutter: 3.x local_auth: 2.2.0 (also tested with 2.1.6) iOS: real device (Face ID is working normally for device unlock) Firebase Authentication (email/password) Xcode build ■ Issue When calling biometric authentication, the app crashes immediately. Code: final didAuthenticate = await auth.authenticate( localizedReason: 'Authenticate to login', options: const AuthenticationOptions( biometricOnly: false, useErrorDialogs: false, ), ); ■ Error Thread 1: signal SIGABRT Crash occurs in libsystem_kernel.dylib (__pthread_kill) Happens immediately when authenticate() is called No exception is caught in Dart (native crash) ■ Verified NSFaceIDUsageDescription is correctly included in Info.plist Confirmed it exists in the built Runner.app Info.plist localizedReason is non-empty and in English Flutter clean / pod install executed App reinstalled on device Face ID works normally outside the app ■ Question Under what conditions does LAContext.evaluatePolicy trigger SIGABRT instead of returning an error? Are there known issues with presenting biometric authentication UI in certain UI states (e.g., view controller hierarchy, scene lifecycle)? Could this be related to UIScene / rootViewController issues? What is the correct timing and context to call biometric authentication safely in iOS apps? I suspect this is related to native iOS behavior rather than Flutter logic. Any guidance would be appreciated.

My application is supporting hybrid transport on FIDO2 webAuthn specs to create credential and assertion. And it support legacy passkeys which only mean to save to 1 device and not eligible to backup. However In my case, if i set the Backup Eligibility and Backup State flag to false, it fails on the completion of the registrationRequest to save the passkey credential within credential extension, the status is false instead of true. self.extension.completeRegistrationRequest(using: passkeyRegistrationCredential) The attestation and assertion flow only works when both flags set to true. Can advice why its must have to set both to true in this case?

In the hopes of saving others time, the updated demo project (i.e. the new Shiny) can be found from the video 'Resources' section under 'Performing fast account creation with passkeys'. The beta documentation can also be found from there. All of the new functionality is available only on *OS 26 at this time.

We are experiencing a significant issue with macOS security alerts that began on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. This alert is incorrectly identifying output files from our snippet tests as malware, causing these files to be blocked and moved to the Trash. This is completely disrupting our automated testing workflows. Issue Description: Alert: We are seeing the "Malware Blocked and Moved to Trash" popup window. Affected Files: The security alert triggers when attempting to execute .par files generated as outputs from our snippet tests. These .par files are unique to each individual test run; they are not a single, static tool. System-Wide Impact: This issue is impacting multiple macOS hosts across our testing infrastructure. Timeline: The issue began abruptly on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. Before that time, our tests were functioning correctly. macOS Versions: The problem is occurring on hosts running both macOS 14.x and 15.x. Experimental Host: Even after upgrading an experimental host to macOS 15.6 beta 2, the issue persisted. Local execution: The issue can be reproduced locally. Observations: The security system is consistently flagging these snippet test output files as malware. Since each test generates a new .par file, and this issue is impacting all generated files, the root cause doesn't appear to be specific to the code within the .par files themselves. This issue is impacting all the snippet tests, making us believe that the root cause is not related to our code. The sudden and widespread nature of the issue strongly suggests a change in a security database or rule, rather than a change in our testing code. Questions: Could a recent update to the XProtect database be the cause of this false positive? Are there any known issues or recent changes in macOS security mechanisms that could cause this kind of widespread and sudden impact? What is the recommended way to diagnose and resolve this kind of false positive? We appreciate any guidance or assistance you can provide. Thank you.

Hi everyone, I'm developing a C++ plugin (.bundle) for a third-party host application (Autodesk Maya) on macOS, and I'm finalizing the design for our licensing system. The plugin is distributed outside the Mac App Store. My goal is to securely store a license key in the user's Keychain. After some research, my proposed implementation is as follows: On activation, store the license data in the user's login keychain as a Generic Password (kSecClassGenericPassword) using the SecItem APIs. To ensure the plugin can access the item when loaded by Maya, I will use a specific Keychain Access Group (e.g., MY_TEAM_ID.com.mywebsite). The final .bundle will be code-signed with our company's Developer ID certificate. The signature will include an entitlements file (.entitlements) that specifies the matching keychain-access-groups permission. My understanding is that this combination of a unique Keychain Access Group and a properly signed/entitled bundle is the key to getting reliable Keychain access. This should also correctly trigger the one-time user permission prompt on first use. Does this sound like the correct and most robust approach for this scenario? Are there any common pitfalls with a plugin's Keychain access from within a host app that I should be aware of? Thanks for any feedback!

The header documentation for the (deprecated) LAContext.evaluatedPolicyDomainState property contains the following: @warning Please note that the value returned by this property can change exceptionally between major OS versions even if the state of biometry has not changed. I noticed that the documentation for the new LAContext.domainState property does not contain a similar warning. I also found this related thread from 2016/17. Is the domainState property not susceptible to changes between major OS versions? Or is this generally not an issue anymore?

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

I have a project with a single app target that serves two environments, and two schemes, one for each env, using xcconfig files for defining environment-specific stuff. I'm trying to figure this out for months, so I've tried multiple approaches throughout this period: Have a single domain in "Associated domains" in Xcode, defined as webcredentials:X where X gets replaced using a value from xcconfig. Have two domain entries in "Associated domains" webcredentials:PROD_DOMAIN and webcredentials:STAGING_DOMAIN. Have a different order of domains Results are very interesting: whatever I do, whatever approach I take, password autofill works on staging, but doesn't work on production. I'm aware that we need to test production on Test Flight and AppStore builds. That's how we're testing it, and it's not working. Tested on multiple devices, on multiple networks (wifi + mobile data), in multiple countries.. you name it. The server side team has checked their implementation a dozen times; it's all configured properly, in the exact same way across environments (except bundle ID, ofc). We tried a couple websites for validating the apple-app-site-association file, and while all of those are focused on testing universal links, they all reported that the file is configured properly. Still, password autofill doesn't work. I prefer not to share my app's domains publicly here. Ideally I would contact Apple Developer Support directly, but they now require a test project for that, and since 'a test project' is not applicable to my issue, I'm posting here instead.

I'm trying to setup device attestation. I believe I have everything setup correctly but the final step of signature validation never succeeds. I've added validation on the client side for debugging and it doesn't validate using CryptoKit. After the assertion is created, I try to validate it: assertion = try await DCAppAttestService.shared.generateAssertion(keyId, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) await validateAssertionLocallyForDebugging(keyId: keyId, assertionObject: assertion, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) In the validateAssertionLocallyForDebugging method, I extract all the data from the CBOR assertionObject and then setup the parameters to validate the signature, using the key that was created from the original attestation flow, but it fails every time. I'm getting the public key from the server using a temporary debugging API. let publicKeyData = Data(base64Encoded: publicKeyB64)! let p256PublicKey = try P256.Signing.PublicKey(derRepresentation: publicKeyData) let ecdsaSignature = try P256.Signing.ECDSASignature(derRepresentation: signature) let digestToVerify = SHA256.hash(data: authenticatorData + clientDataHash) print(" - Recreated Digest to Verify: \(Data(digestToVerify).hexDescription)") if p256PublicKey.isValidSignature(ecdsaSignature, for: digestToVerify) { print("[DEBUG] SUCCESS: Local signature validation passed!") } else { print("[DEBUG] FAILED: Local signature validation failed.") } I have checked my .entitlements file and it is set to development. I have checked the keyId and verified the public key. I have verified the public key X,Y, the RP ID Hash, COSE data, and pretty much anything else I could think of. I've also tried using Gemini and Claude to debug this and that just sends me in circles of trying hashed, unhashed, and double hashed clientData. I'm doing this from Xcode on an M3 macbook air to an iPhone 16 Pro Max. Do you have any ideas on why the signature is not validating with everything else appears to be working? Thanks

Hello everyone, We recently transferred our iOS app from one Apple Developer account to another, and after the transfer, we encountered a serious issue where all previously stored Keychain data and the local database became inaccessible. As a result, all users are automatically logged out and lose access to their locally stored data (such as chat history) once they update to the new version signed with the new Team ID. We understand that Keychain items are tied to the App ID prefix (Team ID), which changes during an app transfer. However, we’re looking for possible workarounds or best practices to avoid user data loss. Questions: Is there any reliable method to maintain or migrate access to old Keychain data after an app transfer? Would reverting the app back to the original developer account and releasing an update from there (to persist or migrate data) before transferring it again be a viable solution? Has anyone faced a similar issue and found a practical way to handle data persistence during an app transfer? Any guidance, technical suggestions, or shared experiences would be highly appreciated. This issue is causing major impact for our users, so we’re hoping to find a safe and supported approach. Thank you, Mohammed Hassan

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.

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!

I'm trying to confirm the correct URL for Apple Attest development. There seems to be a fraud metric risk section that uses this: https://data-development.appattest.apple.com/v1/attestationData However the key verification seems to use this: https://data-development.appattest.apple.com/v1/attestation Currently I'm attempting to verify the key, so the second one seems likely. However I keep receiving a 404 despite vigorous validation of all fields included in the JSON as well as headers. Can anyone confirm please, which URL I should be sending my AppleAttestationRequest to?

WebAuthn Level 3 § 5.1.3 Step 22 Item 4 states the steps a user agent MUST follow when "conditional" mediation is used in conjunction with required user verification: Let userVerification be the effective user verification requirement for credential creation, a Boolean value, as follows. If pkOptions.authenticatorSelection.userVerification is set to required If options.mediation is set to conditional and user verification cannot be collected during the ceremony, throw a ConstraintError DOMException. Let userVerification be true. On my iPhone 15 Pro Max running iOS 18.5, Safari + Passwords does not exhibit this behavior; instead an error is not reported and user verification is not performed (i.e., the UV bit is 0). Per the spec this results in a registration ceremony failure on the server which is made all the more "annoying" since the credential was created in Passwords forcing a user to then delete the credential. : If the Relying Party requires user verification for this registration, verify that the UV bit of the flags in authData is set. In contrast when I use Google Password Manager + Chrome on a Samsung Galaxy S24 running Android 15, user verification is enforced and the UV bit is 1. Either the UV bit should be 1 after enforcing user verification or an error should be thrown since user verification cannot be performed.

I'm working on integrating Passkey functionality into my iOS app (targeting iOS 16.0+), and I'm facing an issue where the system dialog still shows the "Save to another device" option during Passkey registration. I want to hide this option to force users to create Passkeys only on the current device. 1. My Current Registration Implementation Here’s the code I’m using to create a Passkey registration request. I’ve tried to use ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider (which is supposed to target platform authenticators like Face ID/Touch ID), but the "Save to another device" option still appears: `// Initialize provider for platform authenticators let provider = ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider(relyingPartyIdentifier: domain) // Create registration request let registrationRequest = provider.createCredentialRegistrationRequest( challenge: challenge, name: username, userID: userId ) // Optional configurations (tried these but no effect on "another device" option) registrationRequest.displayName = "Test Device" registrationRequest.userVerificationPreference = .required registrationRequest.attestationPreference = .none // Set up authorization controller let authController = ASAuthorizationController(authorizationRequests: [registrationRequest]) let delegate = PasskeyRegistrationDelegate(completion: completion) authController.delegate = delegate // Trigger the registration flow authController.performRequests(options: .preferImmediatelyAvailableCredentials)` 2. Observation from Authentication Flow (Working as Expected) During the Passkey authentication flow (not registration), I can successfully hide the "Use another device" option by specifying allowedCredentials in the ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialAssertionRequest. Here’s a simplified example of that working code: let assertionRequest = provider.createCredentialAssertionRequest(challenge: challenge) assertionRequest.allowedCredentials = allowedCredentials After adding allowedCredentials, the system dialog no longer shows cross-device options—this is exactly the behavior I want for registration. 3. My Questions Is there a similar parameter to allowedCredentials (from authentication) that I can use during registration to hide the "Save to another device" option? Did I miss any configuration in the registration request (e.g., authenticatorAttachment or other properties) that forces the flow to use only the current device’s platform authenticator? Are there any system-level constraints or WebAuthn standards I’m overlooking that cause the "Save to another device" option to persist during registration? Any insights or code examples would be greatly appreciated!

Hi, is it somehow possible to access a key that was generated by the DCAppAttestService generateKey() function? I need to be 100% sure that no actor from within or outside of my app can access the generated key with the DeviceCheck Framework. It would also be helpful to get some official resources to the topic. Thank you in advance, Mike