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.

On Thursday, June 12, 2025, Sign in with Apple was impacted by an incorrect subdomain defined in its /.well-known/openid-configuration file. The JSON returned incorrectly provided https://account.apple.com instead of the expected https://appleid.apple.com. For Sign in with Apple, the value for the issuer (iss) claim in the user's identity token is https://appleid.apple.com. Additionally, if your clients use the Sign in with Apple REST API, the following endpoints should be used for each request: https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token https://appleid.apple.com/auth/revoke https://appleid.apple.com/auth/keys This issue with the /.well-known/openid-configuration file was resolved the same day. Use the URL below to confirm the expected subdomain is provided, as needed: https://appleid.apple.com/.well-known/openid-configuration Cheers, Paris X Pinkney |  WWDR | DTS Engineer

Hello everyone, I'm working on a project where I intend to use Secure Enclave-based, device-bound private keys within a Webauthn flow. I have the following question: Is it possible to generate private keys in the Secure Enclave with integrated attestation in order to reliably prove to a relying party the authenticity and uncompromised state of the key? If so, I would appreciate details on the implementation—specifically, any prerequisites, limitations, or particular API calls and configuration options that need to be considered. I look forward to any advice, best practices, or pointers to further documentation on this topic. Thank you in advance for your support! Best regards, Alex

We have been having very high response times in device check device validation service (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/accessing-and-modifying-per-device-data#Create-the-payload-for-a-device-validation-request) since 17 July at 19:10hs GMT. The service information page says the service was running in green status but that isn't the case and we currenly have stop consuming it. Is it being looked at? Are you aware of this issue? Can you give us an estimate of when it should be working correctly?

Please provide a descriptive title for your feedback: Downloading Developer ID provisioning profiles - missing new entitlements Which area are you seeing an issue with? App Store Connect What type of feedback are you reporting? Incorrect/Unexpected Behavior Please provide the App name/App ID if possible: com.onexengineering.themedeck.macos Please describe the issue and what steps we can take to reproduce it bug in App Store Connect where downloading Developer ID provisioning profiles are missing the new entitlements regenerated from scratch -- App Store Connect says entitlements are good, but actual file confirms entitlements are missing App Store provisioning profiles seem to be unaffected (ignore my incorrect naming of files)

Hi, A user logs in to the file vault, and DisableFDEAutoLogin is false. The file vault login succeeds, but the login to the selected user fails. The user gets the login screen again. If the user puts an invalid password to try and login again, the loginwindow:FDESupport plugin will change the user's password to the invalid one.

We’ve noticed an unexpected behavior in our production iOS app where the UIDevice.current.identifierForVendor value occasionally changes, even though: The app is distributed via the App Store (not TestFlight or Xcode builds) We do not switch provisioning profiles or developer accounts No App Clips, App Thinning, or other advanced features are in use There’s no manual reinstall or device reset in the scenarios observed (as per user feedback) Any insights or confirmations would be much appreciated. Thanks!

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 :)

Would really appreciate support with this invalid_client issue: I have a web app and have aligned the JWT Header and Payload JWT Header { "alg": "ES256", "kid": "ABC123DEFG" } JWT Payload { "iss": "DEF123GHIJ", "iat": 1234567890, "exp": 1234567890, "aud": "https://appleid.apple.com", "sub": "com.yourapp.service" The domains and callback are aligned and correct I've even created a new p8 and updated the Key_ID Sending Credentials to Apple (Token Request) Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded However, still no luck. Can anyone assist with identifying the possible error? Many thanks

We have a macOS app that has a Photos Extension, which shares documents with the app via an app group container. Historically we used to have an iOS-style group identifier (group.${TeamIdentifier}${groupName}), because we were lead by the web interface in the developer portal to believe this to be the right way to name groups. Later with the first macOS 15 betas last year there was a bug with the operating system warning users, our app would access data from different apps, but it was our own app group container directory. Therefore we added a macOS-style group identifier (${TeamIdentifier}${groupName}) and wrote a migration of documents to the new group container directory. So basically we need to have access to these two app group containers for the foreseeable future. Now with the introduction of iOS-style group identifiers for macOS, Xcode Cloud no longer archives our app for TestFlight or AppStore, because it complains: ITMS-90286: Invalid code signing entitlements - Your application bundle’s signature contains code signing entitlements that aren’t supported on macOS. Specifically, the “[group.${TeamIdentifier}${groupName}, ${TeamIdentifier}${groupName}]” value for the com.apple.security.application-groups key in isn’t supported. This value should be a string or an array of strings, where each string is the “group” value or your Team ID, followed by a dot (“.”), followed by the group name. If you're using the “group” prefix, verify that the provisioning profile used to sign the app contains the com.apple.security.application-groups entitlement and its associated value(s). We have included the iOS-style group identifier in the provisioning profile, generated automatically, but can't do the same for the macOS-style group identifier, because the web interface only accepts identifiers starting with "group". How can we get Xcode Cloud to archive our app again using both group identifiers? Thanks in advance

Hi everyone, I’m working on adapting our app to iOS 26’s new passkey feature, specifically Automatic Passkey Upgrades. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2025/279/ Our app already supports passkey registration and authentication, which have been running reliably in production. We’d like to extend passkey coverage to more users. According to the WWDC session, adding the parameter requestStyle: .conditional to createCredentialRegistrationRequest should allow the system to seamlessly upgrade an account with a passkey. However, in my testing, I consistently receive the following error: Error | Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1001 "(null)" Test environment: Xcode 26.0 beta 4 (17A5285i) iPhone 11 running iOS 26.0 (23A5297n) Questions: Is the Automatic Passkey Upgrades feature currently available in iOS 26? I understand that the system may perform internal checks and not all upgrade attempts will succeed. However, during development, is there a way to obtain more diagnostic information? At the moment, it’s unclear whether the failure is due to internal validation or an issue with my code or environment. Thanks.

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.

Hi, is it legal to use open APIs to get the users's country country code using the Ip address in the app? I mean I want to know the user country for the game leaderboards data, and there are sites say this is free and open. So, I have two questions, first, is this making the user calling open api to get its country code concept legal? second question, what if these sites suddenly decided that it is not legal to use their apis for commercial use, and i miss that announcement; will you remove my app from the store? or what action will you take exactly?

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, &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 > Face ID & 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.

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 have a macOS package (.pkg) that checks for installed Java versions on the machine during the preinstall phase using a preinstall script. If the required Java version is not found, the script displays a message using osascript as shown below. /usr/bin/osascript -e 'tell application "Finder"' -e 'activate' -e 'display dialog "Java Development Kit (JDK) 11 is required" buttons{"OK"} with title "Myprod Warning"' -e 'end tell' So far, no issues have been observed with the installation of my package on all versions of macOS. However, on macOS 15.2, the installation is failing with a "Not authorized to send Apple events to Finder" error. Could someone please help me understand what might be causing this issue and how to resolve it?

Hi folks We have a Developer ID Application which we create using electron. We made our last release for our Application on Nov'24 which was correctly working. Using the same code, we tried creating a notarized application again which started showing the following error while opening our Application. Monterey- M2- When we directly run the dmg on the dev machine, it does not give us the prompt. But if we download it from somewhere and run, the prompt comes up even in dev machine. We executed some commands to verify the notarization: 1- spctl --assess -vv /Applications/Refresh\ Pro.app On both dev machine and non-dev machine, the output was "accepted" /Applications/Refresh Pro.app: accepted source=Notarized Developer ID origin=Developer ID Application: Prograde Digital Incorporated (*******) 2- xcrun stapler validate /Applications/Refresh\ Pro.app On dev machine, we executed this command and the output is as follows. Processing: /Applications/Refresh Pro.app The validate action worked! 3- codesign -vvv --deep --strict /Applications/Refresh\ Pro.app/ /Applications/Refresh Pro.app: valid on disk /Applications/Refresh Pro.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement We have created a bug attaching the dmg. Please suggest anything we can try to make the release out the door. Bug link- https://feedbackassistant.apple.com/feedback/16811025

There is a sudden surge of users in our apps with invalidated biometrics. Even though the issue is being handled correctly and the user has another way to login, some of the users forgot their passwords and they can not login. Is there any known issue with Biometrics in iOS 18.3.2 or later? There is a (possible) related discussion here: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/256011565

Dear Apple Developer Support, We are currently encountering a recurring issue with the DeviceCheck API across multiple devices in our production environment. The following error is frequently returned: com.apple.devicecheck.error 0 We would like to ask the following: What are the possible underlying causes that could lead to this specific error code (0) in the DeviceCheck API? Is there any known behavior or condition where Wi-Fi network configurations (e.g., DNS filtering, proxy settings, captive portals) could result in this error? Are there known timeouts, connectivity expectations, or TLS-level requirements that the DeviceCheck API enforces which could fail silently under certain network conditions? Is this error ever triggered locally (e.g., client library-level issues) or is it always from a failed communication with Apple’s servers? Any technical clarification, documentation, or internal insight into this error code would be greatly appreciated. This would help us significantly narrow down root causes and better support our users

Hi everyone, I’m working an Objective-C lib that performs Keychain operations, such as generating cryptographic keys and signing data. The lib will be used by my team in a Java program for macOS via JNI. When working with the traditional file-based Keychain (i.e., without access control flags), everything works smoothly, no issues at all. However, as soon as I try to generate a key using access control flags SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags, the Data Protection Keychain returns error -34018 (errSecMissingEntitlement) during SecKeyCreateRandomKey. This behavior is expected. To address this, I attempted to codesign my native dynamic library (.dylib) with an entitlement plist specifying various combinations of: keychain-access-groups com.apple.security.keychain etc. with: My Apple Development certificate Developer ID Application certificate Apple Distribution certificate None of these combinations made a difference, the error persists. I’d love to clarify: Is it supported to access Data Protection Keychain / Secure Enclave Keys in this type of use case? If so, what exact entitlements does macOS expect when calling SecKeyCreateRandomKey from a native library? I’d really appreciate any guidance or clarification. Thanks in advance! Best regards, Neil