For testing purposes we have code that calls SecTrustEvaluateAsyncWithError() with a trust object containing a hardcoded leaf certificate and the corresponding intermediate certificate required to form a valid chain. Because the leaf certificate has since expired we pass a date in the past via SecTrustSetVerifyDate() at wich the certificate was still valid, but trust evaluation fails: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67825 "“<redacted>” certificate is not standards compliant" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=“<redacted>” certificate is not standards compliant, NSUnderlyingError=0x600000c282a0 {Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67825 "Certificate 0 “<redacted>” has errors: Certificate Transparency validation required for this use;" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Certificate 0 “<redacted>” has errors: Certificate Transparency validation required for this use;}}} I know that App Transport Security enforces Certificate Transparency by default, but is there a way around that here?

Hi, I'm working on developing my own CryptoTokenKit (CTK) extension to enable codesign with HSM-backed keys. Here's what I’ve done so far: The container app sets up the tokenConfiguration with TKTokenKeychainCertificate and TKTokenKeychainKey. The extension registers successfully and is visible via pluginkit when launching the container app. The virtual smartcard appears when running security list-smartcards. The certificate, key, and identity are all visible using security export-smartcard -i [card]. However, nothing appears in the Keychain. After adding logging and reviewing output in the Console, I’ve observed the following behavior when running codesign: My TKTokenSession is instantiated correctly, using my custom TKToken implementation — so far, so good. However, none of the following TKTokenSession methods are ever called: func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, beginAuthFor operation: TKTokenOperation, constraint: Any) throws -> TKTokenAuthOperation func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, supports operation: TKTokenOperation, keyObjectID: TKToken.ObjectID, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) -> Bool func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, sign dataToSign: Data, keyObjectID: Any, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) throws -> Data func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, decrypt ciphertext: Data, keyObjectID: Any, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) throws -> Data func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, performKeyExchange otherPartyPublicKeyData: Data, keyObjectID objectID: Any, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm, parameters: TKTokenKeyExchangeParameters) throws -> Data The only relevant Console log is: default 11:31:15.453969+0200 PersistentToken [0x154d04850] invalidated because the client process (pid 4899) either cancelled the connection or exited There’s no crash report related to the extension, so my assumption is that ctkd is closing the connection for some unknown reason. Is there any way to debug this further? Thank you for your help.

I am using the CryptoKit SecureEnclave enum to generate Secure Enclave keys. I've got a couple of questions: What is the lifetime of these keys? When I don't store them somewhere, how does the Secure Enclave know they are gone? Do backups impact these keys? I.e. can I lose access to the key when I restore a backup? Do these keys count to the total storage capacity of the Secure Enclave? If I recall correctly, the Secure Enclave has a limited storage capacity. Do the SecureEnclave key instances count towards this storage capacity? What is the dataRepresentation and how can I use this? I'd like to store the Secure Enclave (preferably not in the Keychain due to its limitations). Is it "okay" to store this elsewhere, for instance in a file or in the UserDefaults? Can the dataRepresentation be used in other apps? If I had the capability of extracting the dataRepresentation as an attacker, could I then rebuild that key in my malicious app, as the key can be rebuilt with the Secure Enclave on the same device, or are there measures in place to prevent this (sandbox, bundle id, etc.)

I read online that there is no way to extract the call log from an iPhone. I want to develop an app to help people remember to call their mom, and if they did, the "nagging" would disappear automatically. I'm looking for any workaround to know when a user called someone, without having them log it manually.

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?

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.

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.

Is there any way for an iOS app to get a log of all Airdrop transfers originating in all apps on the iOS device e.g. from the last week?

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

Hello, I want to access the Docker socket API from inside the macOS App Sandbox. The method queries the API using curl with --unix-socket. However, the Sandbox blocks the request, as shown by the log: curl(22299) deny(1) network-outbound /Users/user/.docker/run/docker.sock Outgoing network traffic is generally allowed, but access to the Docker Unix socket is denied. Here’s the code I’m using: private func executeDockerAPI() -> String { let process = Process() let pipe = Pipe() process.executableURL = URL(fileURLWithPath: "/usr/bin/curl") process.arguments = [ "--unix-socket", "/Users/user/.docker/run/docker.sock", "http://127.0.0.1/containers/json" ] process.standardOutput = pipe process.standardError = pipe do { try process.run() process.waitUntilExit() let data = pipe.fileHandleForReading.readDataToEndOfFile() if let output = String(data: data, encoding: .utf8) { return output } else { return "Error while decoding" } } catch { return "Error running command: \(error.localizedDescription)" } } Is there any entitlement or sandbox configuration I’m missing to allow access to /Users/user/.docker/run/docker.sock from inside the sandbox?

I cannot find any reference to this within the Apple developer documents (or certainly searching for multiple possible keywords yields no results). The only reference I can find is to documents written in support of its announcement in 2002: https://aninterestingwebsite.com/news/?id=huqjyh7k. Is there any further documentation on implementing or has the capability been deprecated?

Issue Summary I'm encountering a DCError.invalidInput error when calling DCAppAttestService.shared.generateAssertion() in my App Attest implementation. This issue affects only a small subset of users - the majority of users can successfully complete both attestation and assertion flows without any issues. According to Apple Engineer feedback, there might be a small implementation issue in my code. Key Observations Success Rate: ~95% of users complete the flow successfully Failure Pattern: The remaining ~5% consistently fail at assertion generation Key Length: Logs show key length of 44 characters for both successful and failing cases Consistency: Users who experience the error tend to experience it consistently Platform: Issue observed across different iOS versions and device types Environment iOS App Attest implementation Using DCAppAttestService for both attestation and assertion Custom relying party server communication Issue affects ~5% of users consistently Key Implementation Details 1. Attestation Flow (Working) The attestation process works correctly: // Generate key and attest (successful for all users) self.attestService.generateKey { keyId, keyIdError in guard keyIdError == nil, let keyId = keyId else { return completionHandler(.failure(.dcError(keyIdError as! DCError))) } // Note: keyId length is consistently 44 characters for both successful and failing users // Attest key with Apple servers self.attestKey(keyId, clientData: clientData) { result in // ... verification with RP server // Key is successfully stored for ALL users (including those who later fail at assertion) } } 2. Assertion Flow (Failing for ~5% of Users with invalidInput) The assertion generation fails for a consistent subset of users: // Get assertion data from RP server self.assertRelyingParty.getAssertionData(kid, with: data) { result in switch result { case .success(let receivedData): let session = receivedData.session let clientData = receivedData.clientData let hash = clientData.toSHA256() // SHA256 hash of client data // THIS CALL FAILS WITH invalidInput for ~5% of users // Same keyId (44 chars) that worked for attestation self.attestService.generateAssertion(kid, clientDataHash: hash) { assertion, err in guard err == nil, let assertion = assertion else { // Error: DCError.invalidInput if let err = err as? DCError, err.code == .invalidKey { return reattestAndAssert(.invalidKey, completionHandler) } else { return completionHandler(.failure(.dcError(err as! DCError))) } } // ... verification logic } } } 3. Client Data Structure Client data JSON structure (identical for successful and failing users): // For attestation (works for all users) let clientData = ["challenge": receivedData.challenge] // For assertion (fails for ~5% of users with same structure) var clientData = ["challenge": receivedData.challenge] if let data = data { // Additional data for assertion clientData["account"] = data["account"] clientData["amount"] = data["amount"] } 4. SHA256 Hash Implementation extension Data { public func toSHA256() -> Data { return Data(SHA256.hash(data: self)) } } 5. Key Storage Implementation Using UserDefaults for key storage (works consistently for all users): private let keyStorageTag = "app-attest-keyid" func setKey(_ keyId: String) -> Result<(), KeyStorageError> { UserDefaults.standard.set(keyId, forKey: keyStorageTag) return .success(()) } func getKey() -> Result<String?, KeyStorageError> { let keyId = UserDefaults.standard.string(forKey: keyStorageTag) return .success(keyId) } Questions User-Specific Factors: Since this affects only ~5% of users consistently, could there be device-specific, iOS version-specific, or account-specific factors that cause invalidInput? Key State Validation: Is there any way to validate the state of an attested key before calling generateAssertion()? The key length (44 chars) appears normal for both successful and failing cases. Keychain vs UserDefaults: Could the issue be related to using UserDefaults instead of Keychain for key storage? Though this works for 95% of users. Race Conditions: Could there be subtle race conditions or timing issues that only affect certain users/devices? Error Recovery: Is there a recommended way to handle this error? Should we attempt re-attestation for these users? Additional Context & Debugging Attempts Consistent Failure: Users who experience this error typically experience it on every attempt Key Validation: Both successful and failing users have identical key formats (44 character strings) Device Diversity: Issue observed across different device models and iOS versions Server Logs: Our server successfully provides challenges and processes attestation for all users Re-attestation: Forcing re-attestation sometimes resolves the issue temporarily, but it often recurs The fact that 95% of users succeed with identical code suggests there might be some environmental or device-specific factor that we're not accounting for. Any insights into what could cause invalidInput for a subset of users would be invaluable.

In our mobile we are using UUID as a device identifier . With this ID we using certain function like Primary device and secondary devices .
Primary device has more control to the app other than secondary device .
In our case user is getting new iPhone and the apps related data are moved to new device from old device from clone option.

While moving the keychain data is also moved , which is causing the new device also has same UUID and the customer are using both the devices in some cases ,

So both devices are considered as primary in our app .
Is there any way to identify the device is cloned ,

Needed suggestion

Attempting to DECRYPT a cipher message using the Apple API SecKeyCreateDecryptedData(privateKey, .rsaEncryptionOAEPSHA256, encryptedMessage). Decryption ALWAYS fails for every algorithm. SecKeyCreateDecryptedDataWithParameters Error: `Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-50 "algid:encrypt:RSA:OAEP:SHA256: algorithm not supported by the key &lt;SecKeyRef:('com.yubico.Authenticator.TokenExtension:5621CDF8560D4C412030886584EC4C9E394CC376DD9738B0CCBB51924FC26EB6') 0x3007fd150&gt;" UserInfo={numberOfErrorsDeep=0, NSDescription=algid:encrypt:RSA:OAEP:SHA256: algorithm not supported by the key &lt;SecKeyRef:('com.yubico.Authenticator.TokenExtension:5621CDF8560D4C412030886584EC4C9E394CC376DD9738B0CCBB51924FC26EB6') 0x3007fd150&gt;}` Decryption failed: SecKeyCreateDecryptedData returned nil. Error: One or more parameters passed to a function were not valid. When checking with SecKeyIsAlgorithmSupported(privateKey, .decrypt, &lt;ANYalgorithm&gt;) all algorithms fail. Btw - The privateKey does support decryption when retrieving the attributes. Important to know: The private key is a reference to an external private key placed in the iOS Keychain via a 3rd party CryptoTokenKit Extension app. When I perform, the SecKeyCreateSignature(...) and pass in the SAME privateKey reference, the OS automatically calls the 3rd party app to perform a successful signing with the private key that reside on a YubiKey. Here's my code for obtaining the private key reference from an Identity: func getKeyPairFromIdentity() -&gt; (privateKey: SecKey, publicKey: SecKey)? { let query = NSDictionary( dictionary: [ kSecClass as String: kSecClassIdentity, kSecAttrTokenID as String: self.tokenID!, kSecReturnRef as String: kCFBooleanTrue as Any ] ) var identityRef: CFTypeRef? let status = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &amp;identityRef) if status == errSecSuccess, let identity = identityRef { var privateKeyRef: SecKey? let keyStatus = SecIdentityCopyPrivateKey(identity as! SecIdentity, &amp;privateKeyRef) if keyStatus == errSecSuccess, let privateKey = privateKeyRef { let publicKey = SecKeyCopyPublicKey(privateKey) if let publicKey = publicKey { print("Private and public keys extracted successfully.") return (privateKey, publicKey) } else { print("Failed to extract public key from private key.") return nil } } else { print("SecIdentityCopyPrivateKey: Private key not found error: \(keyStatus)") return nil } } else { print("SecIdentity not found or error: \(status)") return nil } }

Before device Reboot: Here no issue from keychain. 2025-06-17 11:18:17.956334 +0530 WAVE PTX [DB_ENCRYPTION] Key successfully retrieved from the Keychain default When device is in reboot and locked (Keychain access is set to FirstUnlock) App got woken up in background SEEMS(NOT SURE) DEVICE STILL IN LOCKED STARE IF YES THEN WHICH IS EXPECTED 2025-06-17 12:12:30.036184 +0530 WAVE PTX <ALA_ERROR>: [OS-CCF] [DB_ENCRYPTION] Error while retriving Private key -25308 default 2025-06-17 12:15:28.914700 +0530 WAVE PTX <ALA_ERROR> [DB_ENCRYPTION] Error retrieving key from the Keychain: -25300 default —————————————————— And as per logs, here user has launch the application post unlock and application never got the keychain access here also. HERE STILL HAS ISSUE WITH KEYCHAIN ACCESS. 2025-06-17 12:52:55.640976 +0530 WAVE PTX DEBUG : willFinishLaunchingWithOptions default 2025-06-17 12:52:55.651371 +0530 WAVE PTX <ALA_ERROR> [DB_ENCRYPTION] Error retrieving key from the Keychain: -25300 default

Hello Experts, I am in need of your help with this feedback from the App Reviewer. Issue Description: One or more purpose strings in the app do not sufficiently explain the use of protected resources. Purpose strings must clearly and completely describe the app's use of data and, in most cases, provide an example of how the data will be used. Next Steps: Update the location purpose string to explain how the app will use the requested information and provide a specific example of how the data will be used. See the attached screenshot. Resources: Purpose strings must clearly describe how an app uses the ability, data, or resource. The following are hypothetical examples of unclear purpose strings that would not pass review: "App would like to access your Contacts" "App needs microphone access" Feedback #2 "Regarding 5.1.1, we understand why your app needs access to location. However, the permission request alert does not sufficiently explain this to your users before accessing the location. To resolve this issue, it would be appropriate to revise the location permission request, specify why your app needs access, and provide an example of how your app will use the user's data. To learn more about purpose string requirements, watch a video from App Review with tips for writing clear purpose strings. We look forward to reviewing your app once the appropriate changes have been made." May I know how can I update my purpose string? I appealed on the first feedback by explaining what is the purpose of it but got the Feedback #2. TYIA!!

I have 2 basic questions related to Launch Constraints: [Q1] Are Launch Constraints supposed to work when SIP is disabled? From what I'm observing, when SIP is disabled, Launch Constraints (e.g. Launch Constraint Parent Process) are not enforced. I can understand that. But it's a bit confusing considering that the stack diagram in the WWDC 2023 session is placing the 'Environment Constraints' block under SIP, not above. Also the documentation only mentions SIP for the 'is-sip-protected' fact. [Q2] Is the SpawnConstraint key in legacy launchd plist files (i.e. inside /Library/Launch(Agents|Daemons)) officially supported? From what I'm seeing, it seems to be working when SIP is enabled. But the WWDC session and the documentation don't really talk about this case.

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

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

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.