General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Apple Platform Security support document Developer > Security Enabling enhanced security for your app documentation article Creating enhanced security helper extensions documentation article Security Audit Thoughts forums post Cryptography: Forums tags: Security, Apple CryptoKit Security framework documentation Apple CryptoKit framework documentation Common Crypto man pages — For the full list of pages, run: % man -k 3cc For more information about man pages, see Reading UNIX Manual Pages. On Cryptographic Key Formats forums post SecItem attributes for keys forums post CryptoCompatibility sample code Keychain: Forums tags: Security Security > Keychain Items documentation TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations SecItem Fundamentals forums post SecItem Pitfalls and Best Practices forums post Investigating hard-to-reproduce keychain problems forums post App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access forums post Smart cards and other secure tokens: Forums tag: CryptoTokenKit CryptoTokenKit framework documentation Mac-specific resources: Forums tags: Security Foundation, Security Interface Security Foundation framework documentation Security Interface framework documentation BSD Privilege Escalation on macOS Related: Networking Resources — This covers high-level network security, including HTTPS and TLS. Network Extension Resources — This covers low-level network security, including VPN and content filters. Code Signing Resources Notarisation Resources Trusted Execution Resources — This includes Gatekeeper. App Sandbox Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Privacy Resources Security Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Hello, I'm receiving an unknown error instead of the excluded credentials error when using the "Save on another device" option for Passkey creation. When creating the ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider request to pass to the ASAuthorizationController. The excludedCredentials property is used to add a list of credentials to exclude in the registration process. This is to prevent duplicate passkeys from being created if one already exists for the user. When trying to create a duplicate passkey using the same device, the ASAuthorizationControllerDelegate method authorizationController(controller, didCompleteWithError:) is called. The error received has localized description “At least one credential matches an entry of the excludeCredentials list in the platform attached authenticator." When trying to create a duplicate passkey using the “Save on another device” option. The delegate method is called, but the error received has code 1000 ("com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError" - code: 1000). Which maps to the unknown error case in ASAuthorization error type.

Hi everyone, I'm working on an app that stores multiple secrets in the Keychain, each protected with .userPresence. My goal is to authenticate the user once via FaceID/TouchID and then read multiple Keychain items without triggering subsequent prompts. I am reusing the same LAContext instance for these operations, and I have set: context.touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration = LATouchIDAuthenticationMaximumAllowableReuseDuration However, I'm observing that every single SecItemCopyMatching call triggers a new FaceID/TouchID prompt, even if they happen within seconds of each other using the exact same context. Here is a simplified flow of what I'm doing: Create a LAContext. Set touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration to max. Perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item A, passing [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID. Success. Immediately perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item B, passing the same [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID again. My question is: Does the .userPresence access control flag inherently force a new user interaction for every Keychain access, regardless of the LAContext reuse duration? Is allowableReuseDuration only applicable for LAContext.evaluatePolicy calls and not for SecItem queries? If so, is there a recommended pattern for "unlocking" a group of Keychain items with a single biometric prompt? Environment: iOS 17+, Swift. Thanks!

Step1. Update system.login.screensaver authorizationdb rule to use “authenticate-session-owner-or-admin”( to get old SFAutorizationPluginView at Lock Screen ). Here I will use my custom authorization plugin. Step 2. Once the rule is in place, logout and login, now click on Apple icon and select “Lock Screen”. Is there a way programmatically to update the Lock Icon and the test getting displayed on the first Unlock screen? When I write a custom authorisation plug-in, I am getting control of the text fields and any consecutive screen I add from there on. But all I want is to update the lock icon and text fields on 1st unlock display itself. Can you please suggest how I can achieve this? Here is the screenshot with marked areas I am looking control for.

Hi team, We are experiencing an issue where some users in China are unable to create passkeys due to authentication errors. This is the UI flows The method we use to prompt users is passkey creation. Technically, this is implemented using Apple’s AuthenticationServices framework. We create an instance of ASAuthorizationController and conform to ASAuthorizationControllerDelegate to handle the results of the authentication attempt. In failure cases, we receive ASAuthorizationError.failed (code 1004), along with some additional details describing the nature of the failure. However, we are currently unable to determine the exact root cause of this issue or how to resolve it. At this point, we can only make assumptions based on the limited error information provided. Our current hypothesis is that due to network restrictions, Apple may be unable to reach the .well-known endpoint where we host the associated domain file. Alternatively, even if the file is successfully loaded and cached to Apple’s CDN, the system in China may not be able to reach the CDN itself. We would greatly appreciate it if you could help us understand what might be causing this problem and guide us on how we can resolve it effectively. Thanks, Hung

I'm developing an iOS app that utilizes Universal Links and ASWebAuthenticationSession to deep-link from a website to the app itself. This implementation adheres to the recommendations outlined in RFC 8252, ensuring that the app opening the ASWebAuthenticationSession is the same app that is launched via the Universal Link. Problem: 　While most users can successfully launch the app via Universal Links,a few percent of users experience instances where the app fails to launch, and the user is redirected to the browser. What I've Tried: 　ASWebAuthenticationSession Configuration: I've double-checked the configuration of callbackURLScheme and presentationContextProvider. 　Universal Links: Verified the apple-app-site-association file and associated domains entitlement. 　Network Conditions: Tested on various network environments (Wi-Fi, cellular) and devices. Questions: 　What are the potential causes for this behavior? 　Has anyone else encountered a similar issue and found a solution? 　Are there any debugging techniques or ways to generate more detailed logs? I haven't been able to determine which device or OS version is causing this problem. Thank you.

I regularly help developers with keychain problems, both here on DevForums and for my Day Job™ in DTS. Many of these problems are caused by a fundamental misunderstanding of how the keychain works. This post is my attempt to explain that. I wrote it primarily so that Future Quinn™ can direct folks here rather than explain everything from scratch (-: If you have questions or comments about any of this, put them in a new thread and apply the Security tag so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" SecItem: Fundamentals or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the SecItem API The SecItem API seems very simple. After all, it only has four function calls, how hard can it be? In reality, things are not that easy. Various factors contribute to making this API much trickier than it might seem at first glance. This post explains the fundamental underpinnings of the keychain. For information about specific issues, see its companion post, SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices. Keychain Documentation Your basic starting point should be Keychain Items. If your code runs on the Mac, also read TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations. Read the doc comments in <Security/SecItem.h>. In many cases those doc comments contain critical tidbits. When you read keychain documentation [1] and doc comments, keep in mind that statements specific to iOS typically apply to iPadOS, tvOS, and watchOS as well (r. 102786959). Also, they typically apply to macOS when you target the data protection keychain. Conversely, statements specific to macOS may not apply when you target the data protection keychain. [1] Except TN3137, which is very clear about this (-: Caveat Mac Developer macOS supports two different keychain implementations: the original file-based keychain and the iOS-style data protection keychain. IMPORTANT If you’re able to use the data protection keychain, do so. It’ll make your life easier. See the Careful With that Shim, Mac Developer section of SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices for more about this. TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations explains this distinction. It also says: The file-based keychain is on the road to deprecation. This is talking about the implementation, not any specific API. The SecItem API can’t be deprecated because it works with both the data protection keychain and the file-based keychain. However, Apple has deprecated many APIs that are specific to the file-based keychain, for example, SecKeychainCreate. TN3137 also notes that some programs, like launchd daemons, can’t use the file-based keychain. If you’re working on such a program then you don’t have to worry about the deprecation of these file-based keychain APIs. You’re already stuck with the file-based keychain implementation, so using a deprecated file-based keychain API doesn’t make things worse. The Four Freedoms^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Functions The SecItem API contains just four functions: SecItemAdd(_:_:) SecItemCopyMatching(_:_:) SecItemUpdate(_:_:) SecItemDelete(_:) These directly map to standard SQL database operations: SecItemAdd(_:_:) maps to INSERT. SecItemCopyMatching(_:_:) maps to SELECT. SecItemUpdate(_:_:) maps to UPDATE. SecItemDelete(_:) maps to DELETE. You can think of each keychain item class (generic password, certificate, and so on) as a separate SQL table within the database. The rows of that table are the individual keychain items for that class and the columns are the attributes of those items. Note Except for the digital identity class, kSecClassIdentity, where the values are split across the certificate and key tables. See Digital Identities Aren’t Real in SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices. This is not an accident. The data protection keychain is actually implemented as an SQLite database. If you’re curious about its structure, examine it on the Mac by pointing your favourite SQLite inspection tool — for example, the sqlite3 command-line tool — at the keychain database in ~/Library/Keychains/UUU/keychain-2.db, where UUU is a UUID. WARNING Do not depend on the location and structure of this file. These have changed in the past and are likely to change again in the future. If you embed knowledge of them into a shipping product, it’s likely that your product will have binary compatibility problems at some point in the future. The only reason I’m mentioning them here is because I find it helpful to poke around in the file to get a better understanding of how the API works. For information about which attributes are supported by each keychain item class — that is, what columns are in each table — see the Note box at the top of Item Attribute Keys and Values. Alternatively, look at the Attribute Key Constants doc comment in <Security/SecItem.h>. Uniqueness A critical part of the keychain model is uniqueness. How does the keychain determine if item A is the same as item B? It turns out that this is class dependent. For each keychain item class there is a set of attributes that form the uniqueness constraint for items of that class. That is, if you try to add item A where all of its attributes are the same as item B, the add fails with errSecDuplicateItem. For more information, see the errSecDuplicateItem page. It has lists of attributes that make up this uniqueness constraint, one for each class. These uniqueness constraints are a major source of confusion, as discussed in the Queries and the Uniqueness Constraints section of SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices. Parameter Blocks Understanding The SecItem API is a classic ‘parameter block’ API. All of its inputs are dictionaries, and you have to know which properties to set in each dictionary to achieve your desired result. Likewise for when you read properties in output dictionaries. There are five different property groups: The item class property, kSecClass, determines the class of item you’re operating on: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecClassCertificate, and so on. The item attribute properties, like kSecAttrAccessGroup, map directly to keychain item attributes. The search properties, like kSecMatchLimit, control how the system runs a query. The return type properties, like kSecReturnAttributes, determine what values the query returns. The value type properties, like kSecValueRef perform multiple duties, as explained below. There are other properties that perform a variety of specific functions. For example, kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain tells macOS to use the data protection keychain instead of the file-based keychain. These properties are hard to describe in general; for the details, see the documentation for each such property. Inputs Each of the four SecItem functions take dictionary input parameters of the same type, CFDictionary, but these dictionaries are not the same. Different dictionaries support different property groups: The first parameter of SecItemAdd(_:_:) is an add dictionary. It supports all property groups except the search properties. The first parameter of SecItemCopyMatching(_:_:) is a query and return dictionary. It supports all property groups. The first parameter of SecItemUpdate(_:_:) is a pure query dictionary. It supports all property groups except the return type properties. Likewise for the only parameter of SecItemDelete(_:). The second parameter of SecItemUpdate(_:_:) is an update dictionary. It supports the item attribute and value type property groups. Outputs Two of the SecItem functions, SecItemAdd(_:_:) and SecItemCopyMatching(_:_:), return values. These output parameters are of type CFTypeRef because the type of value you get back depends on the return type properties you supply in the input dictionary: If you supply a single return type property, except kSecReturnAttributes, you get back a value appropriate for that return type. If you supply multiple return type properties or kSecReturnAttributes, you get back a dictionary. This supports the item attribute and value type property groups. To get a non-attribute value from this dictionary, use the value type property that corresponds to its return type property. For example, if you set kSecReturnPersistentRef in the input dictionary, use kSecValuePersistentRef to get the persistent reference from the output dictionary. In the single item case, the type of value you get back depends on the return type property and the keychain item class: For kSecReturnData you get back the keychain item’s data. This makes most sense for password items, where the data holds the password. It also works for certificate items, where you get back the DER-encoded certificate. Using this for key items is kinda sketchy. If you want to export a key, called SecKeyCopyExternalRepresentation. Using this for digital identity items is nonsensical. For kSecReturnRef you get back an object reference. This only works for keychain item classes that have an object representation, namely certificates, keys, and digital identities. You get back a SecCertificate, a SecKey, or a SecIdentity, respectively. For kSecReturnPersistentRef you get back a data value that holds the persistent reference. Value Type Subtleties There are three properties in the value type property group: kSecValueData kSecValueRef kSecValuePersistentRef Their semantics vary based on the dictionary type. For kSecValueData: In an add dictionary, this is the value of the item to add. For example, when adding a generic password item (kSecClassGenericPassword), the value of this key is a Data value containing the password. This is not supported in a query dictionary. In an update dictionary, this is the new value for the item. For kSecValueRef: In add and query dictionaries, the system infers the class property and attribute properties from the supplied object. For example, if you supply a certificate object (SecCertificate, created using SecCertificateCreateWithData), the system will infer a kSecClass value of kSecClassCertificate and various attribute values, like kSecAttrSerialNumber, from that certificate object. This is not supported in an update dictionary. For kSecValuePersistentRef: For query dictionaries, this uniquely identifies the item to operate on. This is not supported in add and update dictionaries. Revision History 2025-05-28 Expanded the Caveat Mac Developer section to cover some subtleties associated with the deprecation of the file-based keychain. 2023-09-12 Fixed various bugs in the revision history. Added a paragraph explaining how to determine which attributes are supported by each keychain item class. 2023-02-22 Made minor editorial changes. 2023-01-28 First posted.

Dear Apple Developer Support Team, We are experiencing a recurring issue with the DeviceCheck API where the following error is being returned: com.apple.devicecheck.error 0 Upon analyzing our logs, we have noticed that this error occurs significantly more often when users are connected to Wi-Fi networks, compared to mobile networks. This leads us to suspect that there might be a relationship between Wi-Fi configuration and the DeviceCheck service’s ability to generate or validate tokens. We would like to know: Is this error code (0) known to be caused by specific types of network behavior or misconfigurations on Wi-Fi networks (e.g., DNS filtering, firewall restrictions, proxy servers)? Are there any recommended best practices for ensuring reliable DeviceCheck API communication over Wi-Fi networks? Additionally, could you please clarify what general conditions could trigger this com.apple.devicecheck.error 0? The lack of specific documentation makes debugging this issue difficult from our side. Any guidance or internal documentation on this error code and its potential causes would be greatly appreciated. IDE: Xcode 16.3 Looking forward to your support. Best regards,

Hi, A certificate imported on macOS 15 using the security command with the "non-exportable" option was imported in an exportable state. I would like to know how to change this certificate to be non-exportable. Regards, CTJ

I would like to confirm about fraud prevention using Device Check when publishing multiple apps. If the Team ID and Key ID are the same, will the values be shared across all apps with Device Check? With Device Check, only two keys can be created per developer account, and these two are primarily intended for key renewal in case of a leak, rather than for assigning different keys to each app, correct? If both 1 and 2 are correct, does that mean that Device Check should not be used to manage "one-time-only rewards per device" when offering them across multiple apps? Thank you very much for your confirmation.

I'm experiencing a strange issue where ASWebAuthenticationSession works perfectly when running from Xcode (both Debug and Release), but fails on TestFlight builds. The setup: iOS app using ASWebAuthenticationSession for OIDC login (Keycloak) Custom URL scheme callback (myapp://) prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = false The issue: When using iOS Keychain autofill (with Face ID/Touch ID or normal iphone pw, that auto-submits the form) -> works perfectly When manually typing credentials and clicking the login button -> fails with white screen When it fails, the form POST from Keycloak back to my server (/signin-oidc) never reaches the server at all. The authentication session just shows a white screen. Reproduced on: Multiple devices (iPhone 15 Pro, etc.) iOS 18.x Xcode 16.x Multiple TestFlight testers confirmed same behavior What I've tried: Clearing Safari cookies/data prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = true and false Different SameSite cookie policies on server Verified custom URL scheme is registered and works (testing myapp://test in Safari opens the app) Why custom URL scheme instead of Universal Links: We couldn't get Universal Links to trigger from a js redirect (window.location.href) within ASWebAuthenticationSession. Only custom URL schemes seemed to be intercepted. If there's a way to make Universal Links work in this context, without a manual user-interaction we'd be happy to try. iOS Keychain autofill works The only working path is iOS Keychain autofill that requires iphone-authentication and auto-submits the form. Any manual form submission fails, but only on TestFlight - not Xcode builds. Has anyone encountered this or know a workaround?

When developing and testing using my phone I got prompted for allowing app tracking. I later uploaded a build to TestFlight, deleted the old testing app and installed the TestFlight build. I am now stuck in an infinite loop of not getting prompted for allowing app tracking for the app. When entering the app settings the toggle for tracking never appears which leaves me not able to enter the app's content. My guess is that the prompt can only be shown once for the app bundle, but there has to be a way for me to get prompted again without changing the app bundle id. Help is appreciated since this app is scheduled to be published in a week.

override func prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration registrationRequest: any ASCredentialRequest) int this function how can i get the "challenge" from user agent, the params "challenge" need to be used in webauthn navigator.credentials.create

We recently deployed Attestation on our application, and for a majority of the 40,000 users it works well. We have about six customers who are failing attestation. In digging through debug logs, we're seeing this error "iOS assertion verification failed. Unauthorized access attempted." We're assuming that the UUID is blocked somehow on Apple side but we're stumped as to why. We had a customer come in and we could look at the phone, and best we can tell it's just a generic phone with no jailbroken or any malicious apps. How can we determine if the UUID is blocked?

General: Forums topic: Privacy & Security Forums tag: Privacy Developer > Security — This also covers privacy topics. App privacy details on the App Store UIKit > Protecting the User’s Privacy documentation Bundle Resources > Privacy manifest files documentation TN3181 Debugging an invalid privacy manifest technote TN3182 Adding privacy tracking keys to your privacy manifest technote TN3183 Adding required reason API entries to your privacy manifest technote TN3184 Adding data collection details to your privacy manifest technote TN3179 Understanding local network privacy technote Handling ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest forums post Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Without developer mode, I was able to get Password AutoFill to work in my SwiftUI app with my local Vapor server using ngrok and adding the Associated Domains capability with the value webcredentials:....ngrok-free.app and the respective apple-app-site-association file on my local server in /.well-known/. (works on device, but not in the simulator). However, if I use the developer mode (webcredentials:....ngrok-free.app?mode=developer) it only works halfway when running from Xcode: I get asked to save the password, but the saved passwords are not picked up, when I try to login again. Neither on device, nor in the simulator. If I remove the ?mode=developer it seems to work as expected. Is this by design, or am I missing something? var body: some View { ... Section(header: Text("Email")) { TextField("Email", text: $viewModel.credentials.username) .textContentType(.username) .autocapitalization(.none) .keyboardType(.emailAddress) } Section(header: Text("Passwort")) { SecureField("Passwort", text: $viewModel.credentials.password) .textContentType(.password) } ... }

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://aninterestingwebsite.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.

hello, My organization has an outlook add-in that requires auth into our platform. As Microsoft forces Auth on MacOS to use WKWebView https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/dev/add-ins/concepts/browsers-used-by-office-web-add-ins, we are running into a situation that we cannot use passkeys as an auth method as we are unable to trigger WebAuthN flows. We’ve raised this in Microsoft side but they have deferred to Apple given WKWebView is Safari based. This is a big blocker for us to achieve a full passwordless future. Has anyone come across this situation? Thank you.

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