Hello, I have encountered several challenges related to System Integrity Protection (SIP) state detection and code signing requirements. I would like to seek clarification and guidance on the proper approach to programmatically determine the SIP state. Here are the issues I’ve encountered: XPC Code Signing Check APIs: APIs like setCodeSigningRequirement and setConnectionCodeSigningRequirement do not work when SIP disabled and that's ok given what SIP is. LaunchCodeRequirement API: When using Process.launchRequirement, the LaunchCodeRequirement API does not function anymore when SIP disabled. The IsSIPProtected requirement behaves in a way that is not clearly documented -- it appears to only apply to pre-installed Apple apps. Legacy APIs: Older APIs like SecCodeCheckValidity are likely to be non-functional, though I haven’t had the chance to validate this yet. Private API Concerns: So to mitigate those limitations I prefer my app to not even try to connect to untrusted XPC or launch untrusted Processes when SIP is disabled. The only way to determine SIP state I could find is a low-level C function csr_get_active_config. However, this function is not declared in any publicly available header file, indicating that it is a private API. Since private APIs cannot be used in App Store-distributed apps and are best avoided for Developer ID-signed apps, this does not seem like a viable solution. Given these limitations, what is the recommended and proper approach to programmatically determine the SIP state in a macOS application? Any insights or guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

In my app, I use SecItem to store some data in the Keychain. I’d like to know — when a user sets up a new iPhone and transfers data from the old device, will those Keychain items be migrated or synced to the new device?

I'm writing an app on macOS that stores passwords in the Keychain and later retrieves them using SecItemCopyMatching(). This works fine 90% of the time. However, occasionally, the call to SecItemCopyMatching() fails with errSecAuthFailed (-25293). When this occurs, simply restarting the app resolves the issue; otherwise, it will consistently fail with errSecAuthFailed. What I suspect is that the Keychain access permission has a time limitation for a process. This issue always seems to arise when I keep my app running for an extended period.

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?

I've been spending days trying to solve the memory leak in a small menu bar application I've wrote (SC Menu). I've used Instruments which shows the leaks and memory graph which shows unreleased allocations. This occurs when someone views a certificate on the smartcard. Basically it opens a new window and displays the certificate, the same way Keychain Access displays a certificate. Whenever I create an SFCertificateView instance and set setDetailsDisclosed(true) - a memory leak happens. Instruments highlights that line. import Cocoa import SecurityInterface class ViewCertsViewController: NSViewController { var selectedCert: SecIdentity? = nil override func viewDidLoad() { super.viewDidLoad() self.view = NSView(frame: NSRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: 500, height: 500)) self.view.wantsLayer = true var secRef: SecCertificate? = nil guard let selectedCert else { return } let certRefErr = SecIdentityCopyCertificate(selectedCert, &secRef) if certRefErr != errSecSuccess { os_log("Error getting certificate from identity: %{public}@", log: OSLog.default, type: .error, String(describing: certRefErr)) return } let scrollView = NSScrollView() scrollView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.borderType = .lineBorder scrollView.hasHorizontalScroller = true scrollView.hasVerticalScroller = true let certView = SFCertificateView() guard let secRef = secRef else { return } certView.setCertificate(secRef) certView.setDetailsDisclosed(true) certView.setDisplayTrust(true) certView.setEditableTrust(true) certView.setDisplayDetails(true) certView.setPolicies(SecPolicyCreateBasicX509()) certView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.documentView = certView view.addSubview(scrollView) // Layout constraints NSLayoutConstraint.activate([ scrollView.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.leadingAnchor), scrollView.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.trailingAnchor), scrollView.topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.topAnchor), scrollView.bottomAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.bottomAnchor), // Provide certificate view a width and height constraint certView.widthAnchor.constraint(equalTo: scrollView.widthAnchor), certView.heightAnchor.constraint(greaterThanOrEqualToConstant: 500) ]) } } https://github.com/boberito/sc_menu/blob/dev_2.0/smartcard_menu/ViewCertsViewController.swift Fairly simple.

I understand from the recent Apple Developer News that Korean developers are now required to register a URL to receive notifications from the Apple server when creating or modifying a Sign in With Apple Service ID. However, it is not clear whether simply registering the URL is sufficient, or if it is also mandatory to implement the real-time processing of those notifications. I am inquiring whether the processing part is also a mandatory requirement.

I'm trying to add a generic password to the keychain and get back the persistent ID for it, and give it .userPresence access control. Unfortunately, if I include that, I get paramError back from SecItemAdd. Here's the code: @discardableResult func set(username: String, hostname: String?, password: String, comment: String? = nil) throws -> PasswordEntry { // Delete any existing matching password… if let existing = try? getEntry(forUsername: username, hostname: hostname) { try deletePassword(withID: existing.id) } // Store the new password… var label = username if let hostname { label = label + "@" + hostname } var item: [String: Any] = [ kSecClass as String : kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrDescription as String : "TermPass Password", kSecAttrGeneric as String : self.bundleID.data(using: .utf8)!, kSecAttrLabel as String : label, kSecAttrAccount as String : username, kSecValueData as String : password.data(using: .utf8)!, kSecReturnData as String : true, kSecReturnPersistentRef as String: true, ] if self.synchronizable { item[kSecAttrSynchronizable as String] = kCFBooleanTrue! } if let hostname { item[kSecAttrService as String] = hostname } if let comment { item[kSecAttrComment as String] = comment } // Apply access control to require the user to prove presence when // retrieving this password… var error: Unmanaged<CFError>? guard let accessControl = SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(nil, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, .userPresence, &error) else { let cfError = error!.takeUnretainedValue() as Error throw cfError } item[kSecAttrAccessControl as String] = accessControl item[kSecAttrAccessible as String] = kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly var result: AnyObject! let status = SecItemAdd(item as CFDictionary, &result) try Errors.throwIfError(osstatus: status) load() guard let secItem = result as? [String : Any], let persistentRef = secItem[kSecValuePersistentRef as String] as? Data else { throw Errors.malformedItem } let entry = PasswordEntry(id: persistentRef, username: username, hostname: hostname, password: password, comment: comment) return entry } (Note that I also tried it omitting kSecAttrAccessible, but it had no effect.) This code works fine if I omit setting kSecAttrAccessControl. Any ideas? TIA!

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.

Hi everyone, I have a macOS application that uses Screen Recording permission. I build my app with an adhoc signature (not with a Developer ID certificate). For example, in version 1.0.0, I grant Screen Recording permission to the app. Later, I build a new version (1.1.0) and update by dragging the new app into the Applications folder to overwrite the previous one. However, when I launch the updated app, it asks for Screen Recording permission again, even though I have already granted it for the previous version. I don’t fully understand how TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control) determines when permissions need to be re-granted. Can anyone explain how TCC manages permissions for updated builds, especially with adhoc signatures? Is there any way to retain permissions between updates, or any best practices to avoid having users re-authorize permissions after every update?

Hi, I have a certificate, how can I display the certificate content in my Mac app just like Keychain Access app does. Can I popup the certificate content dialog just like Keychain Access app?

I'm trying to develop a GUI app on macOS that takes control of the screen so that user must perform certain actions before regaining control of the desktop. I don't want the user to be able to kill the process (for example via an "assassin" shell script that looks for the process and terminates it with kill). Based on this post it is not possible to create an unkillable process on macOS. I'm wondering, however, if it's possible to run the GUI process in root (or with other escalated privileges) such that the logged in user cannot kill it. So it's killable, but you need privileges above what the logged in user has (assuming they are not root). I'm not worried about a root user being able to kill it. Such an app would run in a managed context. I've played around with Service Background Tasks, but so far haven't found what I'm looking for. I'm hoping someone (especially from Apple) might be able to tell me if this goal is even achievable with macOS Sequoia (and beyond).

Hi, Our App relies on a keychain to store certificates and key-value pairs. However, when we upgraded from an older XCode 15.2 (1 year old) app version to a newer version XCode 16.2 (with identical keychain-groups entitlement), we found that the newer ipa cannot see the older keychain group anymore... We tried Testflight builds, but limited to only generating newer versions, we tried using the older App's code, cast as a newer App version, and then upgraded to the newer code (with an even newer app version!). Surprisingly we were able to see the older keychain group. So it seems that there's something different between the packaging/profile of the older (1 year) and newer (current) App versions that seems to cause the new version to not see the old keychainGroup... Any ideas?

I’m using a custom Installer plug-in (InstallerPane) to collect sensitive user input (username/password) during install. After the payload is laid down, I need to send those values to a newly installed agent (LaunchAgent) to persist them. What I tried I expose an XPC Mach service from the agent and have the plug-in call it. On the agent side I validate the XPC client using the audit token → SecCodeCopyGuestWithAttributes → SecCodeCheckValidity. However, the client process is InstallerRemotePluginService-* (Apple’s view service that hosts all plug-ins), so the signature I see is Apple’s, not mine. I can’t distinguish which plug-in made the call. Any suggestion on better approach ?

Problem Statement: Pre-requisite is to generate a PKCS#12 file using openssl 3.x or above. Note: I have created a sample cert, but unable to upload it to this thread. Let me know if there is a different way I can upload. When trying to import a p12 certificate (generated using openssl 3.x) using SecPKCS12Import on MacOS (tried on Ventura, Sonoma, Sequoia). It is failing with the error code: -25264 and error message: MAC verification failed during PKCS12 import (wrong password?). I have tried importing in multiple ways through, Security Framework API (SecPKCS12Import) CLI (security import &lt;cert_name&gt; -k ~/Library/Keychains/login.keychain -P "&lt;password&gt;”) Drag and drop in to the Keychain Application All of them fail to import the p12 cert. RCA: The issues seems to be due to the difference in the MAC algorithm. The MAC algorithm used in the modern certs (by OpenSSL3 is SHA-256) which is not supported by the APPLE’s Security Framework. The keychain seems to be expecting the MAC algorithm to be SHA-1. Workaround: The current workaround is to convert the modern p12 cert to a legacy format (using openssl legacy provider which uses openssl 1.1.x consisting of insecure algorithms) which the SecPKCS12Import API understands. I have created a sample code using references from another similar thread (https://aninterestingwebsite.com/forums/thread/723242) from 2023. The steps to compile and execute the sample is mentioned in the same file. PFA the sample code by the name “pkcs12_modern_to_legacy_converter.cpp”. Also PFA a sample certificate which will help reproduce the issue by the name “modern_certificate.p12” whose password is “export”. Questions: Is there a fix on this issue? If yes, pls guide me through it; else, is it expected to be fixed in the future releases? Is there a different way to import the p12 cert which is resistant to the issue? This issue also poses a security concerns on using outdated cryptographic algorithms. Kindly share your thoughts. pkcs12_modern_to_legacy_converter.cpp

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

Using the simplified sign-in with tvOS and a third party password manager, I receive a complete ASPasswordCredential, and I can easily log into my app. When I do the same thing but with Apple's password manager as the source, I receive an ASPasswordCredential that includes the email address, but the password is an empty string. I have tried deleting the credentials from Apple Passwords and regenerating them with a new login to the app's website. I have tried restarting my iPhone. Is this the expected behavior? How should I be getting a password from Apple's Password app with an ASAuthorizationPasswordRequest?

When we enable 3rd party authentication plugin using SFAuthorization window, then when user performs Lock Screen and then unlock the MAC. Now after unlock, if user tries to open Keychain Access, it is not getting opened. When trying to open Keychain Access, we are prompted for credentials but after providing the credentials Keychians are not getting opened. This is working on Sonoma 14.6.1 , but seeing this issue from macOS Sequoia onwards. Are there any suggested settings/actions to resolve this issue?

I work for Brave, a browser with ~80M users. We want to introduce a new system for automatic updates called Omaha 4 (O4). It's the same system that powers automatic updates in Chrome. O4 runs as a separate application on users' systems. For Chrome, this works as follows: An app called GoogleUpdater.app regularly checks for updates in the background. When a new version is found, then GoogleUpdater.app installs it into Chrome's installation directory /Applications/Google Chrome.app. But consider what this means: A separate application, GoogleUpdater.app, is able to modify Google Chrome.app. This is especially surprising because, for example, the built-in Terminal.app is not able to modify Google Chrome.app. Here's how you can check this for yourself: (Re-)install Chrome with its DMG installer. Run the following command in Terminal: mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test. This works. Undo the command: rm -rf /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test Start Chrome and close it again. mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test now fails with "Operation not permitted". (These steps assume that Terminal does not have Full Disk Access and System Integrity Protection is enabled.) In other words, once Chrome was started at least once, another application (Terminal in this case) is no longer allowed to modify it. But at the same time, GoogleUpdater.app is able to modify Chrome. It regularly applies updates to the browser. For each update, this process begins with an mkdir call similarly to the one shown above. How is this possible? What is it in macOS that lets GoogleUpdater.app modify Chrome, but not another app such as Terminal? Note that Terminal is not sandboxed. I've checked that it's not related to codesigning or notarization issues. In our case, the main application (Brave) and the updater (BraveUpdater) are signed and notarized with the same certificate and have equivalent requirements, entitlements and provisioning profiles as Chrome and GoogleUpdater. The error that shows up in the Console for the disallowed mkdir call is: kernel (Sandbox) System Policy: mkdir(8917) deny(1) file-write-create /Applications/Google Chrome.app/foo (It's a similar error when BraveUpdater tries to install a new version into /Applications/Brave Browser.app.) The error goes away when I disable System Integrity Protection. But of course, we cannot ask users to do that. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hello, I’m trying to set up Sign In with Apple for my Firebase Authentication integration. Steps I followed: Created a Service ID in Apple Developer, e.g. com.example.myapp.signin. Tried to enable Sign In with Apple and configure the Web Authentication Configuration. Web Domain: myapp.firebaseapp.com Return URL: https://myapp.firebaseapp.com/__/auth/handler When I click Save, I get the following error in the browser console and a blank response page: Unsupported Request PATCH to http://aninterestingwebsite.com/services-account/v1/bundleIds/XXXXXXXX not supported. Reference #... What I have verified so far: My Apple Developer Program membership is active (paid). My App ID (e.g. com.example.myapp) exists in Identifiers. The App ID has Sign In with Apple capability checked. I need to link the Service ID with this App ID for Firebase web-based auth. Goal: Complete setup of Apple as a sign-in provider in Firebase Authentication. To do this, Apple requires me to add the Firebase return URL above, but the Developer Portal prevents saving with the 501 error. Has anyone else run into this, and is there a workaround (e.g. enabling via Xcode, App Store Connect, or other methods)? Is this a known bug with the Apple Developer Portal? Here is the screenshot of the error: And Response part: Thanks in advance!

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