Hi there, We're implementing Apple's DeviceCheck App Attest for production iOS authentication. The public documentation defines DCError cases but doesn't specify which errors are expected per API method or recommend retry/remediation strategies. We need Apple's guidance to implement robust, production-aligned error handling before rollout. 1. Error Surface per API Method Question: Can you confirm the complete, officially expected set of DCError values for each method? We understand the following errors are possible across App Attest APIs: invalidKey invalidInput featureUnsupported serverUnavailable unknownSystemFailure Specifically, please confirm which errors can occur for: DCAppAttestService.generateKey() DCAppAttestService.attestKey(_:clientData:) DCAppAttestService.generateAssertion(keyID:clientData:) Are there any additional undocumented or edge-case errors we should handle? 2. Retry Strategy & Remediation Matrix Question: For each API method and error code, please help us with proposal around which errorCode is retriable, whats the remediation pre retry, retry cap and backoff strategy: Kindly also help with errors that are not covered here: Specific sub-questions: invalidKey handling: When this error occurs: Should the app delete the key and call generateKey again? Or should it fail the entire flow? serverUnavailable handling: Should we retry immediately, or wait before retrying? Is exponential backoff recommended? What's the recommended max retry count? Backoff strategy: Which errors (if any) qualify for exponential backoff? Recommended base delay, max delay, and jitter approach? When should we give up and fail the request? unknownSystemFailure: Is this retriable or should we fail? Any known causes or mitigations? 3. Simulator Testing Questions: Simulator API behavior: Can App Attest APIs be called normally on iOS Simulator? If not, is there a way to simulate for testing. Do they complete successfully with simulated attestations, or do they fail? Thanks, Nirekshitha

PLATFORM AND VERSION iOS Development environment: Xcode 26.2, macOS x Run-time configuration: iOS The issue does not seem to be limited to a specific version. DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM We are reaching out to request in-depth technical assistance regarding an intermittent issue with Sign in with Apple implementation in our application. [Technical Status] We have confirmed that our technical implementation is correct. All necessary code and Xcode Capabilities are properly configured, and the service is working perfectly for the vast majority of our users. However, a small subset of users is consistently encountering "Unknown" Error (Error Code 1000), which prevents them from logging in entirely. [Identified Scenario] Currently, the only reproducible case we have found involves Child Accounts (protected accounts) under Family Sharing, specifically when the user's age is set below the regional requirement for a standalone Apple ID. However, we are receiving reports from other users who do not seem to fall into this category. [Requests for Clarification] To resolve this issue and support our users, we would like to obtain clear answers to the following questions: Root Cause: Why does Error 1000 occur specifically for a small number of users while the service works for most others? Other Scenarios: Are there any known cases or conditions other than the "Child Account" age restriction that trigger this specific error? Account-side Issues: If our code and configurations are verified to be correct, should we conclude that this is an issue specific to the individual's Apple ID/Account status? If so, could you provide a troubleshooting guide or official recommendation that we can share with these users to help them resolve their account-related issues? We are committed to providing a seamless authentication experience and would appreciate your expert insight into these edge cases. Thank you for your support. - (void) quickLogin:(uint)requestId withNonce:(NSString *)nonce andState:(NSString *)state { #if AUTHENTICATION_SERVICES_AVAILABLE if (@available(iOS 13.0, tvOS 13.0, macOS 10.15, *)) { ASAuthorizationAppleIDRequest *appleIDRequest = [[self appleIdProvider] createRequest]; [appleIDRequest setNonce:nonce]; [appleIDRequest setState:state]; ASAuthorizationPasswordRequest *keychainRequest = [[self passwordProvider] createRequest]; ASAuthorizationController *authorizationController = [[ASAuthorizationController alloc] initWithAuthorizationRequests:@[appleIDRequest, keychainRequest]]; [self performAuthorizationRequestsForController:authorizationController withRequestId:requestId]; } else { [self sendsLoginResponseInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; } #else [self sendsLoginResponseInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; #endif } - (void) loginWithAppleId:(uint)requestId withOptions:(AppleAuthManagerLoginOptions)options nonce:(NSString *)nonce andState:(NSString *)state { #if AUTHENTICATION_SERVICES_AVAILABLE if (@available(iOS 13.0, tvOS 13.0, macOS 10.15, *)) { ASAuthorizationAppleIDRequest *request = [[self appleIdProvider] createRequest]; NSMutableArray *scopes = [NSMutableArray array]; if (options & AppleAuthManagerIncludeName) [scopes addObject:ASAuthorizationScopeFullName]; if (options & AppleAuthManagerIncludeEmail) [scopes addObject:ASAuthorizationScopeEmail]; [request setRequestedScopes:[scopes copy]]; [request setNonce:nonce]; [request setState:state]; ASAuthorizationController *authorizationController = [[ASAuthorizationController alloc] initWithAuthorizationRequests:@[request]]; [self performAuthorizationRequestsForController:authorizationController withRequestId:requestId]; } else { [self sendsLoginResponseInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; } #else [self sendsLoginResponseInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; #endif } - (void) getCredentialStateForUser:(NSString *)userId withRequestId:(uint)requestId { #if AUTHENTICATION_SERVICES_AVAILABLE if (@available(iOS 13.0, tvOS 13.0, macOS 10.15, *)) { [[self appleIdProvider] getCredentialStateForUserID:userId completion:^(ASAuthorizationAppleIDProviderCredentialState credentialState, NSError * _Nullable error) { NSNumber *credentialStateNumber = nil; NSDictionary *errorDictionary = nil; if (error) errorDictionary = [AppleAuthSerializer dictionaryForNSError:error]; else credentialStateNumber = @(credentialState); NSDictionary *responseDictionary = [AppleAuthSerializer credentialResponseDictionaryForCredentialState:credentialStateNumber errorDictionary:errorDictionary]; [self sendNativeMessageForDictionary:responseDictionary forRequestId:requestId]; }]; } else { [self sendsCredentialStatusInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; } #else [self sendsCredentialStatusInternalErrorWithCode:-100 andMessage:@"Native AppleAuth is only available from iOS 13.0" forRequestWithId:requestId]; #endif }

Hello, I am currently process of migrating an app from Team A to Team B and attempting to generate transfer identifiers using the migration endpoint: POST https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo. Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded However, I am consistently receiving an { "error": "access_denied" } response. [Current Configuration] Team A (Source): Primary App ID: com.example.primary Grouped App IDs: com.example.service (Services ID for Web) com.example.app (App ID for iOS - The one being transferred) All identifiers are under the same App Group. Team B (Destination): New App ID and Key created. [Steps Taken] Created a Client Secret (JWT) using Team A's Key ID and Team ID. The sub (subject) in the JWT is set to the Primary App ID of Team A. Requesting with client_id (Primary App ID), client_secret (JWT), and user_token. [Questions] 1. App Group Impact: Does the fact that the App being transferred is a Grouped App ID (not the Primary) affect the usermigrationinfo request? Should I use the Primary App ID or the specific Grouped App ID as the client_id? 2. Ungrouping Safety: If I need to ungroup the App ID from the Primary App ID to resolve this: Will existing users still be able to sign in without issues? Is there any risk of changing the sub (user identifier) that the app receives from Apple? Will this cause any immediate service interruption for the live app? Any insights on why access_denied occurs in this Primary-Grouped configuration would be greatly appreciated.

I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. There have been substantial changes in this space recently. While much of this is now covered in the official docs (r. 92322409), I’ve updated this post to go into all the gory details. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the App & System Services > Core OS topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if your question is about app group containers, also include Files and Storage. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony There are two styles of app group ID: iOS-style app group IDs start with group., for example, group.eskimo1.test. macOS-style app group IDs start with your Team ID, for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. This difference has been the source of numerous weird problems over the years. Starting in Feb 2025, iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on macOS for all product types [1]. If you’re writing new code that uses app groups, use an iOS-style app group ID. If you have existing code that uses a macOS-style app group ID, consider how you might transition to the iOS style. IMPORTANT The Feb 2025 changes aren’t tied to an OS release but rather to a Developer website update. For more on this, see Feb 2025 Changes, below. [1] If your product is a standalone executable, like a daemon or agent, wrap it in an app-like structure, as explained in Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement. iOS-Style App Group IDs An iOS-style app group ID has the following features: It starts with the group. prefix, for example, group.eskimo1.test. You allocate it on the Developer website. This assigns the app group ID to your team. You then claim access to it by listing it in the App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. That claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile [1]. The Developer website will only let you include your team’s app group IDs in your profile. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. iOS-style app group IDs originated on iOS with iOS 3.0. They’ve always been supported on iOS’s child platforms (iPadOS, tvOS, visionOS, and watchOS). On the Mac: They’ve been supported by Mac Catalyst since that technology was introduced. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Starting in Feb 2025, they’re supported for other Mac products. [1] Strictly speaking macOS does not require that, but if your claim is not authorised by a profile then you might run into other problems. See Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. macOS-Style App Group IDs A macOS-style app group ID has the following features: It should start with your Team ID [1], for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. It can’t be explicitly allocated on the Developer website. Code that isn’t sandboxed doesn’t need to claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. [2] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted on macOS, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile [3]. However, if you claim an app group ID that’s not authorised in some way, you might run into problems. More on that later in this post. If you submit an app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense, that is, they either start with your Team ID (macOS style) or are assigned to your team (iOS style). [1] This is “should” because, historically, macOS has not actually required it. However, that’s now changing, with things like app group container protection. [2] This was true prior to macOS 15. It may still technically be true in macOS 15 and later, but the most important thing, access to the app group container, requires the entitlement because of app group container protection. [3] Technically it’s a validation-required entitlement, something that we’ll come back to in the Entitlements-Validated Flag section. Feb 2025 Changes On 21 Feb 2025 we rolled out a change to the Developer website that completes the support for iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Specifically, it’s now possible to create a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group ID. Note This change doesn’t affect Mac Catalyst or iOS Apps on Mac, which have always been able to use iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Prior to this change it was possible to use an iOS-style app group ID on the Mac but that might result in some weird behaviour. Later sections of this post describe some of those problems. Of course, that information is now only of historical interest because, if you’re using an iOS-style app group, you can and should authorise that use with a provisioning profile. We also started seeding Xcode 16.3, which has since been release. This is aware of the Developer website change, and its Signing & Capabilities editor actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. Note This Xcode behaviour is the only option for iOS and its child platforms. With Xcode 16.3, it’s now the default for macOS as well. If you have existing project, enable this behaviour using the Register App Groups build setting. Finally, we updated a number of app group documentation pages, including App Groups entitlement and Configuring app groups. Crossing the Streams In some circumstances you might need to have a single app that accesses both an iOS- and a macOS-style app group. For example: You have a macOS app. You want to migrate to an iOS-style app group ID, perhaps because you want to share an app group container with a Mac Catalyst app. But you also need to access existing content in a container identified by a macOS-style app group ID. Historically this caused problems (FB16664827) but, as of Jun 2025, this is fully supported (r. 148552377). When the Developer website generates a Mac provisioning profile for an App ID with the App Groups capability, it automatically adds TEAM_ID.* to the list of app group IDs authorised by that profile (where TEAM_ID is your Team ID). This allows the app to claim access to every iOS-style app group ID associated with the App ID and any macOS-style app group IDs for that team. This helps in two circumstances: It avoids any Mac App Store Connect submission problems, because App Store Connect can see that the app’s profile authorises its use of all the it app group IDs it claims access to. Outside of App Store — for example, when you directly distribute an app using Developer ID signing — you no longer have to rely on macOS granting implicit access to macOS-style app group IDs. Rather, such access is explicitly authorised by your profile. That ensures that your entitlements remain validated, as discussed in the Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. A Historical Interlude These different styles of app group IDs have historical roots: On iOS, third-party apps have always used provisioning profiles, and thus the App Groups entitlement is restricted just like any other entitlement. On macOS, support for app groups was introduced before macOS had general support for provisioning profiles [1], and thus the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted. The unrestricted nature of this entitlement poses two problems. The first is accidental collisions. How do you prevent folks from accidentally using an app group ID that’s in use by some other developer? On iOS this is easy: The Developer website assigns each app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. macOS achieved a similar result by using the Team ID as a prefix. The second problem is malicious reuse. How do you prevent a Mac app from accessing the app group containers of some other team? Again, this isn’t an issue on iOS because the App Groups entitlement is restricted. On macOS the solution was for the Mac App Store to prevent you from publishing an app that used an app group ID that’s used by another team. However, this only works for Mac App Store apps. Directly distributed apps were free to access app group containers of any other app. That was considered acceptable back when the Mac App Store was first introduced. That’s no longer the case, which is why macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. See App Group Container Protection, below. [1] I’m specifically talking about provisioning profiles for directly distributed apps, that is, apps using Developer ID signing. Entitlements-Validated Flag The fact that the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted on macOS is, when you think about it, a little odd. The purpose of entitlements is to gate access to functionality. If an entitlement isn’t restricted, it’s not much of a gate! For most unrestricted entitlements that’s not a problem. Specifically, for both the App Sandbox and Hardened Runtime entitlements, those are things you opt in to, so macOS is happy to accept the entitlement at face value. After all, if you want to cheat you can just not opt in [1]. However, this isn’t the case for the App Groups entitlement, which actually gates access to functionality. Dealing with this requires macOS to walk a fine line between security and compatibility. Part of that solution is the entitlements-validated flag. When a process runs an executable, macOS checks its entitlements. There are two categories: Restricted entitlements must be authorised by a provisioning profile. If your process runs an executable that claims a restricted entitlement that’s not authorised by a profile, the system traps. Unrestricted entitlements don’t have to be authorised by a provisioning profile; they can be used by any code at any time. However, the App Groups entitlement is a special type of unrestricted entitlement called a validation-required entitlement. If a process runs an executable that claims a validation-required entitlement and that claim is not authorised by a profile, the system allows the process to continue running but clears its entitlements-validated flag. Some subsystems gate functionality on the entitlements-validated flag. For example, the data protection keychain uses entitlements as part of its access control model, but refuses to honour those entitlements if the entitlement-validated flag has been cleared. Note If you’re curious about this flag, use the procinfo subcommand of launchctl to view it. For example: % sudo launchctl procinfo `pgrep Test20230126` … code signing info = valid … entitlements validated … If the flag has been cleared, this line will be missing from the code signing info section. Historically this was a serious problem because it prevented you from creating an app that uses both app groups and the data protection keychain [2] (r. 104859788). Fortunately that’s no longer an issue because the Developer website now lets you include the App Groups entitlement in macOS provisioning profiles. [1] From the perspective of macOS checking entitlements at runtime. There are other checks: The App Sandbox is mandatory for Mac App Store apps, but that’s checked when you upload the app to App Store Connect. Directly distributed apps must be notarised to pass Gatekeeper, and the notary service requires that all executables enable the hardened runtime. [2] See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain a historical oddity associated with keychain access. The Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps article says: Application groups When you collect related apps into an application group using the App Groups entitlement, they share access to a group container, and gain the ability to message each other in certain ways. You can use app group names as keychain access group names, without adding them to the Keychain Access Groups entitlement. On iOS this makes a lot of sense: The App Groups entitlement is a restricted entitlement on iOS. The Developer website assigns each iOS-style app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. The required group. prefix means that these keychain access groups can’t collide with other keychain access groups, which all start with an App ID prefix (there’s also Apple-only keychain access groups that start with other prefixes, like apple). However, this didn’t work on macOS [1] because the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted there. However, with the Feb 2025 changes it should now be possible to use an iOS-style app group ID as a keychain access group on macOS. Note I say “should” because I’ve not actually tried it (-: Keep in mind that standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on all platforms, using the restricted Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for Mac Catalyst apps and iOS Apps on Mac. Not Entirely Unsatisfied When you launch a Mac app that uses app groups you might see this log entry: type: error time: 10:41:35.858009+0000 process: taskgated-helper subsystem: com.apple.ManagedClient category: ProvisioningProfiles message: com.example.apple-samplecode.Test92322409: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups Note The exact format of that log entry, and the circumstances under which it’s generated, varies by platform. On macOS 13.0.1 I was able to generate it by running a sandboxed app that claims a macOS-style app group ID in the App Groups entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. It means that the App Groups entitlement claims an entitlement that’s not authorised by a provisioning profile. On iOS this would trap, but on macOS the system allows the process to continue running. It does, however, clear the entitlements-validate flag. See Entitlements-Validated Flag for an in-depth discussion of this. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to authorise your app group ID claims with a provisioning profile. If there’s some reason you can’t do that, watch out for potential problems with: The data protection keychain — See the discussion of that in the Entitlements-Validated Flag and App Groups and the Keychain sections, both above. App group container protection — See App Group Container Protection, below. App Group Container Protection macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. To access an app group container without user intervention: Claim access to the app group by listing its ID in the App Groups entitlement. Locate the container by calling the containerURL(forSecurityApplicationGroupIdentifier:) method. Ensure that at least one of the following criteria are met: Your app is deployed via the Mac App Store (A). Or via TestFlight when running on macOS 15.1 or later (B). Or the app group ID starts with your app’s Team ID (C). Or your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D) [1]. If your app doesn’t follow these rules, the system prompts the user to approve its access to the container. If granted, that consent applies only for the duration of that app instance. For more on this, see: The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15 Release Notes The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15.1 Release Notes WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy, starting at 12:23 The above criteria mean that you rarely run into the app group authorisation prompt. If you encounter a case where that happens, feel free to start a thread here on DevForums. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Note Prior to the Feb 2025 change, things generally worked out fine when you app was deployed but you might’ve run into problems during development. That’s no longer the case. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Revision History 2025-08-12 Added a reference to the Register App Groups build setting. 2025-07-28 Updated the Crossing the Streams section for the Jun 2025 change. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-04-16 Rewrote the document now that iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on the Mac. Changed the title from App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight! to App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony 2025-02-25 Fixed the Xcode version number mentioned in yesterday’s update. 2025-02-24 Added a quick update about the iOS-style app group IDs on macOS issue. 2024-11-05 Further clarified app group container protection. Reworked some other sections to account for this new reality. 2024-10-29 Clarified the points in App Group Container Protection. 2024-10-23 Fleshed out the discussion of app group container protection on macOS 15. 2024-09-04 Added information about app group container protection on macOS 15. 2023-01-31 Renamed the Not Entirely Unsatisfactory section to Not Entirely Unsatisfied. Updated it to describe the real impact of that log message. 2022-12-12 First posted.

Hi, we were recently approved for the com.apple.developer.web-browser.public-key-credential entitlement and have added it to our app. It initially worked as expected for a couple of days, but then it stopped working. We're now seeing the same error as before adding the entitlement: Told not to present authorization sheet: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServicesCore.AuthorizationError Code=1 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 "(null)" Do you have any insights into what might be causing this issue? Thank you!

Apple has repeatedly ignored my reports about a critical privacy issue in Spotlight on macOS 26, and the problem persists in version 26.3 RC. This is not a minor glitch, it is a fundamental breach of user trust and privacy. Several aspects of Spotlight fail to respect user settings: • Hidden apps still exposed: In the Apps section (Cmd+1), Spotlight continues to display apps marked with the hidden flag, even though they should remain invisible. • Clipboard reactivation: The clipboard feature repeatedly turns itself back on after logout or restart, despite being explicitly disabled by the user. • Excluded files revealed: Most concerning, Spotlight exposes files in Suggestions and Recents (Cmd+3) even when those files are explicitly excluded under System Settings > Spotlight > Search Privacy. This behavior directly violates user expectations and system settings. It is not only a major privacy issue but also a security risk, since sensitive files can be surfaced without consent. Apple must address this immediately. Users rely on Spotlight to respect their privacy configurations, and the current behavior undermines both trust and security.

Hello, I currently have an app that includes the "Sign in with Apple" feature, and I need to transfer this app to another app team. I have reviewed all official documentation but have not found the answer I need. My situation has some specificities, and I hope to receive assistance. The .p8 key created by the original developer team has been lost, and the app’s backend does not use a .p8 key for verification—instead, it verifies by obtaining Apple’s public key. However, according to the official documentation I reviewed, obtaining a transfer identifier during the app transfer process requires a client_secret generated from the original team’s .p8 key. This has left us facing a challenge, and we have two potential approaches to address this issue: Q1: During the transfer, is it possible to skip obtaining the transfer identifier and proceed directly with the app transfer, without performing any backend operations? Is this approach feasible? Q2: If the above approach is not feasible, should we create a new .p8 key in the original team’s account and use this new key for the transfer? If a new key is generated, do we need to re-release a new version of the app before initiating the transfer? If neither of the above approaches is feasible, are there better solutions to resolve our issue? I hope to receive a response. Thank you. TN3159: Migrating Sign in with Apple users for an app transfer | Apple Developer Documentation/ https://aninterestingwebsite.com/documentation/signinwithapple/transferring-your-apps-and-users-to-another-team

Confirmation on "Sign in with Apple JS" Web Implementation Compatibility Hello Developers We are trying to implement "Sign in with Apple JS" on our e-commerce website, which is built on a SaaS platform called Ticimax in Turkey. Our platform provider (Ticimax) claims that a web-based implementation of "Sign in with Apple" is not currently possible. They state this is due to "Apple's browser security policies" that prevent consistent and secure support across all major browsers, particularly Safari with its privacy features. Could you please confirm if there are any fundamental security policies or technical restrictions imposed by Apple that would prevent a standard, secure implementation of "Sign in with Apple JS" on a typical e-commerce website? We know many global websites use this feature successfully. We need to know if our provider's claim has a technical basis from Apple's perspective, or if this is a standard implementation challenge that developers are expected to handle (e.g., using pop-ups instead of redirects to comply with ITP). Any official clarification or documentation you can provide on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

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

I have implemented "Sign in With Apple" in my app , but problem is when user logged in initially or first time and email I can retrieve , name and email but after that when i tried to re login it is giving null value for name and email, why it is happening and what should be done here?

"Our app has absolutely no integration with DiDi login. We only integrate WeChat, QQ, carrier, and Apple ID login, and all related login entry icons are local resources. On an iPhone 16 Pro Max device with iOS system version 18.7, there was one isolated incident where the Apple ID login entry icon mysteriously changed to the DiDi app icon. What could be the possible iOS system-level causes for this?"

Hi all, I've on high alert after hearing about the security concerns with npm. Full disclosure, I'm new to computer and network architecture, however, as someone who is on high alert for aplications exfiltrating data or poisioning my on-device machine learning models — I've seen some things I can't fully explain and I'm hoping the community can help. I ran the code odutil show all and I was wondering why certain node names are hidden in my system and when I use the directory utility, I can't use my computer login and password to authenticate to see the users? Am I being locked out of seeing my own system? I'm trying to dig to see if a root kit was installed on my device. Does anyone know what the users and groups in the directory utility are? Who is "nobody" and who is "Unknown user"? I'll probably have a lot more questions about this suspicious files I've seen on my device. Does anyone else's device download machine learning model payloads from the internet without notifying the user (even through a firewall, no startup applications?). I've also tried deleting applications I no longer need anymore and my "system" makes them re-appear.... what?

Hello, I have a question regarding the lifecycle of user consent and tokens in "Sign in with Apple." Specifically, I would like to understand the behavior of the auth/revoke API in relation to App Store Connect status changes. Impact of App Status Changes If an app is "Removed from Sale" or "Deleted" from App Store Connect, does Apple automatically revoke all associated user tokens and consent? Or is it still the developer's responsibility to programmatically revoke each user's token via the REST API to ensure the app is removed from the user’s "Apps Using Apple ID" list? API Availability after Removal Once an app is no longer available on the App Store (or its record is deleted in App Store Connect), is the auth/revoke REST API still accessible? I want to ensure that a developer can still perform necessary privacy clean-up tasks (revoking consent) even if the app is not currently distributed. Specific User Impacts of Non-Revocation If we do not call the revocation API, besides the app remaining in the "Sign in with Apple" list, what are the specific consequences for the user? Thank you for your guidance.

Hi, I am in need of your help with publishing my game. I got the following explanation for the negative review of my app/game. 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 local network information 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" See examples of helpful, informative purpose strings. The problem is that they say my app asks to allow my app to find devices on local networks. And that this needs more explanation in the purpose strings. Totally valid to ask, but the problem is my app doesn't need local access to devices, and there shouldn't be code that asks this?? FYI the game is build with Unity. Would love some help on how to turn this off so that my app can get published.

Hello, I am implementing "Sign in with Apple" on my backend and validating the Identity Token (JWT) received from the client. I noticed that for some users who choose the "Hide My Email" option, the is_private_email claim is missing from the ID Token payload, even though the email address clearly belongs to the private relay domain (@privaterelay.appleid.com). Here is an example of the decoded payload I received: { "iss": "https://appleid.apple.com", "aud": "xxx", "exp": 1764402438, "iat": 1764316038, "sub": "xxxxxxxx", "c_hash": "3FAJNf4TILzUgo_YFe4E0Q", "email": "xxx@privaterelay.appleid.com", "email_verified": true, "auth_time": 1764316038, "nonce_supported": true // "is_private_email": true <-- This field is missing } My Questions: Is the is_private_email claim considered optional in the ID Token? Is it safe and recommended to rely solely on the email domain suffix (@privaterelay.appleid.com) to identify if a user is using a private email? Any insights or official references would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hello, We are working on integrating app integrity verification into our service application, following Apple's App Attest and DeviceCheck guide. Our server issues a challenge to the client, which then sends the challenge, attestation, and keyId in CBOR format to Apple's App Attest server for verification. However, we are unable to reach both https://attest.apple.com and https://attest.development.apple.com due to network issues. These attempts have been made from both our internal corporate network and mobile hotspot environments. Despite adjusting DNS settings and other configurations, the issue persists. Are there alternative methods or solutions to address this problem? Any recommended network configurations or guidelines to successfully connect to Apple's App Attest servers would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Trusted execution is a generic name for a Gatekeeper and other technologies that aim to protect users from malicious code. General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums tag: Gatekeeper Developer > Signing Mac Software with Developer ID Apple Platform Security support document Safely open apps on your Mac support article Hardened Runtime document WWDC 2022 Session 10096 What’s new in privacy covers some important Gatekeeper changes in macOS 13 (starting at 04: 32), most notably app bundle protection WWDC 2023 Session 10053 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 14 (starting at 17:46), namely, app container protection WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 15 (starting at 12:23), namely, app group container protection Updates to runtime protection in macOS Sequoia news post Testing a Notarised Product forums post Resolving Trusted Execution Problems forums post App Translocation Notes (aka Gatekeeper path randomisation) forums post Most trusted execution problems are caused by code signing or notarisation issues. See Code Signing Resources and Notarisation Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

I am asking about the apple Sign in implementation. ▫️ problems eas local build or test flight, I get a “Could not complete registration” message. When I check the console, I see the following error message. akd SRP authentication with server failed! Error: Error Domain=com.apple.AppleIDAuthSupport Code=2 UserInfo={NSDescription=<private>, Status=<private>} ▫️ Assumption ・Developed with Expo ・"expo-apple-authentication":"^7.2.4" ・Two apps are developed at the same time, using supabase, firebase, but both have the same error ・On Xcode, on app ids, apple sign in capability is turned on ・Service ids is set to domain, return url ・keys is created ・Internal test of testfligt is set to deliver

I'm implementing Apple Sign-In in my Next.js application with a NestJS backend. After the user authenticates with Apple, instead of redirecting to my configured callback URL, the browser makes a POST request to a mysterious endpoint /appleauth/auth/federate that doesn't exist in my codebase, resulting in a 404 error. Tech Stack Frontend: Next.js 16.0.10, React 19.2.0 Backend: NestJS with Passport (using @arendajaelu/nestjs-passport-apple) Frontend URL: https://myapp.example.com Backend URL: https://api.example.com Apple Developer Configuration Service ID: (configured correctly in Apple Developer Console) Return URL (only one configured): https://api.example.com/api/v1/auth/apple/callback Domains verified in Apple Developer Console: myapp.example.com api.example.com example.com Backend Configuration NestJS Controller (auth.controller.ts): typescript @Public() @Get('apple') @UseGuards(AuthGuard('apple')) async appleAuth() { // Initiates Apple OAuth flow } @Public() @Post('apple/callback') // Changed from @Get to @Post for form_post @UseGuards(AuthGuard('apple')) async appleAuthCallback(@Req() req: any, @Res() res: any) { const result = await this.authService.socialLogin(req.user, ipAddress, userAgent); // Returns HTML with tokens that uses postMessage to send to opener window } Environment Variables: typescript APPLE_CLIENT_ID=<service_id> APPLE_TEAM_ID=<team_id> APPLE_KEY_ID=<key_id> APPLE_PRIVATE_KEY_PATH=./certs/AuthKey_XXX.p8 APPLE_CALLBACK_URL=https://api.example.com/api/v1/auth/apple/callback FRONTEND_URL=https://myapp.example.com The passport-apple strategy uses response_mode: 'form_post', so Apple POSTs the authorization response to the callback URL. Frontend Implementation Next.js API Route (/src/app/api/auth/apple/route.js): javascript export async function GET(request) { const backendUrl = new URL(`${API_URL}/auth/apple`); const response = await fetch(backendUrl.toString(), { method: "GET", headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json", }, }); const responseText = await response.text(); return new NextResponse(responseText, { status: response.status, headers: { "Content-Type": contentType || "text/html" }, }); } Frontend Auth Handler: javascript export const handleAppleLogin = (router, setApiError) => { const frontendUrl = window?.location?.origin; // Opens popup to /api/auth/apple window.open( `${frontendUrl}/api/auth/apple`, "appleLogin", "width=500,height=600" ); }; The Problem Expected Flow: User clicks "Login with Apple" Frontend opens popup → https://myapp.example.com/api/auth/apple Frontend proxies to → https://api.example.com/api/v1/auth/apple Backend redirects to Apple's authentication page User authenticates with Apple ID Apple POSTs back to → https://api.example.com/api/v1/auth/apple/callback Backend processes and returns success HTML Actual Behavior: After step 5 (user authentication with Apple), instead of Apple redirecting to my callback URL, the browser makes this unexpected request: POST https://myapp.example.com/appleauth/auth/federate?isRememberMeEnabled=false Status: 404 Not Found Request Payload: json { "accountName": "user@example.com", "rememberMe": false } Network Tab Analysis From Chrome DevTools, the call stack shows: send @ app.js:234 ajax @ app.js:234 (anonymous) @ app.js:10 Ee.isFederated @ app.js:666 _callAuthFederate @ app.js:666 The Ee.isFederated and _callAuthFederate functions appear to be minified library code, but I cannot identify which library. What I've Verified ✅ The /appleauth/auth/federate endpoint does not exist anywhere in my codebase: bash grep -r "appleauth" src/ # No results grep -r "federate" src/ # No results ✅ Apple Developer Console shows only ONE Return URL configured (verified multiple times) ✅ Changed callback route from @Get to @Post to handle form_post response mode ✅ Rebuilt frontend completely multiple times: bash rm -rf .next npm run build ✅ Tested in: Incognito/Private browsing mode Different browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari) Different devices After clearing all cache and cookies ✅ No service workers registered in the application ✅ No external <script> tags or CDN libraries loaded ✅ package.json contains no AWS Amplify, Auth0, Cognito, or similar federated auth libraries ✅ Checked layout.js and all root-level files - no external scripts Additional Context Google Sign-In works perfectly fine using the same approach The mysterious endpoint uses a different path structure (/appleauth/ vs /api/auth/) The call appears to originate from client-side JavaScript (based on the call stack) The app.js file with the mysterious functions is the built Next.js bundle Questions Where could this /appleauth/auth/federate endpoint be coming from? Why is the browser making this POST request instead of following Apple's redirect to my configured callback URL? Could this be related to the response_mode: 'form_post' in the Apple Passport strategy? Is there something in the Apple Developer Primary App ID configuration that could trigger this behavior? Could this be a Next.js build artifact or some hidden dependency? The mysterious call stack references (Ee.isFederated, _callAuthFederate) suggest some library is intercepting the Apple authentication flow, but I cannot identify what library or where it's being loaded from. The minified function names suggest federated authentication, but I have no such libraries in my dependencies. Has anyone encountered similar issues with Apple Sign-In where an unexpected endpoint is being called?

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?