I have filed bug reports on this to no avail, so I am bringing it up here hoping someone at Apple will address this. Since the first beta of 26.3, with voice control enabled there are now two icons in the menu bar (*plus an orange dot in full screen) that never go away. That orange microphone isn't serving its intended purpose to notify me that something is accessing my microphone if it is always displayed. I use voice control extensively, so it is nearly always on. In every prior version of macOS, the orange icon was not on for voice control. Even if voice control is not listening but simply enabled in system settings, the orange icon will be there. And there is no need for this icon to be on for a system service that is always listening. This orange icon in the menu bar at all times is incredibly irritating, as it takes up valuable space to the right of the notch, and causes other actual useful menu bar items to be hidden. As well, if some other application on my system were to turn on the mic and start recording me I would never know since that orange icon is always on. It also places an orange dot next to the control center icon taking up even more of the precious little menu bar real estate. Please fix this! Either exempt voice control (as Siri is always listening and it doesn't get the orange icon) or exempt all system services, or give me a way to turn this off. If you cannot tell, I find this incredibly annoying and frustrating.

% curl -v https://app-site-association.cdn-apple.com/a/v1/zfcs.bankts.cn Host app-site-association.cdn-apple.com:443 was resolved. IPv6: (none) IPv4: 218.92.226.151, 119.101.148.193, 218.92.226.6, 115.152.217.3 Trying 218.92.226.151:443... Connected to app-site-association.cdn-apple.com (218.92.226.151) port 443 ALPN: curl offers h2,http/1.1 (304) (OUT), TLS handshake, Client hello (1): CAfile: /etc/ssl/cert.pem CApath: none (304) (IN), TLS handshake, Server hello (2): (304) (IN), TLS handshake, Unknown (8): (304) (IN), TLS handshake, Certificate (11): (304) (IN), TLS handshake, CERT verify (15): (304) (IN), TLS handshake, Finished (20): (304) (OUT), TLS handshake, Finished (20): SSL connection using TLSv1.3 / AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 / [blank] / UNDEF ALPN: server accepted http/1.1 Server certificate: subject: C=US; ST=California; O=Apple Inc.; CN=app-site-association.cdn-apple.com start date: Sep 25 13:58:08 2025 GMT expire date: Mar 31 17:44:25 2026 GMT subjectAltName: host "app-site-association.cdn-apple.com" matched cert's "app-site-association.cdn-apple.com" issuer: CN=Apple Public Server RSA CA 11 - G1; O=Apple Inc.; ST=California; C=US SSL certificate verify ok. using HTTP/1.x GET /a/v1/zfcs.bankts.cn HTTP/1.1 Host: app-site-association.cdn-apple.com User-Agent: curl/8.7.1 Accept: / Request completely sent off < HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found < Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 < Content-Length: 10 < Connection: keep-alive < Server: nginx < Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 02:26:00 GMT < Expires: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 02:26:10 GMT < Age: 24 < Apple-Failure-Details: {"cause":"context deadline exceeded (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)"} < Apple-Failure-Reason: SWCERR00301 Timeout < Apple-From: https://zfcs.bankts.cn/.well-known/apple-app-site-association < Apple-Try-Direct: true < Vary: Accept-Encoding < Via: https/1.1 jptyo12-3p-pst-003.ts.apple.com (acdn/3.16363), http/1.1 jptyo12-3p-pac-043.ts.apple.com (acdn/3.16363), https/1.1 jptyo12-3p-pfe-002.ts.apple.com (acdn/3.16363) < X-Cache: MISS KS-CLOUD < CDNUUID: 736dc646-57fb-43c9-aa0d-eedad3a534f8-1154605242 < x-link-via: yancmp83:443;xmmp02:443;fzct321:443; < x-b2f-cs-cache: no-cache < X-Cache-Status: MISS from KS-CLOUD-FZ-CT-321-35 < X-Cache-Status: MISS from KS-CLOUD-XM-MP-02-16 < X-Cache-Status: MISS from KS-CLOUD-YANC-MP-83-15 < X-KSC-Request-ID: c4a640c815640ee93c263a357ee919d6 < CDN-Server: KSFTF < X-Cdn-Request-ID: c4a640c815640ee93c263a357ee919d6 < Not Found Connection #0 to host app-site-association.cdn-apple.com left intact

I'm developing a passkey manager using ASCredentialProviderViewController. I've set a custom AAGUID in the attestation object during registration: let aaguid = Data([ 0xec, 0x78, 0xfa, 0xe8, 0xb2, 0xe0, 0x56, 0x97, 0x8e, 0x94, 0x7c, 0x77, 0x28, 0xc3, 0x95, 0x00 ]) However, when I test on webauthn.io, the relying party receives: AAGUID: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 Provider Name: "iCloud Keychain" It appears that macOS overwrites the AAGUID to all zeros for third-party Credential Provider Extensions. This makes it impossible for relying parties to distinguish between different passkey providers, which is one of the key purposes of AAGUID in the WebAuthn specification. Is this expected behavior? Is there a way for third-party Credential Provider Extensions to use their own registered AAGUID? Environment: macOS 26.2 Xcode 26.2

In these threads, it was clarified that Credential Provider Extensions must set both Backup Eligible (BE) and Backup State (BS) flags to 1 in authenticator data: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/745605 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/787629 However, I'm developing a passkey manager that intentionally stores credentials only on the local device. My implementation uses: kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly for keychain items kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave for private keys No iCloud sync or backup These credentials are, by definition, single-device credentials. According to the WebAuthn specification, they should be represented with BE=0, BS=0. Currently, I'm forced to set BE=1, BS=1 to make the extension work, which misrepresents the actual backup status to relying parties. This is problematic because: Servers using BE/BS flags for security policies will incorrectly classify these as synced passkeys Users who specifically want device-bound credentials for higher security cannot get accurate flag representation Request: Please allow Credential Provider Extensions to return credentials with BE=0, BS=0 for legitimate device-bound passkey implementations. Environment: macOS 26.2 (25C56), Xcode 26.2 (17C52)

Hello, I’m working on an authorization plugin which allows users to login and unlock their computer with various methods like a FIDO key. I need to add smart cards support to it. If I understand correctly, I need to construct a URLCredential object with the identity from the smart card and pass it to the completion handler of URLSessionDelegate.urlSession(_:didReceive:completionHandler:) method. I’ve read the documentation at Using Cryptographic Assets Stored on a Smart Card, TN3137: On Mac keychain APIs and implementations, and SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices and created a simple code that reads the identities from the keychain: CFArrayRef identities = nil; OSStatus status = SecItemCopyMatching((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)@{ (id)kSecClass: (id)kSecClassIdentity, (id)kSecMatchLimit: (id)kSecMatchLimitAll, (id)kSecReturnRef: @YES, }, (CFTypeRef *)&identities); if (status == errSecSuccess && identities) { os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Found identities: %{public}ld\n", CFArrayGetCount(identities)); } else { os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Error: %{public}ld\n", (long)status); } When I use this code in a simple demo app, it finds my Yubikey identities without problem. When I use it in my authorization plugin, it doesn’t find anything in system.login.console right and finds Yubikey in authenticate right only if I register my plugin as non-,privileged. I tried modifying the query in various ways, in particular by using SecKeychainCopyDomainSearchList with the domain kSecPreferencesDomainDynamic and adding it to the query as kSecMatchSearchList and trying other SecKeychain* methods, but ended up with nothing. I concluded that the identities from a smart card are being added to the data protection keychain rather than to a file based keychain and since I’m working in a privileged context, I won’t be able to get them. If this is indeed the case, could you please advise how to proceed? Thanks in advance.

Hi, I'm using webauthn.io to test my macOS Passkey application. When registering a passkey whichever value I set for User Verification, that's what I get when I check registrationRequest.userVerificationPreference on prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration registrationRequest: any ASCredentialRequest). However, when authenticating my passkey I can never get discouraged UV on prepareInterfaceToProvideCredential(for credentialRequest: any ASCredentialRequest). In the WWDC 2022 Meet Passkeys video, it is stated that Apple will always require UV when biometrics are available. I use a Macbook Pro with TouchID, but if I'm working with my lid closed, shouldn't I be able to get .discouraged?

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"

Estou compartilhando algumas observações técnicas sobre Crash Detection / Emergency SOS no ecossistema Apple, com base em eventos amplamente observados em 2022 e 2024, quando houve chamadas automáticas em massa para serviços de emergência. A ideia aqui não é discutir UX superficial ou “edge cases isolados”, mas sim comportamento sistêmico em escala, algo que acredito ser relevante para qualquer time que trabalhe com sistemas críticos orientados a eventos físicos. Contexto resumido A partir do iPhone 14, a Detecção de Acidente passou a correlacionar múltiplos sensores (acelerômetros de alta faixa, giroscópio, GPS, microfones) para inferir eventos de impacto severo e acionar automaticamente chamadas de emergência. Em 2022, isso resultou em um volume significativo de falsos positivos, especialmente em atividades com alta aceleração (esqui, snowboard, parques de diversão). Em 2024, apesar de ajustes, houve recorrência localizada do mesmo padrão. Ponto técnico central O problema não parece ser hardware, nem um “bug pontual”, mas sim o estado intermediário de decisão: Aceleração ≠ acidente Ruído ≠ impacto real Movimento extremo ≠ incapacidade humana Quando o classificador entra em estado ambíguo, o sistema depende de uma janela curta de confirmação humana (toque/voz). Em ambientes ruidosos, com o usuário em movimento ou fisicamente ativo, essa confirmação frequentemente falha. O sistema então assume incapacidade e executa a ação fail-safe: chamada automática. Do ponto de vista de engenharia de segurança, isso é compreensível. Do ponto de vista de escala, é explosivo. Papel da Siri A Siri não “decide” o acidente, mas é um elo sensível na cadeia humano–máquina. Falhas de compreensão por ruído, idioma, respiração ofegante ou ausência de resposta acabam sendo interpretadas como sinal de emergência real. Isso é funcionalmente equivalente ao que vemos em sistemas automotivos como o eCall europeu, quando a confirmação humana é inexistente ou degradada. O dilema estrutural Há um trade-off claro e inevitável: Reduzir falsos negativos (não perder um acidente real) Aumentar falsos positivos (chamadas indevidas) Para o usuário individual, errar “para mais” faz sentido. Para serviços públicos de emergência, milhões de dispositivos errando “para mais” criam ruído operacional real. Por que isso importa para developers A Apple hoje opera, na prática, um dos maiores sistemas privados de segurança pessoal automatizada do mundo, interagindo diretamente com infraestrutura pública crítica. Isso coloca Crash Detection / SOS na mesma categoria de sistemas safety-critical, onde: UX é parte da segurança Algoritmos precisam ser auditáveis “Human-in-the-loop” não pode ser apenas nominal Reflexões abertas Alguns pontos que, como developer, acho que merecem discussão: Janelas de confirmação humana adaptativas ao contexto (atividade física, ruído). Cancelamento visual mais agressivo em cenários de alto movimento. Perfis de sensibilidade por tipo de atividade, claramente comunicados. Critérios adicionais antes da chamada automática quando o risco de falso positivo é estatisticamente alto. Não é um problema simples, nem exclusivo da Apple. É um problema de software crítico em contato direto com o mundo físico, operando em escala planetária. Justamente por isso, acho que vale uma discussão técnica aberta, sem ruído emocional. Curioso para ouvir perspectivas de quem trabalha com sistemas similares (automotivo, wearables, safety-critical, ML embarcado). — Rafa

Hi Apple Developers, I'm having a problem with evaluatedPolicyDomainState: on the same device, its value keeps changing and then switching back to the original. My current iOS version is 26.1. I upgraded my iOS from version 18.6.2 to 26.1. What could be the potential reasons for this issue? { NSError *error; BOOL success = YES; char *eds = nil; int edslen = 0; LAContext *context = [[LAContext alloc] init]; // test if we can evaluate the policy, this test will tell us if Touch ID is available and enrolled // success = [context canEvaluatePolicy: LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics error:&error]; if (SystemVersion > 9.3) { // test if we can evaluate the policy, this test will tell us if Touch ID is available and enrolled success = [context canEvaluatePolicy: LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthentication error:&error]; } else{ // test if we can evaluate the policy, this test will tell us if Touch ID is available and enrolled success = [context canEvaluatePolicy: LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics error:&error]; } if (success) { if (@available(iOS 18.0, *)) { NSData *stateHash = nil; if ([context respondsToSelector:@selector(domainState)]) { stateHash = [[context performSelector:@selector(domainState)] performSelector:@selector(stateHash)]; }else{ stateHash = [context evaluatedPolicyDomainState]; } eds = (char *)stateHash.bytes; edslen = (int)stateHash.length; } else { eds = (char *)[[context evaluatedPolicyDomainState] bytes]; edslen = (int)[[context evaluatedPolicyDomainState] length]; } CC_SHA256(eds, edslen, uviOut); *poutlen = CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH; } else { *poutlen = 32; gm_memset(uviOut, 0x01, 32); } }

After registe Passkey with webauthn library, i create a passkeyRegistration with follow, let passkeyRegistration = ASPasskeyRegistrationCredential(relyingParty: serviceIdentifier, clientDataHash: clientDataHashSign, credentialID: credentialId, attestationObject: attestationObject) and then completeRegistrationRequest like that, extensionContext.completeRegistrationRequest(using: passkeyRegistration) But a bad outcome occurred from user agent. NotAllowedError:The request is not allowed by the user agent or the platform in the current context. And the return data rawID & credentialPublicKey is empty,

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?

Hi I'm developing an app that autofills Passkeys. The app allows the user to authenticate to their IdP to obtain an access token. Using the token the app fetches from <server>/attestation/options. The app will generate a Passkey credential using a home-grown module - the extension has no involvement, neither does ASAuthorizationSecurityKeyPublicKeyCredentialProvider. I can confirm the passkey does get created. Next the credential is posted to <server>/attestation/results with the response JSON being parsed and used to create a ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity - a sample of the response JSON is attached. Here is my save function: static func save(authenticator: AuthenticatorInfo) async throws { guard let credentialID = Data(base64URLEncoded: authenticator.attributes.credentialId) else { throw AuthenticatorError.invalidEncoding("Credential ID is not a valid Base64URL string.") } guard let userHandle = authenticator.userId.data(using: .utf8) else { throw AuthenticatorError.invalidEncoding("User handle is not a valid UTF-8 string.") } let identity = ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity( relyingPartyIdentifier: authenticator.attributes.rpId, userName: authenticator.userId, // This is what the user sees in the UI credentialID: credentialID, userHandle: userHandle, recordIdentifier: authenticator.id ) try await ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.saveCredentialIdentities([identity]) } Although no error occurs, I don't get any identities returned when I call this method: let identities = await ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.credentialIdentities( forService: nil, credentialIdentityTypes: [.passkey] ) Here is the Info.plist in the Extension: <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>NSExtension</key> <dict> <key>NSExtensionAttributes</key> <dict> <key>ASCredentialProviderExtensionCapabilities</key> <dict> <key>ProvidesPasskeys</key> <true/> </dict> <key>ASCredentialProviderExtensionShowsConfigurationUI</key> <true/> </dict> <key>NSExtensionPointIdentifier</key> <string>com.apple.authentication-services-credential-provider-ui</string> <key>NSExtensionPrincipalClass</key> <string>$(PRODUCT_MODULE_NAME).CredentialProviderViewController</string> </dict> </dict> </plist> The entitlements are valid and the app and extension both support the same group. I'm stumped as to why the identity is not getting saved. Any ideas and not getting retrieved. attestationResult.json

Hi, In our app we are using DeviceCheck (App Attest) in a production environment iOS. The service works correctly for most users, but a user reported failure in a flow that use device check service. This failure is not intermittently, it is constant. We are unable to reproduce this failure and we are believing that this failure occurred by new version ios 26.3 because for others users using early versions the service is normally. Environment iOS 26.3 Real device App Attest capability enabled Correct App ID, Team ID and App Attest entitlement Production environment Characteristics: appears constantly affects only unique user -Don't resolves after time or reinstall not reproducible on our test devices NSError contains no additional diagnostic info (Error Domain=com.apple.devicecheck.error Code=3 "(null)") We saw about this error code 3 in this post 812308, but it's not our case because the ios version in this case is not iOS 17.0 or earlier. Please, help us any guidance for solution. Thank you

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!

"I am attempting to read and write data to an Office Group Container, and I am consistently prompted with the "App would like to access data from other apps" alert. How can I configure the application or environment to suppress this repeated permission prompt?"

Hello, I would like to seek clarification regarding the availability of the NFC Secure Element (SE) / ISO7816 entitlement by region, specifically for Indonesia. I recently contacted Apple Developer Support regarding the use of NFC for reading ISO7816-compatible cards. I was informed that, at this time, the NFC & Secure Element entitlement is not available in Indonesia. For technical planning and compliance purposes, I would like to confirm the following: Is the NFC Secure Element / ISO7816 entitlement currently restricted by region, and is Indonesia officially unsupported at this time? For apps distributed on the App Store in Indonesia, is Core NFC limited to NDEF and non–Secure Element tag reading only? Are there any publicly supported alternatives or recommended architectural approaches for NFC-based workflows in regions where the Secure Element entitlement is unavailable? Is there any public documentation or guidance that outlines regional availability for NFC Secure Element features? I understand that entitlement approvals and availability may vary by region and are handled on a case-by-case basis. Any clarification from Apple engineers or developers with experience in this area would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards.

On iOS 26, QuickLookAR (ARQuickLookPreviewItem) shares the actual .usdz file via the system Share Sheet instead of the original website URL. This is a regression from iOS 17–18, where sharing correctly preserved and sent only the source URL. Repro steps: 1. Open a web-hosted USDZ model in QuickLookAR (Safari). 2. Tap Share. 3. Share via any messenger. 4. The full .usdz file is sent. Expected: Share Sheet sends only the original URL. Actual: Share Sheet sends the USDZ file. Impact: Uncontrolled distribution of proprietary 3D assets. Critical IP / data leak. Blocks production AR deployments relying on QuickLook. Environment: iOS 26.0–26.1, iPhone 14 / 15. Works as expected on iOS 17–18. Test case: https://admixreality.com/ios26/

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!

I'm trying to export and re-import a P-256 private key that was originally generated via SecKeyCreateRandomKey(), but I keep running into roadblocks. The key is simply exported via SecItemExport() with format formatWrappedPKCS8, and I did set a password just to be sure. Do note that I must use the file-based keychain, as the data protection keychain requires a restricted entitlement and I'm not going to pay a yearly fee just to securely store some private keys for a personal project. The 7-day limit for unsigned/self-signed binaries isn't feasible either. Here's pretty much everything I could think of trying: Simply using SecItemImport() does import the key, but I cannot set kSecAttrLabel and more importantly: kSecAttrApplicationTag. There just isn't any way to pass these attributes upfront, so it's always imported as Imported Private Key with an empty comment. Keys don't support many attributes to begin with and I need something that's unique to my program but shared across all the relevant key entries, otherwise it's impossible to query for only my program's keys. kSecAttrLabel is already used for something else and is always unique, which really only leaves kSecAttrApplicationTag. I've already accepted that this can be changed via Keychain Access, as this attribute should end up as the entry's comment. At least, that's how it works with SecKeyCreateRandomKey() and SecItemCopyMatching(). I'm trying to get that same behaviour for imports. Running SecItemUpdate() afterwards to set these 2 attributes doesn't work either, as now the kSecAttrApplicationTag is suddenly used for the entry's label instead of the comment. Even setting kSecAttrComment (just to be certain) doesn't change the comment. I think kSecAttrApplicationTag might be a creation-time attribute only, and since SecItemImport() already created a SecKey I will never be able to set this. It likely falls back to updating the label because it needs to target something that is still mutable? Using SecItemImport() with a nil keychain (i.e. create a transient key), then persisting that with SecItemAdd() via kSecValueRef does allow me to set the 2 attributes, but now the ACL is lost. Or more precise: the ACL does seem to exist as any OS prompts do show the label I originally set for the ACL, but in Keychain Access it shows as Allow all applications to access this item. I'm looking to enable Confirm before allowing access and add my own program to the Always allow access by these applications list. Private keys outright being open to all programs is of course not acceptable, and I can indeed access them from other programs without any prompts. Changing the ACL via SecKeychainItemSetAccess() after SecItemAdd() doesn't seem to do anything. It apparently succeeds but nothing changes. I also reopened Keychain Access to make sure it's not a UI "caching" issue. Creating a transient key first, then getting the raw key via SecKeyCopyExternalRepresentation() and passing that to SecItemAdd() via kSecValueData results in The specified attribute does not exist. This error only disappears if I remove almost all of the attributes. I can pass only kSecValueData, kSecClass and kSecAttrApplicationTag, but then I get The specified item already exists in the keychain errors. I found a doc that explains what determines uniqueness, so here are the rest of the attributes I'm using for SecItemAdd(): kSecClass: not mentioned as part of the primary key but still required, otherwise you'll get One or more parameters passed to a function were not valid. kSecAttrLabel: needed for my use case and not part of the primary key either, but as I said this results in The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrApplicationLabel: The specified attribute does not exist. As I understand it this should be the SHA1 hash of the public key, passed as Data. Just omitting it would certainly be an option if the other attributes actually worked, but right now I'm passing it to try and construct a truly unique primary key. kSecAttrApplicationTag: The specified item already exists in the keychain. kSecAttrKeySizeInBits: The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrEffectiveKeySize: The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrKeyClass: The specified attribute does not exist. kSecAttrKeyType: The specified attribute does not exist. It looks like only kSecAttrApplicationTag is accepted, but still ignored for the primary key. Even entering something that is guaranteed to be unique still results in The specified item already exists in the keychain, so I think might actually be targeting literally any key. I decided to create a completely new keychain and import it there (which does succeed), but the key is completely broken. There's no Kind and Usage at the top of Keychain Access and the table view just below it shows symmetric key instead of private. The kSecAttrApplicationTag I'm passing is still being used as the label instead of the comment and there's no ACL. I can't even delete this key because Keychain Access complains that A missing value was detected. It seems like the key doesn't really contain anything unique for its primary key, so it will always match any existing key. Using SecKeyCreateWithData() and then using that key as the kSecValueRef for SecItemAdd() results in A required entitlement isn't present. I also have to add kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain: false to SecItemAdd() (even though that should already be the default) but then I get The specified item is no longer valid. It may have been deleted from the keychain. This occurs even if I decrypt the PKCS8 manually instead of via SecItemImport(), so it's at least not like it's detecting the transient key somehow. No combination of kSecAttrIsPermanent, kSecUseDataProtectionKeychain and kSecUseKeychain on either SecKeyCreateWithData() or SecItemAdd() changes anything. I also tried PKCS12 despite that it always expects an "identity" (key + cert), while I only have (and need) a private key. Exporting as formatPKCS12 and importing it with itemTypeAggregate (or itemTypeUnknown) does import the key, and now it's only missing the kSecAttrApplicationTag as the original label is automatically included in the PKCS12. The outItems parameter contains an empty list though, which sort of makes sense because I'm not importing a full "identity". I can at least target the key by kSecAttrLabel for SecItemUpdate(), but any attempt to update the comment once again changes the label so it's not really any better than before. SecPKCS12Import() doesn't even import anything at all, even though it does return errSecSuccess while also passing kSecImportExportKeychain explicitly. Is there literally no way?

During internal testing, we observed the following behavior and would appreciate clarification on whether it is expected and supported in production environments. When generating an elliptic-curve cryptographic key pair using "kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave", and explicitly specifying a "kSecAttrAccessGroup", we found that cryptographic operations (specifically encryption and decryption) could be successfully performed using this key pair from two distinct applications. Both applications had the Keychain Sharing capability enabled and were signed with the same provisioning profile identity. Given the documented security properties of Secure Enclave, backed keys, namely that private key material is protected by hardware and access is strictly constrained by design, we would like to confirm whether the ability for multiple applications (sharing the same keychain access group and signing identity) to perform cryptographic operations with the same Secure Enclave–backed key is expected behavior on iOS. Specifically, we are seeking confirmation on: Whether this behavior is intentional and supported in production. Whether the Secure Enclave enforces access control primarily at the application-identifier (App ID) level rather than the individual app bundle level in this scenario. Whether there are any documented limitations or guarantees regarding cross-application usage of Secure Enclave keys when keychain sharing is configured. Any guidance or references to official documentation clarifying this behavior would be greatly appreciated.