I'm building a macOS app that registers itself for HTTP(S) url handling and would like it to participate in the ASWebAuthenticationSession fow. I did: update the plist to register as a handler for URL shemes (http, https, file) use NSWorkspace setDefaultApplication API to set this app as a default handler for urls in question wrote custom ASWebAuthenticationSessionWebBrowserSessionHandling implementation and set it as SessionManager's sessionHandler I launched this app from Xcode, then I triggered authentication flow from a third-party app. When the sign in flow is initiated, I can see that my app is activeated (willBecomeActive and didBecomeActive callbacks are both called), but there is no call for sessionHandler's begin() method. With some additional debugging I see that my app receives an apple event when the flow is started: {sfri,auth target=SafariLaunchAgent {qntp=90/$627......},aapd=TRUE If I switch system default browser back to Safari and then start the login flow, it correctly displays a sign in web page. What do I miss? PS. I'm on Tahoe 26.2

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

We are using SecItemCopyMatching from LocalAuthentication to access the private key to sign a challenge in our native iOS app twice in a few seconds from user interactions. This was working as expected up until about a week ago where we started getting reports of it hanging on the biometrics screen (see screenshot below). From our investigation we've found the following: It impacts newer iPhones using iOS 26.1 and later. We have replicated on these devices: iPhone 17 Pro max iPhone 16 Pro iPhone 15 Pro max iPhone 15 Only reproducible if the app tries to access the private key twice in quick succession after granting access to face ID. Looks like a race condition between the biometrics permission prompt and Keychain private key access We were able to make it work by waiting 10 seconds between private key actions, but this is terrible UX. We tried adding adding retries over the span of 10 seconds which fixed it on some devices, but not all. We checked the release notes for iOS 26.1, but there is nothing related to this. Screenshot:

I can't find any information about why this is happening, nor can I reproduce the 'successful' state on this device. My team needs to understand this behavior, so any insight would be greatly appreciated! The expected behavior: If I delete both apps and reinstall them, attempting to open the second app from my app should trigger the system confirmation dialog. The specifics: I'm using the MSAL library. It navigates the user to the Microsoft Authenticator app and then returns to my app. However, even after resetting the phone and reinstalling both apps, the dialog never shows up (it just opens the app directly). Does anyone know the logic behind how iOS handles these prompts or why it might be persistent even after a reset? Thanks in advance!

We have been having very high response times in device check device validation service (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/accessing-and-modifying-per-device-data#Create-the-payload-for-a-device-validation-request) since 17 July at 19:10hs GMT. The service information page says the service was running in green status but that isn't the case and we currenly have stop consuming it. Is it being looked at? Are you aware of this issue? Can you give us an estimate of when it should be working correctly?

Hi, Xcode Instruments shows multiple Points of Interest with the information that the framework is not listed in my Privacy Manifest. However, I have already included them in the Privacy Manifest under the privacy tracking domains. I have this problem with every tracking domain i listed in the Privacy Manifest's Privacy Tracking Domains. Did I make a mistake in my Privacy Manifest declaration?

冷启动后我们读文件，发现："error_msg":"未能打开文件“FinishTasks.plist”，因为你没有查看它的权限。 是否有这些问题： 「iOS 26 iPhone 16,2 cold launch file access failure」） 核心内容：多名开发者反馈 iPhone 15 Pro（iOS 26.0/26.1）冷启动时读取 Documents 目录下的 plist 文件提示权限拒绝，切后台再切前台恢复，苹果员工回复「建议延迟文件操作至 applicationDidBecomeActive 后」。

We are using Apple's PSSO to federate device login to out own IdP. We have developed our own extension app and deployed it using MDM. Things works fine but there are 2 issues that we are trying to get to the root cause - On some devices after restarting we see an error message on the logic screen saying "The registration for this device is invalid and must be repaired" And other error message is "SmartCard configuration is invalid for this account" For the 1st we have figured out that this happens when the registration doesn't happen fully and the key is not tied to the user so when the disk needs to be decrypted at the FileVault screen the issue is raised. For the "SmartCard configuration is invalid for this account" issue also one aspect is invalid registration but there has been other instances as well where the devices were registered completely but then also the the above error was raised. We verified the registration being completed by checking if the SmartCard is visible in the System Report containing the key. Has anyone seen the above issues and any possible resolution around it?

Hi Apple Devs, For our app, we utilize passkeys for account creation (not MFA). This is mainly for user privacy, as there is 0 PII associated with passkey account creation, but it additionally also satisfies the 4.8: Login Services requirement for the App Store. However, we're getting blocked in Apple Review. Because the AASA does not get fetched immediately upon app install, the reviewers are not able to create an account immediately via passkeys, and then they reject the build. I'm optimistic I can mitigate the above. But even if we pass Apple Review, this is a pretty catastrophic issue for user security and experience. There are reports that 5% of users cannot create passkeys immediately (https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/756740). That is a nontrivial amount of users, and this large of an amount distorts how app developers design onboarding and authentication flows towards less secure experiences: App developers are incentivized to not require MFA setup on account creation because requiring it causes significant churn, which is bad for user security. If they continue with it anyways, for mitigation, developers are essentially forced to add in copy into their app saying something along the lines of "We have no ability to force Apple to fetch the config required to continue sign up, so try again in a few minutes, you'll just have to wait." You can't even implement a fallback method. There's no way to check if the AASA is available before launching the ASAuthorizationController so you can't mitigate a portion of users encountering an error!! Any app that wants to use the PRF extension to encrypt core functionality (again, good for user privacy) simply cannot exist because the app simply does not work for an unspecified amount of time for a nontrivial portion of users. It feels like a. Apple should provide a syscall API that we can call to force SWCD to verify the AASA or b. implement a config based on package name for the app store such that the installation will immediately include a verified AASA from Apple's CDN. Flicking the config on would require talking with Apple. If this existed, this entire class of error would go away. It feels pretty shocking that there isn't a mitigation in place for this already given that it incentivizes app developers to pursue strictly less secure and less private authentication practices.

Hello, Is there any way to detect if the iOS screen is currently being shared via FaceTime or iPhone Mirroring? Our application relies on this information to help ensure that users are not accessing it from one location while physically being in another.

In response to inquiries from users, we have confirmed the following phenomenon. If you select "Private email address" in the flow of new user registration with Apple ID, you will not receive the verification code email when performing two-factor authentication. ■User impact If you use your Apple ID to link an external account without making your email address public, you will not receive the authentication code during two-factor authentication and will not be able to proceed. The date and time of the impact is currently unknown. ◎Impact 1: New registration If you select "Private email address" in the flow of registering a new user with Apple ID, the verification code will not be received during two-factor authentication and registration will not be completed. ◎Impact 2: Login of existing account When two-factor authentication is required for an existing account registered with Apple ID set to "Private email address," the verification code is not received and the user cannot log in. →If you have not registered a login method other than Apple ID for the relevant account, there is no other way to log in. ■About workarounds ・I thought that I could avoid this issue by canceling the private setting of my Apple ID, but I was unable to do so. →There is currently no workaround found for existing users who are experiencing this issue. ・However, the scope of influence is limited. ■Cause investigation status Premise: For an Apple ID whose email address is not made public, the two-factor authentication authentication code email follows the following route. ①CDC/GIGYA miraiz-persol.jp (SendGrid) Apple's email server (relay server to hide the user's real email address) User mailbox →Since '1' are working, the problem seems to have occurred after the connection from ② or ③. (At this stage, we cannot determine who is at fault: the user, MIRAIZ, or Apple. We are currently investigating.) ◎Hypothesis ・Is there something wrong with Apple's mail server? ・Is it not delivered because the user's mailbox is full? ■Questions, research, and responses we would like to receive Please check the following two points and reply. 1st point As shown in the attached image, there seems to be no problem with the SPF settings. Is it possible to check to see if any errors have occurred with Apple's mail server? 2nd point Are there any cases where you still can't receive emails even if you deactivate your Apple ID? I would like to know if there are any patterns in which emails are not being delivered in terms of past inquiries or overall specifications

First, I do not publish my application to the AppStore, but I need to customize a sandbox environment. It seems that sandbox-exec cannot configure entitlements, so I have used some other APIs, such as sandbox_compile_entitlements and sandbox_apply_container. When encountering the entitlement "com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-only", I am unsure how to correctly write sandbox profile to implement this. Can anyone help me?

Hi, when creating a CryptoTokenKit extension according to https://developer.apple.com/documentation/cryptotokenkit/authenticating-users-with-a-cryptographic-token, it is neccessary to register it under the securityagent in order to make the CTK usable before login. i.e. we want to run sudo -u _securityagent /Applications/HostApp.app/Contents/MacOS/HostApp However, even with the empty application the command fails with illegal hardware instruction sudo -u _securityagent /Applications/HostApp.app/Contents/MacOS/HostApp I see that it always crashes when the HostApp is sandboxed, but it does not work even without sandboxing (i am sharing the error report message below). i actually noticed that when the HostApp is sandboxed and I run the above command, the extension starts to be usable even before login, even though i see the HostApp crash. The same does not happen without the sandbox So I am curious how to in fact properly register the CTK extension under security agent? Also am not sure how to unregister it from the _securityagent thank you for your help Version: 1.0 (1) Code Type: X86-64 (Native) Parent Process: Exited process [9395] Responsible: Terminal [399] User ID: 92 Date/Time: 2025-03-21 18:54:03.0684 +0100 OS Version: macOS 15.3.2 (24D81) Report Version: 12 Bridge OS Version: 9.3 (22P3060) Anonymous UUID: 41F9918C-5BCA-01C7-59C2-3E8CFC3F8653 Sleep/Wake UUID: 8AB66C75-3C32-41D4-9BD4-887B0FB468FE Time Awake Since Boot: 4300 seconds Time Since Wake: 1369 seconds System Integrity Protection: enabled Crashed Thread: 0 Dispatch queue: WMClientWindowManager Exception Type: EXC_BAD_INSTRUCTION (SIGILL) Exception Codes: 0x0000000000000001, 0x0000000000000000 Termination Reason: Namespace SIGNAL, Code 4 Illegal instruction: 4 Terminating Process: exc handler [9396] Application Specific Signatures: API Misuse Thread 0 Crashed:: Dispatch queue: WMClientWindowManager 0 libxpc.dylib 0x7ff80667b2bd _xpc_api_misuse + 113 1 libxpc.dylib 0x7ff80665f0e4 xpc_connection_set_target_uid + 187 2 WindowManagement 0x7ffd0b946693 -[WMClientWindowManager _createXPCConnection] + 1011 3 WindowManagement 0x7ffd0b947361 -[WMClientWindowManager _xpcConnection] + 65 4 WindowManagement 0x7ffd0b9447c9 __31-[WMClientWindowManager stages]_block_invoke + 41 5 libdispatch.dylib 0x7ff8067af7e2 _dispatch_client_callout + 8 6 libdispatch.dylib 0x7ff8067bca2c _dispatch_lane_barrier_sync_invoke_and_complete + 60 7 WindowManagement 0x7ffd0b9446fc -[WMClientWindowManager stages] + 268 8 AppKit 0x7ff80b1fd0b7 __54-[NSWMWindowCoordinator initializeStageFramesIfNeeded]_block_invoke + 30 9 libdispatch.dylib 0x7ff8067af7e2 _dispatch_client_callout + 8 10 libdispatch.dylib 0x7ff8067b0aa2 _dispatch_once_callout + 20 11 AppKit 0x7ff80b1fd060 -[NSWMWindowCoordinator initializeStageFramesIfNeeded] + 296 12 AppKit 0x7ff80a3b3701 -[NSWindow _commonInitFrame:styleMask:backing:defer:] + 888 13 AppKit 0x7ff80a3b2f77 -[NSWindow _initContent:styleMask:backing:defer:contentView:] + 1222 14 AppKit 0x7ff80a3b2aa9 -[NSWindow initWithContentRect:styleMask:backing:defer:] + 42 15 SwiftUI 0x7ff917f321e0 0x7ff91776f000 + 8139232 16 SwiftUI 0x7ff917a8e2f2 0x7ff91776f000 + 3273458 17 SwiftUI 0x7ff917bccfba 0x7ff91776f000 + 4579258 18 SwiftUI 0x7ff917f2ca8e 0x7ff91776f000 + 8116878 19 SwiftUI 0x7ff917f24a65 0x7ff91776f000 + 8084069 20 SwiftUI 0x7ff917f21540 0x7ff91776f000 + 8070464 21 SwiftUI 0x7ff91849e9f1 0x7ff91776f000 + 13826545 22 SwiftUICore 0x7ffb13103ea5 0x7ffb12c81000 + 4730533 23 SwiftUICore 0x7ffb13102e0f 0x7ffb12c81000 + 4726287 24 SwiftUI 0x7ff91849e903 0x7ff91776f000 + 13826307 25 SwiftUI 0x7ff91849bc1c 0x7ff91776f000 + 13814812 26 AppKit 0x7ff80a54f191 -[NSApplication _doOpenUntitled] + 422 27 AppKit 0x7ff80a4efc59 __58-[NSApplication(NSAppleEventHandling) _handleAEOpenEvent:]_block_invoke + 237 28 AppKit 0x7ff80a963818 __102-[NSApplication _reopenWindowsAsNecessaryIncludingRestorableState:withFullFidelity:completionHandler:]_block_invoke + 101 29 AppKit 0x7ff80a4ef6fa __97-[NSDocumentController(NSInternal) _autoreopenDocumentsIgnoringExpendable:withCompletionHandler:]_block_invoke_3 + 148 30 AppKit 0x7ff80a4eee8f -[NSDocumentController(NSInternal) _autoreopenDocumentsIgnoringExpendable:withCompletionHandler:] + 635 31 AppKit 0x7ff80a96373d -[NSApplication _reopenWindowsAsNecessaryIncludingRestorableState:withFullFidelity:completionHandler:] + 269 32 AppKit 0x7ff80a3a6259 -[NSApplication(NSAppleEventHandling) _handleAEOpenEvent:] + 529 33 AppKit 0x7ff80a3a5eb9 -[NSApplication(NSAppleEventHandling) _handleCoreEvent:withReplyEvent:] + 679 34 Foundation 0x7ff807a4b471 -[NSAppleEventManager dispatchRawAppleEvent:withRawReply:handlerRefCon:] + 307 35 Foundation 0x7ff807a4b285 _NSAppleEventManagerGenericHandler + 80 36 AE 0x7ff80e0e4e95 0x7ff80e0da000 + 44693 37 AE 0x7ff80e0e4723 0x7ff80e0da000 + 42787 38 AE 0x7ff80e0de028 aeProcessAppleEvent + 409 39 HIToolbox 0x7ff81217b836 AEProcessAppleEvent + 55 40 AppKit 0x7ff80a39ee6a _DPSNextEvent + 1725 41 AppKit 0x7ff80adf38b8 -[NSApplication(NSEventRouting) _nextEventMatchingEventMask:untilDate:inMode:dequeue:] + 1290 42 AppKit 0x7ff80a38faa9 -[NSApplication run] + 610 43 AppKit 0x7ff80a362d34 NSApplicationMain + 823 44 SwiftUI 0x7ff9177a7da1 0x7ff91776f000 + 232865 45 SwiftUI 0x7ff917af0d40 0x7ff91776f000 + 3677504 46 SwiftUI 0x7ff917d8fef8 0x7ff91776f000 + 6426360 47 Crescendo CryptoTokenKit 0x10b1baf6e static HostApp.$main() + 30 48 Crescendo CryptoTokenKit 0x10b1bd2f9 main + 9 (HostApp.swift:24) 49 dyld 0x7ff8065c82cd start + 1805

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

Why are we doing this nonsense? We want to be able to run builds in a sandbox such that they can only see the paths they are intended to depend on, to improve reproducibility. With builds with a very large number of dependencies, there's a very large number of paths added to the sandbox, and it breaks things inside libsandbox. Either it hits some sandbox length limit (sandbox-exec: pattern serialization length 66460 exceeds maximum (65535), Nix issue #4119, worked around: Nix PR 12570), or it hits an assert (this report; also Nix issue #2311). The other options for sandboxing on macOS are not viable; we acknowledge sandbox-exec and sandbox_init_with_parameters are deprecated; App Sandbox is inapplicable because we aren't an app. Our use case is closer to a browser, and all the browsers use libsandbox internally. We could possibly use SystemExtension or a particularly diabolical use of Virtualization.framework, but the former API requires notarization which is close to a no-go for our use case as open source software: it is nearly impossible to develop the software on one's own computer, and it would require us to ship a binary blob (and have the build processes to produce one in infrastructure completely dissimilar to what we use today); it also requires a bunch of engineering time. Today, we can pretend that code signing/notarization doesn't exist and that we are writing an old-school Unix daemon, because we are one. The latter is absolutely diabolical and hard to implement. See this saga about the bug we are facing: Nix issue #4119, Nix issue #2311, etc. What is going wrong I can't attach the file fail.sb as it is too large (you can view the failing test case at Lix's gerrit, CL 2870) and run this: $ sandbox-exec -D _GLOBAL_TMP_DIR=/tmp -f fail.sb /bin/sh Assertion failed: (diff <= INSTR_JUMP_NE_MAX_LENGTH), function push_jne_instr, file serialize.c, line 240. zsh: abort sandbox-exec -D _GLOBAL_TMP_DIR=/tmp -f fail.sb /bin/sh Or a stacktrace: stacktrace.txt Credits Full credits to Jade Lovelace (Lix) for writing the above text and filing a bug. This is submitted under FB16964888

Hi, A user logs in to the file vault, and DisableFDEAutoLogin is false. The file vault login succeeds, but the login to the selected user fails. The user gets the login screen again. If the user puts an invalid password to try and login again, the loginwindow:FDESupport plugin will change the user's password to the invalid one.

I have developed a sample app following the example found Updating your app package installer to use the new Service Management API and referring this discussion on XPC Security. The app is working fine, I have used Swift NSXPCConnection in favour of xpc_connection_create_mach_service used in the example. (I am running app directly from Xcode) I am trying to set up security requirements for the client connection using setCodeSigningRequirement on the connection instance. But it fails for even basic requirement connection.setCodeSigningRequirement("anchor apple"). Error is as follows. cannot open file at line 46986 of [554764a6e7] os_unix.c:46986: (0) open(/private/var/db/DetachedSignatures) - Undefined error: 0 xpc_support_check_token: anchor apple error: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67050 "(null)" status: -67050 I have used codesign -d --verbose=4 /path/to/executable to check the attributes I do get them in the terminal. Other way round, I have tried XPC service provider sending back process id (pid) with each request, and I am probing this id to get attributes using this code which gives all the details. func inspectCodeSignature(ofPIDString pidString: String) { guard let pid = pid_t(pidString) else { print("Invalid PID string: \(pidString)") return } let attributes = [kSecGuestAttributePid: pid] as CFDictionary var codeRef: SecCode? let status = SecCodeCopyGuestWithAttributes(nil, attributes, [], &codeRef) guard status == errSecSuccess, let code = codeRef else { print("Failed to get SecCode for PID \(pid) (status: \(status))") return } var staticCode: SecStaticCode? let staticStatus = SecCodeCopyStaticCode(code, [], &staticCode) guard staticStatus == errSecSuccess, let staticCodeRef = staticCode else { print("Failed to get SecStaticCode (status: \(staticStatus))") return } var infoDict: CFDictionary? if SecCodeCopySigningInformation(staticCodeRef, SecCSFlags(rawValue: kSecCSSigningInformation), &infoDict) == errSecSuccess, let info = infoDict as? [String: Any] { print("🔍 Code Signing Info for PID \(pid):") print("• Identifier: \(info["identifier"] ?? "N/A")") print("• Team ID: \(info["teamid"] ?? "N/A")") if let entitlements = info["entitlements-dict"] as? [String: Any] { print("• Entitlements:") for (key, value) in entitlements { print(" - \(key): \(value)") } } } else { print("Failed to retrieve signing information.") } var requirement: SecRequirement? if SecRequirementCreateWithString("anchor apple" as CFString, [], &requirement) == errSecSuccess, let req = requirement { let result = SecStaticCodeCheckValidity(staticCodeRef, [], req) if result == errSecSuccess { print("Signature is trusted (anchor apple)") } else { print("Signature is NOT trusted by Apple (failed anchor check)") } } var infoDict1: CFDictionary? let signingStatus = SecCodeCopySigningInformation(staticCodeRef, SecCSFlags(rawValue: kSecCSSigningInformation), &infoDict1) guard signingStatus == errSecSuccess, let info = infoDict1 as? [String: Any] else { print("Failed to retrieve signing information.") return } print("🔍 Signing Info for PID \(pid):") for (key, value) in info.sorted(by: { $0.key < $1.key }) { print("• \(key): \(value)") } } If connection.setCodeSigningRequirement does not works I plan to use above logic as backup. Q: Please advise is there some setting required to be enabled or I have to sign code with some flags enabled. Note: My app is not running in a Sandbox or Hardened Runtime, which I want.

Hi everyone, I’d like to clarify something regarding the behavior of Team IDs after an app transfer between Apple Developer accounts. I have an app update that enforces a force update for all users. My plan is to release this update under the current developer account, and then proceed with transferring the app to a different developer account shortly afterward. My concern is: once the transfer is complete, will users who download the same app version (released before the transfer) be logged out due to a change in Team ID? Specifically, does the transferred app continue to use the original Team ID (used to sign the last submitted build), or does the Team ID change immediately upon transfer — affecting Keychain access? Any insights or confirmation on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I'm seeing some odd behavior which may be a bug. I've broken it down to a least common denominator to reproduce it. But maybe I'm doing something wrong. I am opening a file read-write. I'm then mapping the file read-only and private: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_PRIVATE, fd, 0); I then unmap the memory and close the file. After the close, eslogger shows me this: {"close":{"modified":false,[...],"was_mapped_writable":false}} Which makes sense. I then change the mmap statement to: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); I run the new code and and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false, [....], "was_mapped_writable":true}} Which also makes sense. I then run the original again (ie, with MAP_PRIVATE vs. MAP_SHARED) and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false,"was_mapped_writable":true,[...]} Which doesn't appear to be correct. Now if I just open and close the file (again, read-write) and don't mmap anything the close still shows: {"close":{ [...], "was_mapped_writable":true,"modified":false}} And the same is true if I open the file read-only. It will remain that way until I delete the file. If I recreate the file and try again, everything is good until I map it MAP_SHARED. I tried this with macOS 13.6.7 and macOS 15.0.1.

Trying to apply 'always trust' to certificate added to keychain using both SecItemAdd() and SecPKCS12Import() with SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings(). I created a launchdaemon for this purpose. AuthorizationDB is modified so that any process running in root can apply trust to certificate. let option = SecTrustSettingsResult.trustRoot.rawValue // SecTrustSettingsResult.trustAsRoot.rawValue for non-root certificates let status = SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings(secCertificate, SecTrustSettingsDomain.admin, [kSecTrustSettingsResult: NSNumber(value: option.rawValue)] as CFTypeRef). Above code is used to trust certificates and it was working on os upto 14.7.4. In 14.7.5 SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings() returns errAuthorizationInteractionNotAllowed. In 15.5 modifying authorization db with AuthorizationRightSet() itself is returning errAuthorizationDenied.Tried manually editing authorization db via terminal and same error occurred. Did apple update anything on Security framework? Any other way to trust certificates?