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

This is a recap of the Q&A from the Meet with Apple activity Fortify your app: Essential strategies to strengthen security. If you attended the event and asked questions, thank you for coming and participating! If you weren’t able to join us live we hope this recap is useful. Memory Integrity Enforcement (MTE) What is Memory Integrity Enforcement and which devices support it? Memory Integrity Enforcement is supported on A19, A19 Pro, M5, M5 Pro, and M5 Max chips, which power iPhone 17e, the new MacBook Air (M5), and the new MacBook Pro (M5 Pro or M5 Max). Starting in the 26.4 OS versions, applications that enable MTE (checked-allocations) as part of Enhanced Security will also run with MTE enabled in the simulator when running on macOS hardware that supports MTE. How can I use Memory Integrity Enforcement with third-party SDKs? Third-party SDKs linked into your app will generally use the system allocator automatically and benefit from Memory Integrity Enforcement automatically. If there are memory corruption bugs in those SDKs that Memory Integrity Enforcement features like MTE detect and turn into crashes, you'll want to work with the developers of those SDKs to have them fix the underlying bugs. You could use MTE soft mode to avoid having those memory corruptions crash your app while you wait for fixes from the developers, at the cost of the relative reduction in security that entails. Why does my app crash on launch with MTE enabled, with tags showing as 0? Tag-check violations where the ltag (logical tag) is 0 and the atag (actual tag) is non-zero can be caused by code patterns that strip the high bits that the ltag is stored in and fail to restore them before use. Additionally, arm64 binaries produced by older versions of clang may have issues where the tag is incorrectly stripped from the pointer. Recompiling the binary with a recent compiler should remediate the issue. Can I use Memory Integrity Enforcement with older Swift versions? Yes, Memory Integrity Enforcement can be used with any Swift version. Pointer Authentication (PAC) How does Pointer Authentication work and why is it opt-in? PAC is an opt-in feature because although adopting PAC is frequently as easy as turning on the compiler flag, some software is not trivially compatible. For example, while it mostly works in arm64 to memcpy a C++ object, this is invalid and generates fatal exceptions in arm64e. Additionally, PAC is a compile time change as it requires different instructions throughout the program. Pointer authentication makes it more difficult to create a pointer (from an integer) or to modify an existing pointer. This complements technologies such as MTE (which can catch many bound and lifetime errors) and typed allocation (which mitigates the effects of memory re-use). Where are the cryptographic keys for Pointer Authentication stored? The keys used for generating PAC signatures are stored in the CPU itself as specified by the ARM architecture. These keys are ephemeral and can change across process launches and boots, depending on which PAC key is used. The signatures are, however, stored in the upper bits of the pointer itself. How does Pointer Authentication work with Objective-C method swizzling? When you use the functions provided by the ObjC runtime, they ensure that any necessary pointer signing is correctly handled. What deployment targets and OS versions support Pointer Authentication? PAC is tied to the arm64e architecture. arm64e is first supported in iOS 17.4, and generally supported starting with iOS 26 and macOS 26. Universal binaries can be built for arm64e + arm64, and arm64 will be used when arm64e isn't supported. When building the universal binary, both architectures can be compiled for an older deployment target, but keep in mind that arm64e will only be used on newer iOS. How do I enable Pointer Authentication in modular apps? arm64e is indeed required, and every target that contributes binary code that's linked or dynamically loaded into an app does need to have arm64e added as an architecture. When enabling the Enhanced Security capability, Xcode adds the ENABLE_POINTER_AUTHENTICATION build setting (that adds arm64e) as needed, but you may need to add that separately as well. Bounds Safety and Annotations How do bounds safety checks work in Clang? With -fbounds-safety enabled Clang will emit bounds checks wherever pointers are dereferenced or reassigned (exception: assigning to __bidi_indexable does not trigger a bounds check, since __bidi_indexable can track the fact that the pointer is out of bounds and defer the bounds check). If the bounds check fails the program will jump to an instruction that traps the process. Clang uses a combination of static analysis and runtime checks to enforce that pointer bounds are respected. How can I work with libraries that don't have bounds annotations? Forging safe pointers at the boundary (using __unsafe_forge_single etc.) is the recommended approach when interoperating with libraries that do not have bounds annotations, when you want to be explicit about the fact that you're interacting with unsafe code. This makes it easy to grep for "unsafe" in your code base when doing a security audit. If you are confident that the API adheres to a bounds safe interface but simply lacks the annotations, you can redeclare the signature in your local header with added bounds annotations, like this: //--- system_header.h bar_t * /* implicitly __unsafe_indexable */ foo(); //--- project_header.h #include <ptrcheck.h> #include <system_header.h> bar_t * __single foo(); How can I safely pass Swift data to C/C++ functions? This is a great question! Automatically generated wrapper functions that safely unwrap Span types and pass along the pointer to C/C++ is a feature available since Xcode 26 when the experimental feature SafeInteropWrappers is enabled. This requires annotating std::span<T> parameters with __noescape, or pointer parameters with both __noescape and __counted_by/__sized_by, directly in the header or using API notes. Note that this is only safe if Swift can accurately track the lifetime of the unwrapped pointer, which is why the Span wrapper is not generated without the __noescape annotation. Since this is an experimental feature with ongoing development, questions and feedback on the Swift forums are extra welcome to help us shape and stabilize this feature! Continued in next post...

I am not able to use Feedback because the app can not reset my password.

We are experiencing an issue with Apple’s Private Email Relay service for Sign in with Apple users. Our setup details are as follows: • Domain: joinalyke.com • Domain successfully added under “Sign in with Apple for Email Communication” • SPF verified • DKIM enabled (2048-bit Easy DKIM via AWS SES) • Emails are being sent from S***@joinalyke.com Amazon SES confirms that emails sent to users’ @privaterelay.appleid.com addresses are successfully delivered (Delivery events recorded in SES and no bounce reported). However, users are not receiving the forwarded emails in their actual inboxes. Since: SES shows successful delivery, SPF and DKIM are properly configured, Domain is registered in the Apple Developer portal, we suspect that the Private Email Relay service may be blocking or not forwarding these emails. Could you please investigate whether: Our domain or IP reputation is being blocked or filtered, There are additional configuration requirements, The relay service is rejecting emails after acceptance, There are content-related filtering policies we should review. We are happy to provide message IDs, timestamps, and sample relay email addresses if required.

Thanks all for reading my post. A bit of context: We just finished an app transfer to our developer account. We successfully signed and generated the new release. We are already able to roll it out in testflight were we found an issue. We store valuable data in the Keychain like Authentication tokens, once the new app is installed over the old one we are experiencing a loss of all data as the keychain become "untrusted". This is worst case scenario for us because all users will immediately lose the access to the app and hence the whole system. Questions: Is there a way to solve this issue, something like migration of the Keychain data? We came to know the standard migration path: Release a version that copies items from the old access groups to a new group based on com.apple.security.application-groups (App Groups). Wait for most users to update and run the migration. Then perform the App ID prefix change. Is this still the best method? Any improvements or new tools available since the 2022 DTS post? The problem with this is that the app is already on our account and that might need to rollback the transfer. Right? How long should we realistically wait for user migration before making the prefix change? Is there a way to measure migration completion? Thank you in advance!

DTS regularly receives questions about how to preserve keychain items across an App ID change, and so I thought I’d post a comprehensive answer here for the benefit of all. If you have any questions or comments, please start a new thread here on the forums. Put it in the Privacy & Security > General subtopic and tag it with Security. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access The list of keychain access groups your app can access is determined by three entitlements. For the details, see Sharing Access to Keychain Items Among a Collection of Apps. If your app changes its App ID prefix, this list changes and you’re likely to lose access to existing keychain items. This situation crops up under two circumstances: When you migrate your app from using a unique App ID prefix to using your Team ID as its App ID prefix. When you transfer your app to another team. In both cases you have to plan carefully for this change. If you only learn about the problem after you’ve made the change, consider undoing the change to give you time to come up with a plan before continuing. Note On macOS, the information in this post only applies to the data protection keychain. For more information about the subtleties of the keychain on macOS, see On Mac Keychains. For more about App ID prefix changes, see Technote 2311 Managing Multiple App ID Prefixes and QA1726 Resolving the Potential Loss of Keychain Access warning. Migrate From a Unique App ID Prefix to Your Team ID Historically each app was assigned its own App ID prefix. This is no longer the case. Best practice is for apps to use their Team ID as their App ID prefix. This enables multiple neat features, including keychain item sharing and pasteboard sharing. If you have an app that uses a unique App ID prefix, consider migrating it to use your Team ID. This is a good thing in general, as long as you manage the migration process carefully. Your app’s keychain access group list is built from three entitlements: keychain-access-groups — For more on this, see Keychain Access Groups Entitlement. application-identifier (com.apple.application-identifier on macOS) com.apple.security.application-groups — For more on this, see App Groups Entitlement. Keycahin access groups from the third bullet are call app group identified keychain access groups, or AGI keychain access groups for short. IMPORTANT A macOS app can only use an AGI keychain access group if all of its entitlement claims are validated by a provisioning profile. See App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony for more about this concept. Keychain access groups from the first two bullets depend on the App ID prefix. If that changes, you lose access to any keychain items in those groups. WARNING Think carefully before using the keychain to store secrets that are the only way to access irreplaceable user data. While the keychain is very reliable, there are situations where a keychain item can be lost and it’s bad if it takes the user’s data with it. In some cases losing access to keychain items is not a big deal. For example, if your app uses the keychain to manage a single login credential, losing that is likely to be acceptable. The user can recover by logging in again. In other cases losing access to keychain items is unacceptable. For example, your app might manage access to dozens of different servers, each with unique login credentials. Your users will be grumpy if you require them to log in to all those servers again. In such situations you must carefully plan your migration. The key thing to understand is that an app group is tied to your team, not your App ID prefix, and thus your app retains access to AGI keychain access groups across an App ID prefix change. This suggests the following approach: Release a version of your app that moves keychain items from other keychain access groups to an AGI keychain access group. Give your users time to update to this new version, run it, and so move their keychain items. When you’re confident that the bulk of your users have done this, change your App ID prefix. The approach has one obvious caveat: It’s hard to judge how long to wait at step 2. Transfer Your App to Another Team Historically there was no supported way to maintain access to keychain items across an app transfer. That’s no longer the case, but you must still plan the transfer carefully. The overall approach is: Identify an app group ID to transfer. This could be an existing app group ID, but in many cases you’ll want to register a new app group ID solely for this purpose. Use the old team (the transferor) to release a version of your app that moves keychain items from other keychain access groups to the AGI keychain access group for this app group ID. Give your users time to update to this new version, run it, and so move their keychain items. When you’re confident that the bulk of your users have done this, initiate the app transfer. Once that’s complete, transfer the app group ID you selected in step 1. See App Store Connect Help > Transfer an app > Overview of app transfer > Apps using App Groups. Publish an update to your app from the new team (the transferee). When a user installs this version, it will have access to your app group, and hence your keychain items. WARNING Once you transfer the app group, the old team won’t be able to publish a new version of any app that uses this app group. That makes step 1 in the process critical. If you have an existing app group that’s used solely by the app being transferred — for example, an app group that you use to share state between the app and its app extensions — then choosing that app group ID makes sense. On the other hand, choosing the ID of an app group that’s share between this app and some unrelated app, one that’s not being transferred, would be bad, because any updates to that other app will lose access to the app group. There are some other significant caveats: The process doesn’t work for Mac apps because Mac apps that have ever used an app group can’t be transferred. See App Store Connect Help > Transfer an app > App transfer criteria. If and when that changes, you’ll need to choose an iOS-style app group ID for your AGI keychain access group. For more about the difference between iOS- and macOS-style app group IDs, see App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony. The current transfer process of app groups exposes a small window where some other team can ‘steal’ your app group ID. We have a bug on file to improve that process (r. 171616887). The process works best when transferring between two teams that are both under the control of the same entity. If that’s not the case, take steps to ensure that the old team transfers the app group in step 5. When you submit the app from the new team (step 6), App Store Connect will warn you about a potential loss of keychain access. That warning is talking about keychain items in normal keychain access groups. Items in an AGI keychain access group will still be accessible as long as you transfer the app group. Alternative Approaches for App Transfer In addition to the technique described in the previous section, there are a some alternative approaches you should at consider: Do nothing Do not transfer your app Get creative Do Nothing In this case the user loses all the secrets that your app stored in the keychain. This may be acceptable for certain apps. For example, if your app uses the keychain to manage a single login credential, losing that is likely to be acceptable. The user can recover by logging in again. Do Not Transfer Another option is to not transfer your app. Instead, ship a new version of the app from the new team and have the old app recommend that the user upgrade. There are a number of advantages to this approach. The first is that there’s absolutely no risk of losing any user data. The two apps are completely independent. The second advantage is that the user can install both apps on their device at the same time. This opens up a variety of potential migration paths. For example, you might ship an update to the old app with an export feature that saves the user’s state, including their secrets, to a suitably encrypted file, and then match that with an import facility on the new app. Finally, this approach offers flexible timing. The user can complete their migration at their leisure. However, there are a bunch of clouds to go with these silver linings: Your users might never migrate to the new app. If this is a paid app, or an app with in-app purchase, the user will have to buy things again. You lose the original app’s history, ratings, reviews, and so on. Get Creative Finally, you could attempt something creative. For example, you might: Publish a new version of the app that supports exporting the user’s state, including the secrets. Tell your users to do this, with a deadline. Transfer the app and then, when the deadline expires, publish the new version with an import feature. Frankly, this isn’t very practical. The problem is with step 2: There’s no good way to get all your users to do the export, and if they don’t do it before the deadline there’s no way to do it after. Revision History 2026-03-31 Rewrote the Transfer Your App to Another Team section to describe a new approach for preserving access to keychain items across app transfers. Moved the previous discussion into a new Alternative Approaches for App Transfer section. Clarified that a macOS program can now use an app group as a keychain access group as long as its entitlements are validated. Made numerous editorial changes. 2022-05-17 First posted.

I lived with knowledge that one needs to provide his login password to unlock the login keychain. This does not seem to be entirely true after upgrading Tahoe to 26.4. For example, on 26.3: Go to ~/Library/Keychains Copy login.keychain-db to different name, say test.keychain-db. Double-click on test.keychain-db -> this should open Keychain Access with test in Custom keychains section, it will appear locked. Select test keychain and press Cmd+L to unlock it. When prompted, provide your login password. Result: the keychain is unlocked. When I preform above sequence of steps on 26.4 I am not able to unlock the copied keychain (the original login keychain appears implicitly unlocked).

Background We're building a macOS application that acts as a CryptoTokenKit software token. The architecture follows the documented pattern: a container app (a long-running agent process) manages token registration and identity updates via TKTokenDriverConfiguration, and a separate appex extension process handles the actual signing operations for client sessions. What we're doing At agent startup, the container app calls [TKTokenDriverConfiguration driverConfigurations] to obtain our token driver, then registers a token instance ID: NSDictionary<TKTokenDriverClassID, TKTokenDriverConfiguration *> *driverConfigurations = [TKTokenDriverConfiguration driverConfigurations]; TKTokenDriverConfiguration driver = / first value from driverConfigurations */; [driver addTokenConfigurationForTokenInstanceID:@"setoken"]; When the agent renews a certificate, it pushes updated TKTokenKeychainItem objects to ctkd by setting keychainItems on the TKTokenConfiguration: TKTokenConfiguration *tokenCfg = driver.tokenConfigurations[@"setoken"]; tokenCfg.keychainItems = updatedItems; This works correctly during normal operation. The failure When ctkd is restarted (e.g., killall ctkd, or the system restarts the daemon), all subsequent calls through the existing TKTokenDriverConfiguration reference silently fail. Specifically: [TKTokenDriverConfiguration driverConfigurations] returns the same stale object - it does not establish a new connection to the newly-started ctkd process. There is no error, no exception, and no indication the returned object is invalid. driver.tokenConfigurations[@"setoken"] still returns a non-nil value reflecting the pre-restart state - so any nil check intended to detect "token not registered with ctkd" does not fire. [driver addTokenConfigurationForTokenInstanceID:@"setoken"] appears to succeed (no error) but the token is not actually registered with the new ctkd instance. Setting tokenCfg.keychainItems = updatedItems appears to succeed but the new ctkd instance has no knowledge of the update. The only reliable recovery we've found is restarting the container app process itself, at which point [TKTokenDriverConfiguration driverConfigurations] returns a fresh object connected to the new ctkd instance. What we've investigated There is no public API on TKTokenDriverConfiguration to invalidate or refresh the internal XPC connection to ctkd TKTokenWatcher can observe token insertions/removals, but we found no documented way to use it to detect a ctkd process restart specifically The NSXPCConnection invalidation handler pattern is not accessible through the TKTokenDriverConfiguration abstraction Moving credential management into the appex extension. Since the appex extension is recreated when the ctkd process restarts, we are able to update keychainItems from the extension. However, this comes with it's own set of problems: the extension is ephemeral and using the keychain APIs directly from the extension is not well documented and does not appear to be a supported pattern. Questions Is there a supported API to detect that ctkd has restarted and that the existing TKTokenDriverConfiguration reference is no longer valid? Is there a supported way to obtain a fresh TKTokenDriverConfiguration without restarting the container app? Should the container app be re-architected to avoid holding long-lived TKTokenDriverConfiguration references?

Hi everyone, I’ve been working on an experimental prototype called FaceBridge that explores whether Secure Enclave–backed biometric authorization can be delegated between macOS and iPhone using only public Apple APIs. The goal of the project was to better understand the architectural boundaries of cross-device trust and approval flows that resemble Apple’s built-in Touch ID / Continuity authorization experiences. FaceBridge implements a local authorization pipeline where: macOS generates a signed authorization request the request is delivered to a trusted nearby iPhone over BLE / Network framework the iPhone verifies sender identity Face ID approval is requested using LocalAuthentication the iPhone signs the approval response using Secure Enclave–backed keys macOS validates the response and unlocks a protected action Security properties currently implemented: • Secure Enclave–backed signing identities per device • cryptographic device pairing and trust persistence • replay protection using nonce + timestamp binding • structured authorization request/response envelopes • signed responder identity verification • trusted-device registry model • local encrypted transport over BLE and local network This is intentionally not attempting to intercept or replace system-level Touch ID dialogs (App Store installs, Keychain prompts, loginwindow, etc.), but instead explores what is possible within application-level authorization boundaries using public APIs only. The project is open source: https://github.com/wesleysfavarin/facebridge Technical architecture write-up: https://medium.com/@wesleysfavarin/facebridge I’m particularly interested in feedback around: • recommended Secure Enclave identity lifecycle patterns • best practices for cross-device trust persistence • LocalAuthentication usage in delegated approval scenarios • whether similar authorization models are expected to become more formally supported across Apple platforms in the future Thanks in advance for any guidance or suggestions.

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 are integrating Sign in with Apple for our web application and have been stuck on an invalid_client error during the token exchange step. The Problem The authorization step works fine — the user authenticates on Apple's page and a valid authorization code is returned to our callback URL. However, when we exchange that code at https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token, it returns: {"error": "invalid_client"} The Puzzling Part When we send a dummy/expired authorization code with the exact same client_id and client_secret, Apple returns: {"error": "invalid_grant", "error_description": "The code has expired or has been revoked."} This confirms that our client credentials (client_id + client_secret JWT) are valid and accepted by Apple. The invalid_client error only occurs when a real, freshly-issued authorization code is used. Configuration Service ID configured with Sign in with Apple enabled Primary App ID with Sign in with Apple capability enabled Domain verified, Return URL registered Key created with Sign in with Apple enabled, linked to the correct Primary App ID Client Secret JWT Generated per Apple's documentation: Header: alg: ES256, kid set to our Key ID Claims: iss: Team ID iat: current timestamp exp: iat + 6 months (within Apple's limit) aud: https://appleid.apple.com sub: Service ID (matches the client_id used in authorization) Signed with: the .p8 private key associated with the Key Token Exchange Request POST https://appleid.apple.com/auth/tokenContent-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencodedclient_id=client_secret=code=grant_type=authorization_coderedirect_uri= What We've Tried Standalone test endpoint — built a minimal endpoint (no framework) that does the token exchange via server-side curl. Same invalid_client. Multiple Service IDs — created and tried 3 different Service IDs. All produce the same error with real codes. Multiple Keys — tried 2 different keys. Same error. Verified redirect_uri matches exactly between the authorization request and token request. Verified client_id matches exactly between the authorization URL and token request. Used client_secret_post (credentials in body, not Basic auth header). Freshness — code is used immediately upon receipt (within seconds), well before the 5-minute expiry. Filed a Developer Support case — was directed to Forums. Summary Scenario code Result Dummy/expired code abc123 invalid_grant (credentials accepted) Real fresh code from Apple callback invalid_client This pattern suggests something goes wrong specifically when Apple validates the authorization code against the client — even though the client credentials themselves are accepted in isolation. Has anyone encountered this behavior? Is there a known configuration issue that could cause invalid_client only with valid authorization codes? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

We are using the CryptoTokenKit framework, specifically the classes TKSmartCardSlotManager, TKSmartCardSlot, and TKSmartCard, to communicate with smart cards through external USB readers on iOS and iPadOS. In most cases, we are able to detect readers via TKSmartCardSlotManager, and send APDU commands using transmitRequest method, with the following code (where self->_slot and self->_card are previously created TkSmartCardSlot and TkSmartCard, respectively): #import <CryptoTokenKit/CryptoTokenKit.h> - (NSData *)sendCardCommand:(NSData *)command { if (!self->_card || !self->_card.valid || self->_slot.state != TKSmartCardSlotStateValidCard) return nil; NSMutableData *res = [[NSMutableData alloc] init]; NSError *sessionError = nil; [self->_card inSessionWithError:&sessionError executeBlock:^BOOL(NSError **error) { dispatch_semaphore_t semaphore = dispatch_semaphore_create(0); try { [self->_card transmitRequest:command reply:^(NSData * _Nullable response, NSError* _Nullable apduError) { if (apduError != nil) self->_error = apduError; else [res appendData: response]; dispatch_semaphore_signal(semaphore); }]; } catch (NSException *exception) { dispatch_semaphore_signal(semaphore); } dispatch_semaphore_wait(semaphore, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER); if (res.length == 0) return NO; return YES; }]; return res; } However, with certain other USB smart card readers, we occasionally encounter APDU communication failures when calling transmitRequest (for instance, with a HID Global OMNIKEY 5422), which returns the following error: "Domain: CryptoTokenKit Code: -2". Once a failure occurs and transmitRequest starts returning this error, all subsequent calls to transmitRequest fail with the same error. This persists even when: A different smart card is inserted The same card is reinserted A different USB reader (previously working correctly) is connected The TKSmartCard object is recreated via makeSmartCard The slot state changes (observed via KVO) All internal objects (TKSmartCard, TKSmartCardSlot) are reset in the application At this point, the system appears to be stuck in a non-recoverable state which affects all readers and cards, including those that were previously functioning correctly. The only way to recover from this state is terminating and restarting the application which is running the code. After restarting the app, everything works normally again. We have created a bug report: FB22339746. The issue has been reproduced on iOS 26.4 and 18.5. Also on iPadOS 18.1. Anyone has already faced a similar issue? Could it be related to some internal state of TKSmartCardSlotManager?

Hi, I’m building a macOS tool that analyzes process behavior to detect autonomous / AI-like activity locally (process trees, file access patterns, and network usage). The system is fully user-space and runs locally in real time. I’m planning to use the Endpoint Security Framework for process and file event monitoring. This is an open-source project (non-enterprise), developed by a solo developer. My question: What are the realistic chances of getting Endpoint Security entitlements approved for this type of project? Are there specific requirements or common reasons for rejection I should be aware of? Thanks, sivan-rnd

Hi , I did The MFA(2FA) of Email OTP For MacOS Login Screen using, Authorization Plugin, Using This git hub project. It is working For Login Screen , Im trying to Add The Same plugin for LockScreen but it is not working at lock Screen , Below is the reffrense theard For The issue , https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/127614, please Share The Code that should Present the NSwindow at Screen Saver (Lock Screen) MacOS .

I am researching URL preview functionality. https://sec-research.invalid/poc"onmouseover="alert(document.domain) Can someone verify on iOS 17?

When an app is trying to access identities put in the keychain by cryptotokenkit extension, the user gets asked a permission pop-up which reads 'Token Access Request" would like access a token provided by: " with 2 options 'Don't allow' and 'OK' I accidently clicked "Don't allow" and now can't access identities put in crypto token kit. How can I reset the preference?

Hi, We are implementing Platform SSO and using attestKey during registration via ASAuthorizationProviderExtensionLoginManager. Could you clarify whether the attestKey flow involves sending attestation data to an Apple server for verification (similar to App Attest in the DeviceCheck framework), or if the attestation certificate chain is generated and signed entirely on-device without any Apple server interaction? The App Attest flow is clearly documented as using Apple’s attestation service, but the Platform SSO process is less clearly described. Thank you.

Hello, sorry for the awkward text formatting but I kept getting prevented from positing due to "sensitive language"... Help.txt

I'm currently reviewing the various DCError cases defined in Apple’s DeviceCheck framework (reference: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/dcerror-swift.struct). To better understand how to handle these in production, I’m looking for a clear breakdown of: Which specific DCError values can occur during service.generateKey, service.attestKey, and service.generateAssertion The realworld scenarios or conditions that typically cause each error for each method. If anyone has insight on how these errors arise and what conditions trigger them, I’d appreciate your input.

I have a question regarding Platform SSO and the use of Secure Enclave–backed keys with biometric policies. If we configure userSecureEnclaveKeyBiometricPolicy with userSecureEnclaveKey, my understanding is that the Secure Enclave key is protected by biometric authentication (e.g., Face ID / Touch ID). In this setup, during a login request that also refreshes the id_token and refresh_token, the assertion is signed using the userSecureEnclaveKey. My question is: Will this signing operation trigger a biometric prompt every time the assertion is generated (i.e., during login/token refresh) ?

I am developing a Flutter iOS application and encountering a crash when using biometric authentication (Face ID) via the local_auth plugin. ■ Environment Flutter: 3.x local_auth: 2.2.0 (also tested with 2.1.6) iOS: real device (Face ID is working normally for device unlock) Firebase Authentication (email/password) Xcode build ■ Issue When calling biometric authentication, the app crashes immediately. Code: final didAuthenticate = await auth.authenticate( localizedReason: 'Authenticate to login', options: const AuthenticationOptions( biometricOnly: false, useErrorDialogs: false, ), ); ■ Error Thread 1: signal SIGABRT Crash occurs in libsystem_kernel.dylib (__pthread_kill) Happens immediately when authenticate() is called No exception is caught in Dart (native crash) ■ Verified NSFaceIDUsageDescription is correctly included in Info.plist Confirmed it exists in the built Runner.app Info.plist localizedReason is non-empty and in English Flutter clean / pod install executed App reinstalled on device Face ID works normally outside the app ■ Question Under what conditions does LAContext.evaluatePolicy trigger SIGABRT instead of returning an error? Are there known issues with presenting biometric authentication UI in certain UI states (e.g., view controller hierarchy, scene lifecycle)? Could this be related to UIScene / rootViewController issues? What is the correct timing and context to call biometric authentication safely in iOS apps? I suspect this is related to native iOS behavior rather than Flutter logic. Any guidance would be appreciated.