Hello Apple Support Team, We are experiencing a performance issue with HTTP/3 in our iOS application during testing. Problem Description: Network requests using HTTP/3 are significantly slower than expected. This issue occurs on both Wi-Fi and 4G networks, with both IPv4 and IPv6. The same setup worked correctly in an earlier experiment. Key Observations: The slowdown disappears when the device uses: · A personal hotspot. · Network Link Conditioner (with no limitations applied). · Internet sharing from a MacBook via USB (where traffic was also inspected with Wireshark without issues). The problem is specific to HTTP/3 and does not occur with HTTP/2. The issue is reproducible on iOS 15, 18.7, and the latest iOS 26 beta. HTTP/3 is confirmed to be active (via assumeHttp3Capable and Alt-Svc header). Crucially, the same backend endpoint works with normal performance on Android devices and using curl with HTTP/3 support from the same network. I've checked the CFNetwork logs in the Console but haven't found any suspicious errors or obvious clues that explain the slowdown. We are using a standard URLSession with basic configuration. Attempted to collect qlog diagnostics by setting the QUIC_LOG_DIRECTORY=~/ tmp environment variable, but the logs were not generated. Question: What could cause HTTP/3 performance to improve only when the device is connected through a hotspot, unrestricted Network Link Conditioner, or USB-tethered connection? The fact that Android and curl work correctly points to an issue specific to the iOS network stack. Are there known conditions or policies (e.g., related to network interface handling, QoS, or specific packet processing) that could lead to this behavior? Additionally, why might the qlog environment variable fail to produce logs, and are there other ways to obtain detailed HTTP/3 diagnostic information from iOS? Any guidance on further diagnostic steps or specific system logs to examine would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance.

We are developing a macOS VPN application using NEPacketTunnelProvider with a custom encryption protocol. We are using standard On-Demand VPN rules with Wi-Fi SSID matching but we want to add some additional feature to the native behaviour.  We want to control the 'conenect/disconnect' button status and allow the user to interact with the tunnel even when the on demand rule conditions are satisfied, is there a native way to do it? In case we need to implement our custom on-demand behaviour we need to access to this information: connected interface type ssid name and being informed when it changes so to trigger our logic, how to do it from the app side? we try to use CWWiFiClient along with ssidDidChangeForWiFiInterface monitoring, it returns just the interface name en0 and not the wifi ssid name. Is location access mandatory to access wifi SSID on macOS even if we have a NEPacketTunnelProvider? Please note that we bundle our Network Extension as an App Extension (not SystemExtension).

Hi All, I am currently working on a Network Extension App for MacOS using 3 types of extensions provided by Apple's Network Extension Framework. Content Filter, App Proxy (Want to get/capture/log all HTTP/HTTPS traffic), DNS Proxy (Want to get/capture/log all DNS records). Later parse into human readable format. Is my selection of network extension types correct for the intended logs I need? I am able to run with one extension: Main App(Xcode Target1) <-> Content Filter Extension. Here there is a singleton class IPCConnection between App(ViewController.swift) which is working fine with NEMachServiceName from Info.plist of ContentFilter Extension(Xcode Target2) However, when I add an App Proxy extension as a new Xcode Target3, I think the App and extension's communication getting messed up and App not getting started/Crashing. Here, In the same Main App, I am adding new separate IPCConnection for this extension. Here is the project organization/folder structure. MyNetworkExtension ├──MyNetworkExtension(Xcode Target1) │ ├── AppDelegate.swift │ ├── Assets.xcassets │ ├── Info.plist │ ├── MyNetworkExtension.entitlement │ | ── Main │ |-----ViewController.swift │ └── Base.lproj │ └── Main.storyboard ├── ContentFilterExtension(Xcode Target2) │ ├── ContentFilterExtension.entitlement │ │ ├── FilterDataProvider.swift │ │ ├── Info.plist │ │ ├── IPCConnection.swift │ │ └── main.swift ├── AppProxyProviderExtension(Xcode Target3) │ ├── AppProxyProviderExtension.entitlement │ │ ├── AppProxyIPCConnection.swift │ │ ├── AppProxyProvider.swift │ │ ├── Info.plist │ │ └── main.swift └── Frameworks ├── libbsm.tbd └── NetworkExtension.framework Is my Approach for creating a single Network Extension App with Multiple extensions correct or is there any better approach of project organization that will make future modifications/working easier and makes the maintenance better? I want to keep the logic for each extension separate while having the same, single Main App that manages everything(installing, activating, managing identifiers, extensions, etc). What's the best approach to establish a Communication from MainApp to each extension separately, without affecting one another? Is it good idea to establish 3 separate IPC Connections(each is a singleton class) for each extension? Are there any suggestions you can provide that relates to my use case of capturing all the network traffic logs(including HTTP/HTTPS, DNS Records, etc), especially on App to Extension Communication, where my app unable to keep multiple IPC Connections and maintain them separately? I've been working on it for a while, and still unable to make the Network Extension App work with multiple extensions(each as a new Xcode target). Main App with single extension is working fine, but if I add new extension, App getting crashed. I suspect it's due to XPC/IPC connection things! I really appreciate any support on this either directly or by any suggestions/resources that will help me get better understand and make some progress. Please reach out if in case any clarifications or specific information that's needed to better understand my questions. Thank you very much

We are developing an iOS application that is interacting with HTTP APIs that requires us to put a unique UUID (a nonce) as an header on every request (obviously there's more than that, but that's irrilevant to the question here). If the same nonce is sent on two subsequent requests the server returns a 412 error. We should avoid generating this kind of errors as, if repeated, they may be flagged as a malicious activity by the HTTP APIs. We are using URLSession.shared.dataTaskPublisher(for: request) to call the HTTP APIs with request being generated with the unique nonce as an header. On our field tests we are seeing a few cases of the same HTTP request (same nonce) being repeated a few seconds on after the other. Our code has some retry logic only on 401 errors, but that involves a token refresh, and this is not what we are seeing from logs. We were able to replicate this behaviour on our own device using Network Link Conditioner with very bad performance, with XCode's Network inspector attached we can be certain that two HTTP requests with identical headers are actually made automatically, the first request has an "End Reason" of "Retry", the second is "Success" with Status 412. Our questions are: can we disable this behaviour? can we provide a new request for the retry (so that we can update headers)? Thanks, Francesco

I am using a URLSessionWebSocketTask. When trying to receive messages while the app is backgrounded, the receive() method fails with an NSError where the domain is NSPOSIXErrorDomain and the code is ECONNABORTED. That behavior is good. However, when this happens, the URLSessionWebSocketTask reports a closeCode of invalid, which is supposed to denote that the connection is still open. However, the connection state property is reporting completed. I feel that the closeCode property should be reporting something like abnormalClosure in this case. Either way, this seems like a bug or the documentation is incorrect.

Description Enterprise users are experiencing VPN resource access failures after upgrading to macOS Tahoe. Investigation indicates that configd (specifically IPMonitor) is incorrectly re-ranking network interfaces after a connectivity failure with probe server. This results in DNS queries routing through the physical network adapter (en0) instead of the VPN virtual adapter, even while the tunnel is active. This behaviour is not seen in previous macOS versions. Steps to Reproduce: Connect to an enterprise VPN (e.g., Ivanti Secure Access). Trigger a transient network condition where the Apple probe server is unreachable. For example make the DNS server down for 30 sec. Observe the system routing DNS queries for internal resources to the physical adapter. Expected Results The: VPN virtual interface should maintain its primary rank for enterprise DNS queries regardless of the physical adapter's probe status. Actual Results: IPMonitor detects an UplinkIssue, deprioritizes the VPN interface, and elevates the physical adapter to a higher priority rank. Technical Root Cause & Logs: The system logs show IPMonitor identifying an issue and modifying the interface priority at 16:03:54: IPMonitor Detection: The process identifies an inability to reach the Apple probe server and marks en0 with an advisory: Log snippet 2026-01-06 16:03:53.956399+0100 localhost configd[594]: [com.apple.SystemConfiguration:IPMonitor] configd[594] SetInterfaceAdvisory(en0) = UplinkIssue (2) reason='unable to reach probe server' Interface Re-ranking: Immediately following, IPMonitor recalculates the rank, placing the physical service ID at a higher priority (lower numerical rank) than the VPN service ID (net.pulsesecure...): Log snippet 2026-01-06 16:03:53.967935+0100 localhost configd[594]: [com.apple.SystemConfiguration:IPMonitor] 0. en0 serviceID=50CD9266-B097-4664-BFE6-7BAFCC5E9DC0 addr=192.168.0.128 rank=0x200000d 2026-01-06 16:03:53.967947+0100 localhost configd[594]: [com.apple.SystemConfiguration:IPMonitor] 1. en0 serviceID=net.pulsesecure.pulse.nc.main addr=192.168.0.128 rank=0x2ffffff 3.Physical adapter Is selected as Primary Interface: 2026-01-06 16:03:53.968145+0100 localhost configd[594]: [com.apple.SystemConfiguration:IPMonitor] 50CD9266-B097-4664-BFE6-7BAFCC5E9DC0 is the new primary IPv4 configd[594]: 50CD9266-B097-4664-BFE6-7BAFCC5E9DC0 is the new primary DNS Packet Trace Evidence Wireshark confirms that DNS queries for enterprise-specific DNS servers are being originated from the physical IP (192.168.0.128) instead of the virtual adapter: Time: 16:03:54.084 Source: 192.168.0.128 (Physical Adapter) Destination: 172.29.155.115 (Internal VPN DNS Server) Result: Connectivity Failure (Queries sent outside the tunnel)

I have added a Network Extension to my iOS project to use the WireGuard library. Everything was working fine up to Xcode 16, but after updating, I’m facing a build issue. The build fails with the following error: No such file or directory: '@rpath/WireGuardNetworkExtensioniOS.debug.dylib' I haven’t explicitly added any .dylib to my project. The Network Extension target builds and runs fine on Xcode 16.

I added a Content Filter to my app, and when running it in Xcode (Debug/Release), I get the expected permission prompt: "Would like to filter network content (Allow / Don't Allow)". However, when I install the app via TestFlight, this prompt doesn’t appear at all, and the feature doesn’t work. Is there a special configuration required for TestFlight? Has anyone encountered this issue before? Thanks!

When setting up a packet tunnel with a profile that has includeAllNetworks set to true, we seemingly cannot send any traffic inside the tunnel using any kind of an API. We've tried using BSD sockets, as we ping a host only reachable within the tunnel to establish whether we have connectivity - this does not work. When using NWConnection from the Network framework and specifying the required interface via virtualInterface from the packet tunnel, the connection state never reaches ready. Our interim solution is to, as ridiculous as it sounds, include a whole userspace networking stack so we can produce valid TCP packets just to send into our own tunnel. We require a TCP connection within our own tunnel to do some configuration during tunnel setup. Is there no better solution?

We've received several reports of a new bug while setting up our products with WAC. The Accessory Setup UI appears with a blank network selected and the message 'This accessory will be set up to join "(null)".' at top. The user can tap "Show Other Networks..." to select another network, but this experience is very confusing. Why does this UI present a choice that is known to be invalid when other valid choices exist? I've captured a screenshot and sysdiagnose from this case. In most cases this problem happens only intermittently, but I can reproduce it consistently by disconnecting my iPhone from any WiFi network (WiFi remains enabled). My suggestion for a better user experience is that this UI should select the default network according to these rules: The network to which iPhone is currently connected. Any network which is in the known/my list for this iPhone Any valid network I believe rule #1 is the existing behavior, but applying rules #2 and #3 as fallbacks would be an improvement. Is there anything I can change in my iOS code or in my accessory's WAC server to improve this experience?

In our iOS application, we need to list available WiFi networks so that users can select one for device configuration. Here's the workflow: Initially, the hardware device acts as a WiFi Access Point (AP). The app should scan for nearby WiFi networks to detect the device's AP. The app connects temporarily to this AP and sends the selected WiFi credentials to the device. The device then connects to the selected WiFi network and stops broadcasting its AP. Is this flow achievable on iOS? We understand that Apple restricts access to WiFi scanning APIs — are there any supported methods (e.g., using NEHotspotHelper) or entitlements (such as MFi) that could enable this?

Hello, I'm trying to build the sample app from Building peer-to-peer apps that demonstrates Wi-Fi Aware. Upon downloading the example source code, opening it in Xcode 26.0 beta, and building the app, the compiler fails with: DeviceDiscoveryPairingView.swift:8:8 No such module 'DeviceDiscoveryUI' Is this a known issue? I know that DeviceDiscoveryUI was previously only a tvOS capability. Thanks

Recently, my application was having trouble sending udp messages after it was reinstalled. The cause of the problem was initially that I did not grant local network permissions when I reinstalled, I was aware of the problem, so udp worked fine after I granted permissions. However, the next time I repeat the previous operation, I also do not grant local network permissions, and then turn it back on in the Settings, and udp does not work properly (no messages can be sent, the system version and code have not changed). Fortunately, udp worked after rebooting the phone, and more importantly, I was able to repeat the problem many times. So I want to know if the process between when I re-uninstall the app and deny local network permissions, and when I turn it back on in Settings, is that permissions have been granted normally, and not fake, and not required a reboot to reset something for udp to take effect. I'm not sure if it's the system, or if it's a similar situation as described here, hopefully that will help me find out

Hi all, I have a working macOS (Intel) system extension app that currently uses only a Content Filter (NEFilterDataProvider). I need to capture/log HTTP and HTTPS traffic in plain text, and I understand NETransparentProxyProvider is the right extension type for that. For HTTPS I will need TLS inspection / a MITM proxy — I’m new to that and unsure how complex it will be. For DNS data (in plain text), can I use the same extension, or do I need a separate extension type such as NEPacketTunnelProvider, NEFilterPacketProvider, or NEDNSProxyProvider? Current architecture: Two Xcode targets: MainApp and a SystemExtension target. The SystemExtension target contains multiple network extension types. MainApp ↔ SystemExtension communicate via a bidirectional NSXPC connection. I can already enable two extensions (Content Filter and TransparentProxy). With the NETransparentProxy, I still need to implement HTTPS capture. Questions I’d appreciate help with: Can NETransparentProxy capture the DNS fields I need (dns_hostname, dns_query_type, dns_response_code, dns_answer_number, etc.), or do I need an additional extension type to capture DNS in plain text? If a separate extension is required, is it possible or problematic to include that extension type (Packet Tunnel / DNS Proxy / etc.) in the same SystemExtension Xcode target as the TransparentProxy? Any recommended resources or guidance on TLS inspection / MITM proxy setup for capturing HTTPS logs? There are multiple DNS transport types — am I correct that capturing DNS over UDP (port 53) is not necessarily sufficient? Which DNS types should I plan to handle? I’ve read that TransparentProxy and other extension types (e.g., Packet Tunnel) cannot coexist in the same Xcode target. Is that true? Best approach for delivering logs from multiple extensions to the main app (is it feasible)? Or what’s the best way to capture logs so an external/independent process (or C/C++ daemon) can consume them? Required data to capture (not limited to): All HTTP/HTTPS (request, body, URL, response, etc.) DNS fields: dns_hostname, dns_query_type, dns_response_code, dns_answer_number, and other DNS data — all in plain text. I’ve read various resources but remain unclear which extension(s) to use and whether multiple extension types can be combined in one Xcode target. Please ask if you need more details. Thank you.

Hi, Our project is a MacOS SwiftUI GUI application that bundles a (Sandboxed) System Network Extension, signed with a Developer ID certificate for distribution outside of the app store. The system network extension is used to write a packet tunnel provider (NEPacketTunnelProvider), as our project requires the creation of a TUN device. In order for our System VPN to function, it must reach out to a (self-hosted) server (i.e. to discover a list of peers). Being self-hosted, this server is typically not accessible via the public web, and may only be accessible from within a VPN (such as those also implemented using NEPacketTunnelProvider, e.g. Tailscale, Cloudflare WARP). What we've discovered is that the networking code of the System Network Extension process does not attempt to use the other VPN network interfaces (utunX) on the system. In practice, this means requests to IPs and hostnames that should be routed to those interfaces time out. Identical requests made outside of the Network System Extension process use those interfaces and succeed. The simplest example is where we create a URLSession.downloadTask for a resource on the server. A more complicated example is where we execute a Go .dylib that continues to communicate with that server. Both types of requests time out. Two noteworthy logs appear when packets fail to send, both from the kernel 'process': cfil_hash_entry_log:6088 <CFIL: Error: sosend_reinject() failed>: [30685 com.coder.Coder-Desktop.VPN] <UDP(17) out so b795d11aca7c26bf 57728068503033955 57728068503033955 age 0> lport 3001 fport 3001 laddr 100.108.7.40 faddr 100.112.177.88 hash 58B15863 cfil_service_inject_queue:4472 CFIL: sosend() failed 49 I also wrote some test code that probes using a UDP NWConnection and NWPath availableInterfaces. When run from the GUI App, multiple interfaces are returned, including the one that routes the address, utun5. When ran from within the sysex, only en0 is returned. I understand routing a VPN through another is unconventional, but we unfortunately do need this functionality one way or another. Is there any way to modify which interfaces are exposed to the sysex? Additionally, are these limitations of networking within a Network System Extension documented anywhere? Do you have any ideas why this specific limitation might exist?

My company has a server that supports ticket-based TLS session resumption (per RFC 5077). We have done Wireshark captures that show that our iOS client app, which uses URLSession for REST and WebSocket connections to the server, is not sending the TLS "session_ticket" extension in the Client Hello package that necessary to enable ticket-based resumption with the server. Is it expected that URLSession does not support ticket-based TLS session resumption? If "yes", is there any way to tell URLSession to enable ticket-based session resumption? the lower-level API set_protocol_options_set_tls_tickets_enabled() hints that the overall TLS / HTTP stack on IOS does support ticket-based resumption, but I can't see how to use that low-level API with URLSession. I can provide (lots) more technical details if necessary, but hopefully this is enough context to determine whether ticket-based TLS resumption is supported with URLSession. Any tips / clarifications would be greatly appreciated.

Hello team, I am trying to find out a way to block urls in the chrome browser if it is found in local blocked list cache. I found URL Filter Network very much suitable for my requirement. But I see at multiple places that this solution is only for Enterprise level or MDM or supervised device. So can I run this for normal user ? as my targeting audience would be bank users. One more thing how can I test this in development environment if we need supervised devices and do we need special entitlement ? When trying to run sample project in the simulator then getting below error

I’m developing an iOS idle game (guild management). To detect manual device time changes that would break progression, I need a trusted “current real-world time” reference. I’m considering querying Apple’s NTP host time.apple.com, but I couldn’t find any official guidance about whether third-party apps may use time.apple.com directly (acceptable use, rate limits, whether it’s discouraged, etc.). Apple Developer Support couldn’t provide info and suggested asking on the forums. Questions: 1. Is it permitted for a third-party iOS app to query time.apple.com via NTP/SNTP (Yes/No or conditional)? 2. If permitted, are there any published or recommended constraints (rate limits, caching, prohibited patterns, commercial app considerations)? 3. If not permitted / not recommended, what is the recommended alternative approach (run our own time service, use public NTP pool, or any Apple-recommended mechanism)? 4. If there is any official document / policy covering this, could you point me to it? For context: I do not need sub-second accuracy and I do not intend high-frequency polling. If implemented at all, it would be very low frequency (e.g., first launch + once per 24h) with caching and graceful fallback on failure. My main goal is policy clarity rather than implementation details.

I have written the Transparent App Proxy and can capture the network flow and send it to my local server. I want to avoid any processing on the traffic outgoing from my server and establish a connection with a remote server, but instead of connecting to the remote server, it again gets captured and sent back to my local server. I am not getting any clue on how to ignore these flows originating from my server. Any pointers, API, or mechanisms that will help me?

Hello, I have a few questions regarding URL Filter (iOS 26) and Content Filter Providers. URL Filter According to the WWDC26 video, URL Filter appears to be available for both consumer and enterprise deployments. This seems consistent with the classic Network Extension Provider Deployment documentation (TN3134 – August 2025), where no specific deployment restriction is mentioned. However, a more recent document (Apple Platform Deployment, September 2025) indicates the following for URL Filter: “Requires supervision on iPhone, iPad and Mac” (with a green checkmark). 👉 My question: Is URL Filter actually available for consumer use on non-supervised iPhones (deployed on Testflight and AppStore), or is supervision now required? Content Filter Providers From past experience, I remember that Content Filter Providers were only available on supervised devices. Based on the current documentation, I am questioning their usability in a consumer context, i.e. on non-supervised iPhones. In the Network Extension Provider Deployment documentation, it is stated that this is a Network Extension and that, since iOS 16, it is a “per-app on managed device” restriction. In the more recent Apple Platform Deployment document, it states for iPhone and iPad: “App needs to be installed on the user’s iOS and iPadOS device and deletion can be prevented if the device is supervised.” 👉 My understanding: Supervised device: The Content Filter Provider is installed via a host application that controls enabling/disabling the filter, and the host app can be prevented from being removed thanks to supervision. Non-supervised device: The Content Filter Provider is also installed via a host application that controls enabling/disabling the filter, but the app can be removed by the user, which would remove the filter. 👉 My question: Can Content Filter Providers be used in a consumer context on non-supervised iPhones (deployed on Testflight and AppStore), accepting that the user can uninstall the host app (and therefore remove the filter)? Thank you in advance for your feedback. Sources: TN3134 => TN3134: Network Extension provider deployment | Apple Developer Documentation Apple Platform Deployment / Filter content for Apple devices => https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/deployment/dep1129ff8d2/1/web/1.0