we develop extension "Autofill Credential Provider" function for passkey. 1.first step registe passkey 2.second step authenticate with passkey step 1 & step 2 has finished and run success with provideCredentialWithoutUserInteraction. But we want to prepare our interface for use to input password and select passkey what the want. however the func prepareInterfaceToProvideCredential in ASCredentialProviderViewController does call? what i missed? how can i do it?

An ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest rejection email looks as follows: ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest- Your app includes "<path/to/SDK>", which includes , an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a privacy-impacting third-party SDK. Starting February 12, 2025, if a new app includes a privacy-impacting SDK, or an app update adds a new privacy-impacting SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. Glossary ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest: An email that includes the name and path of privacy-impacting SDK(s) with no privacy manifest files in your app bundle. For more information, see https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. : The specified privacy-impacting SDK that doesn't include a privacy manifest file. If you are the developer of the rejected app, gather the name of the SDK from the email you received from Apple, then contact the SDK's provider for an updated version that includes a valid privacy manifest. After receiving an updated version of the SDK, verify the SDK includes a valid privacy manifest file at the expected location. For more information, see Adding a privacy manifest to your app or third-party SDK. If your app includes a privacy manifest file, make sure the file only describes the privacy practices of your app. Do not add the privacy practices of the SDK to your app's privacy manifest. If the email lists multiple SDKs, repeat the above process for all of them. If you are the developer of an SDK listed in the email, publish an updated version of your SDK that includes a privacy manifest file with valid keys and values. Every privacy-impacting SDK must contain a privacy manifest file that only describes its privacy practices. To learn how to add a valid privacy manifest to your SDK, see the Additional resources section below. Additional resources Privacy manifest files Describing data use in privacy manifests Describing use of required reason API Adding a privacy manifest to your app or third-party SDK TN3182: Adding privacy tracking keys to your privacy manifest TN3183: Adding required reason API entries to your privacy manifest TN3184: Adding data collection details to your privacy manifest TN3181: Debugging an invalid privacy manifest

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?

My app Mocawave is a music player distributed through the Mac App Store. It declares specific audio document types (public.mp3, com.microsoft.waveform-audio, public.mpeg-4-audio, public.aac-audio) in its CFBundleDocumentTypes with a Viewer role. When a user sets Mocawave as the default app for audio files and double-clicks an MP3 downloaded from the internet (which has the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute), macOS displays the alert: "Apple could not verify [filename] is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy." This does not happen when: Opening the same file via NSOpenPanel from within the app Opening the same file with Apple's Music.app or QuickTime Player The app is: Distributed through the Mac App Store Sandboxed (com.apple.security.app-sandbox) Uses com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write entitlement The file being opened is a regular audio file (MP3), not an executable. Since the app is sandboxed and distributed through the App Store, I expected it to have sufficient trust to open quarantined data files without triggering Gatekeeper warnings — similar to how Music.app and QuickTime handle them. Questions: Is there a specific entitlement or Info.plist configuration that allows a sandboxed Mac App Store app to open quarantined audio files without this alert? Is this expected behavior for third-party App Store apps, or could this indicate a misconfiguration on my end? Environment: macOS 15 (Sequoia), app built with Swift/SwiftUI, targeting macOS 13+.

Please correct the following issues and upload a new binary to App Store Connect. ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest - Your app includes “Frameworks/FirebaseCoreDiagnostics.framework/FirebaseCoreDiagnostics”, which includes FirebaseCoreDiagnostics, an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a commonly used third-party SDK. If a new app includes a commonly used third-party SDK, or an app update adds a new commonly used third-party SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest - Your app includes “Frameworks/FBLPromises.framework/FBLPromises”, which includes FBLPromises, an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a commonly used third-party SDK. If a new app includes a commonly used third-party SDK, or an app update adds a new commonly used third-party SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. ITMS-91061: Missing privacy manifest - Your app includes “Frameworks/GoogleDataTransport.framework/GoogleDataTransport”, which includes GoogleDataTransport, an SDK that was identified in the documentation as a commonly used third-party SDK. If a new app includes a commonly used third-party SDK, or an app update adds a new commonly used third-party SDK, the SDK must include a privacy manifest file. Please contact the provider of the SDK that includes this file to get an updated SDK version with a privacy manifest. For more details about this policy, including a list of SDKs that are required to include signatures and manifests, visit: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements. our app is .NET MAUI app so we already addressed this by adding privacyinfo.xcprivacy privacy manifest under platform/ios/resources but still get flagged for this <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyTracking</key> <false/> <key>NSPrivacyTrackingDomains</key> <array/> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypes</key> <array> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryFileTimestamp</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>C617.1</string> </array> </dict> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategorySystemBootTime</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>35F9.1</string> </array> </dict> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryDiskSpace</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>E174.1</string> </array> </dict> <dict> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPIType</key> <string>NSPrivacyAccessedAPICategoryUserDefaults</string> <key>NSPrivacyAccessedAPITypeReasons</key> <array> <string>CA92.1</string> </array> </dict> </array> <key>NSPrivacyCollectedDataTypes</key> <array/> </dict> </plist>

I am trying to integrate those into my app, stuck on it would not transfer to view that inside app, can someone help? Scott

Our product includes a background sync process that synchronizes credentials between devices. We need to update ASCredentialIdentityStore when credentials are changed, we have noticed that the ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.saveCredentialIdentities() fails to run when the device is locked. Is it possible to update ASCredentialIdentityStore when the device is locked?

Hi everyone, I'm working on an app that stores multiple secrets in the Keychain, each protected with .userPresence. My goal is to authenticate the user once via FaceID/TouchID and then read multiple Keychain items without triggering subsequent prompts. I am reusing the same LAContext instance for these operations, and I have set: context.touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration = LATouchIDAuthenticationMaximumAllowableReuseDuration However, I'm observing that every single SecItemCopyMatching call triggers a new FaceID/TouchID prompt, even if they happen within seconds of each other using the exact same context. Here is a simplified flow of what I'm doing: Create a LAContext. Set touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration to max. Perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item A, passing [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID. Success. Immediately perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item B, passing the same [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID again. My question is: Does the .userPresence access control flag inherently force a new user interaction for every Keychain access, regardless of the LAContext reuse duration? Is allowableReuseDuration only applicable for LAContext.evaluatePolicy calls and not for SecItem queries? If so, is there a recommended pattern for "unlocking" a group of Keychain items with a single biometric prompt? Environment: iOS 17+, Swift. Thanks!

Hi community, I'm wondering how can I request the permission of "System Audio Recording Only" under the Privacy & Security -> Screen & System Audio Recording via swift? Did a bunch of search but didn't find good documentation on it. Tried another approach here https://github.com/insidegui/AudioCap/blob/main/AudioCap/ProcessTap/AudioRecordingPermission.swift which doesn't work very reliably.

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

Hi everyone, I’m developing a multiplayer iOS game that uses Multipeer Connectivity for local peer-to-peer networking. I’d like to display user-assigned device names in the UI to help players identify each other during the connection process. In iOS 16 and later, accessing UIDevice.current.name requires the User-Assigned Device Name Entitlement. The documentation states that the entitlement is granted for functionality involving “interaction between multiple devices that the same user operates”. My game is strictly multiplayer, with devices owned by different users, not a single user managing multiple devices. I have a few questions regarding this: Does the requirement for “devices operated by the same user” definitively exclude multiplayer scenarios where devices belong to different players? Can a Multipeer Connectivity-based game qualify for the entitlement in this case? If the entitlement is not applicable, is prompting users to enter custom names the recommended approach for identifying devices in a multiplayer UI? Has anyone successfully obtained this entitlement for a similar multiplayer use case with Multipeer Connectivity? Thanks in advance.

Hello, When using ASWebAuthenticationSession with an HTTPS callback URL (Universal Link), I receive the following error: Authorization error: The operation couldn't be completed. Application with identifier jp.xxxx.yyyy.dev is not associated with domain xxxx-example.go.link. Using HTTPS callbacks requires Associated Domains using the webcredentials service type for xxxx-example.go.link. I checked Apple’s official documentation but couldn’t find any clear statement that webcredentials is required when using HTTPS callbacks in ASWebAuthenticationSession. What I’d like to confirm: Is webcredentials officially required when using HTTPS as a callback URL with ASWebAuthenticationSession? If so, is there any official documentation or technical note that states this requirement? Environment iOS 18.6.2 Xcode 16.4 Any clarification or official references would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

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

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, 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?

I'm developing an iOS app that utilizes Universal Links and ASWebAuthenticationSession to deep-link from a website to the app itself. This implementation adheres to the recommendations outlined in RFC 8252, ensuring that the app opening the ASWebAuthenticationSession is the same app that is launched via the Universal Link. Problem: 　While most users can successfully launch the app via Universal Links,a few percent of users experience instances where the app fails to launch, and the user is redirected to the browser. What I've Tried: 　ASWebAuthenticationSession Configuration: I've double-checked the configuration of callbackURLScheme and presentationContextProvider. 　Universal Links: Verified the apple-app-site-association file and associated domains entitlement. 　Network Conditions: Tested on various network environments (Wi-Fi, cellular) and devices. Questions: 　What are the potential causes for this behavior? 　Has anyone else encountered a similar issue and found a solution? 　Are there any debugging techniques or ways to generate more detailed logs? I haven't been able to determine which device or OS version is causing this problem. Thank you.

I am working on a SDK which helps identify the device authenticity. I am in need of something which can confirm the firmware/Hardware/OS is signed by Apple and is authentic. There will be no tempering to device?

Developers of our e-shop are preparing to enable Apple Sign In for account login. Apple ID verification is conducted via the domain appleid.apple.com, and the responses should be coming back from the following two Apple IP addresses: IPv4 Address: 17.32.194.6 IPv4 Address: 17.32.194.37 Question is whether these addresses are correct and if they remain unchanged over time. Alternatively, it is existing an official list of IP addresses that may be used for Apple Sign In verification response? This is necessary to ensure precise network communication settings and protection by F5 security solution. Thanks a lot for answers.

Hello, We received a rejection on one of our IOS applications because we were doing Microsoft MSAL login through the user's browser. The representative recommended that we use Webview to do in-app logins. However when we tried to handle the custom app uri redirection (looking like myapp://auth/), Webview does not seem to send the user back to the application. Does anyone have a fix for this? Thanks!

Dear Apple Developer Support Team, We are experiencing a recurring issue with the DeviceCheck API where the following error is being returned: com.apple.devicecheck.error 0 Upon analyzing our logs, we have noticed that this error occurs significantly more often when users are connected to Wi-Fi networks, compared to mobile networks. This leads us to suspect that there might be a relationship between Wi-Fi configuration and the DeviceCheck service’s ability to generate or validate tokens. We would like to know: Is this error code (0) known to be caused by specific types of network behavior or misconfigurations on Wi-Fi networks (e.g., DNS filtering, firewall restrictions, proxy servers)? Are there any recommended best practices for ensuring reliable DeviceCheck API communication over Wi-Fi networks? Additionally, could you please clarify what general conditions could trigger this com.apple.devicecheck.error 0? The lack of specific documentation makes debugging this issue difficult from our side. Any guidance or internal documentation on this error code and its potential causes would be greatly appreciated. IDE: Xcode 16.3 Looking forward to your support. Best regards,