Hi Apple Team and Community, We encountered a sudden and widespread failure related to the App Attest service on Friday, July 25, starting at around 9:22 AM UTC. After an extended investigation, our network engineers noted that the size of the attestation objects received from the attestKey call grew in size notably starting at that time. As a result, our firewall began blocking the requests from our app made to our servers with the Base64-encoded attestation objects in the payload, as these requests began triggering our firewall's max request length rule. Could Apple engineers please confirm whether there was any change rolled out by Apple at or around that time that would cause the attestation object size to increase? Can anyone else confirm seeing this? Any insights from Apple or others would be appreciated to ensure continued stability. Thanks!

Hi Team, We are trying to understand deep sleep behaviour, can you please help us clarifying on the below questions: When will we configure Hibernate 25, is it valid for M series MacBooks? Is Hibernate 25 called deep sleep mode? What are the settings I need to do on Mac, to make my Mac go in to deep sleep? When awakening from deep sleep , what would be macOS system behaviour? If we have custom SFAuthorization plug in at system.login.screensaver, what would be the behaviour with deep sleep?

I am working on implementing mTLS authentication in my iOS app (Apple Inhouse & intune MAM managed app). The SCEP client certificate is deployed on the device via Intune MDM. When I try accessing the protected endpoint via SFSafariViewController/ASWebAuthenticationSession, the certificate picker appears and the request succeeds. However, from within my app (using URLSessionDelegate), the certificate is not found (errSecItemNotFound). The didReceive challenge method is called, but my SCEP certificate is not found in the app. The certificate is visible under Settings > Device Management > SCEP Certificate. How can I make my iOS app access and use the SCEP certificate (installed via Intune MDM) for mTLS requests? Do I need a special entitlement, keychain access group, or configuration in Intune or Developer account to allow my app to use the certificate? Here is the sample code I am using: final class KeychainCertificateDelegate: NSObject, URLSessionDelegate { func urlSession(_ session: URLSession, didReceive challenge: URLAuthenticationChallenge, completionHandler: @escaping (URLSession.AuthChallengeDisposition, URLCredential?) -> Void) { guard challenge.protectionSpace.authenticationMethod == NSURLAuthenticationMethodClientCertificate else { completionHandler(.performDefaultHandling, nil) return } // Get the DNs the server will accept guard let expectedDNs = challenge.protectionSpace.distinguishedNames else { completionHandler(.cancelAuthenticationChallenge, nil) return } var identityRefs: CFTypeRef? = nil let err = SecItemCopyMatching([ kSecClass: kSecClassIdentity, kSecMatchLimit: kSecMatchLimitAll, kSecMatchIssuers: expectedDNs, kSecReturnRef: true, ] as NSDictionary, &identityRefs) if err != errSecSuccess { completionHandler(.cancelAuthenticationChallenge, nil) return } guard let identities = identityRefs as? [SecIdentity], let identity = identities.first else { print("Identity list is empty") completionHandler(.cancelAuthenticationChallenge, nil) return } let credential = URLCredential(identity: identity, certificates: nil, persistence: .forSession) completionHandler(.useCredential, credential) } } func perform_mTLSRequest() { guard let url = URL(string: "https://sample.com/api/endpoint") else { return } var request = URLRequest(url: url) request.httpMethod = "POST" request.setValue("application/json", forHTTPHeaderField: "Accept") request.setValue("Bearer \(bearerToken)", forHTTPHeaderField: "Authorization") let delegate = KeychainCertificateDelegate() let session = URLSession(configuration: .ephemeral, delegate: delegate, delegateQueue: nil) let task = session.dataTask(with: request) { data, response, error in guard let httpResponse = response as? HTTPURLResponse, (200...299).contains(httpResponse.statusCode) else { print("Bad response") return } if let data = data { print(String(data: data, encoding: .utf8)!) } } task.resume() }

We recently deployed Attestation on our application, and for a majority of the 40,000 users it works well. We have about six customers who are failing attestation. In digging through debug logs, we're seeing this error "iOS assertion verification failed. Unauthorized access attempted." We're assuming that the UUID is blocked somehow on Apple side but we're stumped as to why. We had a customer come in and we could look at the phone, and best we can tell it's just a generic phone with no jailbroken or any malicious apps. How can we determine if the UUID is blocked?

Hi, I am using CryptoKit in my app. I am getting an error sometimes with some users. I log the description to Firebase but I am not sure what is it exactly about.  CryptoKit.CryptoKitError error 2  CryptoKit.CryptoKitError error 3 I receive both of these errors. I also save debug prints to a log file and let users share them with me. Logs are line-by-line encrypted but after getting these errors in the app also decryption of log files doesn't work and it throws these errors too. I couldn't reproduce the same error by myself, and I can't reach the user's logs so I am a little blind about what triggers this. It would be helpful to understand what these errors mean. Thanks

WebAuthn Level 3 § 6.3.2 Step 2 states the authenticator must : Check if at least one of the specified combinations of PublicKeyCredentialType and cryptographic parameters in credTypesAndPubKeyAlgs is supported. If not, return an error code equivalent to "NotSupportedError" and terminate the operation. On my iPhone 15 Pro Max running iOS 18.5, Safari + Passwords does not exhibit this behavior; instead an error is not reported and an ES256 credential is created when an RP passes a non-empty sequence that does not contain {"type":"public-key","alg":-7} (e.g., [{"type":"public-key","alg":-8}]). When I use Chromium 138.0.7204.92 on my laptop running Arch Linux in conjunction with the Passwords app (connected via the "hybrid" protocol), a credential is not created and instead an error is reported per the spec.

I'm writing an app on macOS that stores passwords in the Keychain and later retrieves them using SecItemCopyMatching(). This works fine 90% of the time. However, occasionally, the call to SecItemCopyMatching() fails with errSecAuthFailed (-25293). When this occurs, simply restarting the app resolves the issue; otherwise, it will consistently fail with errSecAuthFailed. What I suspect is that the Keychain access permission has a time limitation for a process. This issue always seems to arise when I keep my app running for an extended period.

Has anyone here encountered this? It's driving me crazy. It appears on launch. App Sandbox is enabled. The proper entitlement is selected (com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write) I believe this is causing an issue with app functionality for users on different machines. There is zero documentation across the internet on this problem. I am on macOS 26 beta. This error appears in both Xcode and Xcode-beta. Please help! Thank you, Logan

Hi, I'm working on developing my own CryptoTokenKit (CTK) extension to enable codesign with HSM-backed keys. Here's what I’ve done so far: The container app sets up the tokenConfiguration with TKTokenKeychainCertificate and TKTokenKeychainKey. The extension registers successfully and is visible via pluginkit when launching the container app. The virtual smartcard appears when running security list-smartcards. The certificate, key, and identity are all visible using security export-smartcard -i [card]. However, nothing appears in the Keychain. After adding logging and reviewing output in the Console, I’ve observed the following behavior when running codesign: My TKTokenSession is instantiated correctly, using my custom TKToken implementation — so far, so good. However, none of the following TKTokenSession methods are ever called: func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, beginAuthFor operation: TKTokenOperation, constraint: Any) throws -> TKTokenAuthOperation func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, supports operation: TKTokenOperation, keyObjectID: TKToken.ObjectID, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) -> Bool func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, sign dataToSign: Data, keyObjectID: Any, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) throws -> Data func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, decrypt ciphertext: Data, keyObjectID: Any, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm) throws -> Data func tokenSession(_ session: TKTokenSession, performKeyExchange otherPartyPublicKeyData: Data, keyObjectID objectID: Any, algorithm: TKTokenKeyAlgorithm, parameters: TKTokenKeyExchangeParameters) throws -> Data The only relevant Console log is: default 11:31:15.453969+0200 PersistentToken [0x154d04850] invalidated because the client process (pid 4899) either cancelled the connection or exited There’s no crash report related to the extension, so my assumption is that ctkd is closing the connection for some unknown reason. Is there any way to debug this further? Thank you for your help.

Hi, how can you authenticate a User through Biometrics with iPhone Passcode as Fallback in the Autofill Credential Provider Extension? In the App it works without a problem. In the Extension I get "Caller is not running foreground" Yeah, it isn't, as it's just a sheet above e.g. Safari. I'd like to avoid having the user setup a Passcode dedicated to my App, especially because FaceID is way faster. Does anybody know how to achieve iOS native Auth in the extension? Please let me know, a code sample would be appreciated. Regards, Mia

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

Hello, I am currently researching to develop an application where I want to apply the MacOS updates without the password prompt shown to the users. I did some research on this and understand that an MDM solution can apply these patches without user intervention. Are there any other ways we can achieve this? Any leads are much appreciated.

Hi, I’m seeing a production issue on iOS 26+ that only affects some users. symptoms: It does NOT happen for all users. It happens for a subset of users on iOS 26+. If we write a value to Keychain and read it immediately in the same session, it succeeds. However, after terminating the app and relaunching, the value appears to be gone: SecItemCopyMatching returns errSecItemNotFound (-25300). Repro (as observed on affected devices): Launch app (iOS 26+). Save PIN data to Keychain using SecItemAdd (GenericPassword). Immediately read it using SecItemCopyMatching -> success. Terminate the app (swipe up / kill). Relaunch the app and read again using the same service -> returns -25300. Expected: The Keychain item should persist across app relaunch and remain readable (while the device is unlocked). Actual: After app relaunch, SecItemCopyMatching returns errSecItemNotFound (-25300) as if the item does not exist. Implementation details (ObjC): We store a “PIN” item like this (simplified): addItem: kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword kSecAttrService: <FIXED_STRING> kSecValueData: kSecAttrAccessControl: SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(..., kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, 0, ...) readItem (SecItemCopyMatching): kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword kSecAttrService: <FIXED_STRING> kSecReturnData: YES (uses kSecUseOperationPrompt in our async method) Question: On iOS 26+, is there any known issue or new behavior where a successfully added GenericPassword item could later return errSecItemNotFound after app termination/relaunch for only some users/devices? What should we check to distinguish: OS behavior change/bug vs. entitlement/access-group differences (app vs extension, provisioning/team changes), device state/policies (MDM, passcode/biometrics changes), query attributes we should include to make the item stable across relaunch? Build / Dev Environment: macOS: 15.6.1 (24G90) Xcode: 26.2

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

I am developing a daemon-based product that needs a cryptographic, non-spoofable proof of machine identity so a remote management server can grant permissions based on the physical machine. I was thinking to create a signing key in the Secure Enclave and use a certificate signed by that key as the machine identity. The problem is that the Secure Enclave key I can create is only accessible from user context, while my product runs as a system daemon and must not rely on user processes or launchAgents. Could you please advise on the recommended Apple-supported approaches for this use case ? Specifically, Is there a supported way for a system daemon to generate and use an unremovable Secure Enclave key during phases like the pre-logon, that doesn't have non user context (only the my application which created this key/certificate will have permission to use/delete it) If Secure Enclave access from a daemon is not supported, what Apple-recommended alternatives exist for providing a hardware-backed machine identity for system daemons? I'd rather avoid using system keychain, as its contents may be removed or used by root privileged users. The ideal solution would be that each Apple product, would come out with a non removable signing certificate, that represent the machine itself (lets say that the cetificate name use to represent the machine ID), and can be validated by verify that the root signer is "Apple Root CA"

I am developing a macOS application (targeting macOS 13 and later) that is non-sandboxed and needs to install and trust a root certificate by adding it to the System keychain programmatically. I’m fine with prompting the user for admin privileges or password, if needed. So far, I have attempted to execute the following command programmatically from both: A user-level process A root-level process sudo security add-trusted-cert -d -r trustRoot -k /Library/Keychains/System.keychain /path/to/cert.pem While the certificate does get installed, it does not appear as trusted in the Keychain Access app. One more point: The app is not distributed via MDM. App will be distributed out side the app store. Questions: What is the correct way to programmatically install and trust a root certificate in the System keychain? Does this require additional entitlements, signing, or profile configurations? Is it possible outside of MDM management? Any guidance or working samples would be greatly appreciated.

Hi everyone, I’m encountering an unexpected Keychain behavior in a production environment and would like to confirm whether this is expected or if I’m missing something. In my app, I store a deviceId in the Keychain based on the classic KeychainItemWrapper implementation. I extended it by explicitly setting: kSecAttrAccessible = kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock My understanding is that kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock should allow Keychain access while the app is running in the background, as long as the device has been unlocked at least once after reboot. However, after the app went live, I observed that when the app performs background execution (e.g., triggered by background tasks / silent push), Keychain read attempts intermittently fail with: errSecInteractionNotAllowed (-25308) This seems inconsistent with the documented behavior of kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock. Additional context: The issue never occurs in foreground. The issue does not appear on development devices. User devices are not freshly rebooted when this happens. The Keychain item is created successfully; only background reads fail. Setting the accessibility to kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly produces the same result. Questions: Under what circumstances can kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlock still cause a -25308 error? Is there any known restriction when accessing Keychain while the app is running in background execution contexts? Could certain system states (Low Power Mode, Background App Refresh conditions, device lock state, etc.) cause Keychain reads to be blocked unexpectedly? Any insights or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Summary I am investigating a change in macOS 26.1 (Tahoe) where plain (non-bundled) executables that request screen recording access no longer appear under: System Settings → Privacy & Security → Screen & System Audio Recording This behavior differs from macOS Sequoia, where these executables did appear in the list and could be managed through the UI. Tahoe still prompts for permission and still allows the executable to capture the screen once permission is granted, but the executable never shows up in the UI list. This breaks user expectations and removes UI-based permission management. To confirm the behavior, I created a small reproduction project with both: a plain executable, and an identical executable packaged inside an .app bundle. Only the bundled version appears in System Settings. Observed Behaviour 1. Plain Executable (from my reproduction project) When running a plain executable that captures the screen: macOS displays the normal screen-recording permission prompt. Before granting permission: screenshots show only the desktop background. After granting permission: screenshots capture the full display. The executable does not appear under “Screen & System Audio Recording”. Even when permission is granted manually (e.g., dragging the executable into the pane), the executable still does not appear, which prevents the user from modifying or revoking the permission through the UI. If the executable is launched from inside another app (e.g., VS Code, Terminal), the parent app appears in the list instead, not the executable itself. 2. Bundled App Version (from the reproduction project) I packaged the same code into a simple .app bundle (ScreenCaptureApp.app). When running the app: The same permission prompt appears. Pre-permission screenshots show the desktop background. Post-permission screenshots capture the full display. The app does appear under “Screen & System Audio Recording”. This bundle uses the same underlying executable — the only difference is packaging. Hypothesis macOS 26.1 (Tahoe) appears to require app bundles for an item to be shown in the Screen Recording privacy UI. Plain executables: still request and receive permission, still function correctly after permission is granted, but do not appear in the System Settings list. This may be an intentional change, undocumented behavior, or a regression. Reproduction Project The reproduction project includes: screen_capture.go A simple Go program that captures screenshots in a loop. screen_capture_executable Plain executable built from the Go source. ScreenCaptureApp.app/ App bundle containing the same executable. build.sh Builds both the plain executable and the app bundle. Permission reset and TCC testing scripts. The project demonstrates the behavior consistently. Steps to Reproduce Plain Executable Build: ./build.sh Reset screen capture permissions: sudo tccutil reset ScreenCapture Run: ./screen_capture_executable Before granting: screenshots show desktop only. Grant permission when prompted. After granting: full screenshots. Executable does not appear in “Screen & System Audio Recording”. Bundled App Build (if not already built): ./build.sh Reset permissions (optional): sudo tccutil reset ScreenCapture Run: open ScreenCaptureApp.app Before granting: screenshots show desktop. After granting: full screenshots. App bundle appears in the System Settings list. Additional Check I also tested launching the plain executable as a child process of another executable, similar to how some software architectures work. Result: Permission prompt appears Permission can be granted Executable still does not appear in the UI, even though TCC tracks it internally → consistent with the plain-executable behaviour. This reinforces that only app bundles are listed. Questions for Apple Is the removal of plain executables from “Screen & System Audio Recording” an intentional change in macOS Tahoe? If so, does Apple now require all screen-recording capable binaries to be packaged as .app bundles for the UI to display them? Is there a supported method for making a plain executable (launched by a parent process) appear in the list? If this is not intentional, what is the recommended path for reporting this as a regression? Files Unfortunately, I have discovered the zip file that contains my reproduction project can't be directly uploaded here. Here is a Google Drive link instead: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sXsr3Q0g6_UzlOIL54P5wbS7yBkpMJ7A/view?usp=sharing Thank you for taking the time to review this. Any insight into whether this change is intentional or a regression would be very helpful.

Feedback ticket ID: FB21797397 Summary When using posix_spawn() with posix_spawnattr_set_uid_np() to spawn a child process with a different UID, the eslogger incorrectly reports a setuid event as an event originating from the parent process instead of the child process. Steps to Reproduce Create a binary that do the following: Configure posix_spawnattr_t that set the process UIDs to some other user ID (I'll use 501 in this example). Uses posix_spawn() to spawn a child process Run eslogger with the event types setuid, fork, exec Execute the binary as root process using sudo or from root owned shell Terminate the launched eslogger Observe the process field in the setuid event Expected behavior The eslogger will report events indicating a process launch and uid changes so the child process is set to 501. i.e.: fork setuid - Done by child process exec Actual behavior The process field in the setuid event is reported as the parent process (that called posix_spawn) - indicating UID change to the parent process. Attachments I'm attaching source code for a small project with a 2 binaries: I'll add the source code for the project at the end of the file + attach filtered eslogger JSONs One that runs the descirbed posix_spawn flow One that produces the exact same sequence of events by doing different operation and reaching a different process state: Parent calls fork() Parent process calls setuid(501) Child process calls exec() Why this is problematic Both binaries in my attachment do different operations, achieving different process state (1 is parent with UID=0 and child with UID=501 while the other is parent UID=501 and child UID=0), but report the same sequence of events. Code #include <cstdio> #include <spawn.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <unistd.h> #include <sys/wait.h> #include <string.h> // environ contains the current environment variables extern char **environ; extern "C" { int posix_spawnattr_set_uid_np(posix_spawnattr_t *attr, uid_t uid); int posix_spawnattr_set_gid_np(posix_spawnattr_t *attr, gid_t gid); } int main() { pid_t pid; int status; posix_spawnattr_t attr; // 1. Define the executable path and arguments const char *path = "/bin/sleep"; char *const argv[] = {(char *)"sleep", (char *)"1", NULL}; // 2. Initialize spawn attributes if ((status = posix_spawnattr_init(&attr)) != 0) { fprintf(stderr, "posix_spawnattr_init: %s\n", strerror(status)); return EXIT_FAILURE; } // 3. Set the UID for the child process (e.g., UID 501) // Note: Parent must be root to change to a different user uid_t target_uid = 501; if ((status = posix_spawnattr_set_uid_np(&attr, target_uid)) != 0) { fprintf(stderr, "posix_spawnattr_set_uid_np: %s\n", strerror(status)); posix_spawnattr_destroy(&attr); return EXIT_FAILURE; } // 4. Spawn the process printf("Spawning /bin/sleep 1 as UID %d...\n", target_uid); status = posix_spawn(&pid, path, NULL, &attr, argv, environ); if (status == 0) { printf("Successfully spawned child with PID: %d\n", pid); // Wait for the child to finish (will take 63 seconds) if (waitpid(pid, &status, 0) != -1) { printf("Child process exited with status %d\n", WEXITSTATUS(status)); } else { perror("waitpid"); } } else { fprintf(stderr, "posix_spawn: %s\n", strerror(status)); } // 5. Clean up posix_spawnattr_destroy(&attr); return (status == 0) ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; } #include <cstdio> #include <cstdlib> #include <unistd.h> #include <sys/wait.h> #include <errno.h> #include <string.h> // This program demonstrates fork + setuid + exec behavior for ES framework bug report // 1. Parent forks // 2. Parent does setuid(501) // 3. Child waits with sleep syscall // 4. Child performs exec int main() { printf("Parent PID: %d, UID: %d, EUID: %d\n", getpid(), getuid(), geteuid()); pid_t pid = fork(); if (pid < 0) { // Fork failed perror("fork"); return EXIT_FAILURE; } if (pid == 0) { // Child process printf("Child PID: %d, UID: %d, EUID: %d\n", getpid(), getuid(), geteuid()); // Child waits for a bit with sleep syscall printf("Child sleeping for 2 seconds...\n"); sleep(2); // Child performs exec printf("Child executing child_exec...\n"); // Get the path to child_exec (same directory as this executable) char *const argv[] = {(char *)"/bin/sleep", (char *)"2", NULL}; // Try to exec child_exec from current directory first execv("/bin/sleep", argv); // If exec fails perror("execv"); return EXIT_FAILURE; } else { // Parent process printf("Parent forked child with PID: %d\n", pid); // Parent does setuid(501) printf("Parent calling setuid(501)...\n"); if (setuid(501) != 0) { perror("setuid"); // Continue anyway to observe behavior } printf("Parent after setuid - UID: %d, EUID: %d\n", getuid(), geteuid()); // Wait for child to finish int status; if (waitpid(pid, &status, 0) != -1) { if (WIFEXITED(status)) { printf("Child exited with status %d\n", WEXITSTATUS(status)); } else if (WIFSIGNALED(status)) { printf("Child killed by signal %d\n", WTERMSIG(status)); } } else { perror("waitpid"); } } return EXIT_SUCCESS; } posix_spawn.json fork_exec.json

Hi Apple team, For our iPhone app (App Store build), a small subset of devices report DCAppAttestService.isSupported == false, preventing App Attest from being enabled. Approx. impact: 0.23% (352/153,791) iOS observed: Broadly 15.x–18.7 (also saw a few anomalous entries ios/26.0, likely client logging noise) Device models: Multiple generations (iPhone8–iPhone17); a few iPad7 entries present although the app targets iPhone Questions In iPhone main app context, what conditions can make isSupported return false on iOS 14+? Are there known device/iOS cases where temporary false can occur (SEP/TrustChain related)? Any recommended remediation (e.g., DFU restore)? Could you share logging guidance (Console.app subsystem/keywords) to investigate such cases? What fallback policy do you recommend when isSupported == false (e.g., SE-backed signature + DeviceCheck + risk rules), and any limitations? We can provide sysdiagnose/Console logs and more case details upon request. Thank you, —