[Q] When is the kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient set by macOS and in which conditions? From what I'm gathering, the kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient can not be set by a configuration profile and the end user can only grant full disk access. I searched for documentation on Apple's develop website (with the "kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient" search) and did not get any useful result. Using a more complete search engine, or the forum search engine, only points to the old annoying big bug in macOS Ventura. The problem I'm investigating is showing a process being listed as getting granted kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient permissions in the TCC database when: it's not an Endpoint Security client. it does not have the ES Client entitlement. the bundle of the process includes another process that is an ES Client and is spawn-ed by this process but I don't see why this should have an impact. This process is supposed to have been granted kTCCServiceSystemPolicyAllFiles via end user interaction or configuration profile. AFAIK, the kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient permission can only be set by macOS itself. So this looks like to be either a bug in macOS, an undocumented behavior or I'm missing something. Hence the initial question. macOS 15.7.3 / Apple Silicon

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:

Apple has repeatedly ignored my reports about a critical privacy issue in Spotlight on macOS 26, and the problem persists in version 26.3 RC. This is not a minor glitch, it is a fundamental breach of user trust and privacy. Several aspects of Spotlight fail to respect user settings: • Hidden apps still exposed: In the Apps section (Cmd+1), Spotlight continues to display apps marked with the hidden flag, even though they should remain invisible. • Clipboard reactivation: The clipboard feature repeatedly turns itself back on after logout or restart, despite being explicitly disabled by the user. • Excluded files revealed: Most concerning, Spotlight exposes files in Suggestions and Recents (Cmd+3) even when those files are explicitly excluded under System Settings > Spotlight > Search Privacy. This behavior directly violates user expectations and system settings. It is not only a major privacy issue but also a security risk, since sensitive files can be surfaced without consent. Apple must address this immediately. Users rely on Spotlight to respect their privacy configurations, and the current behavior undermines both trust and security.

a I am submitting this appeal because we believe our app was misunderstood and the review outcome and follow-up communication have been unfair and mechanically handled. 1) What happened / Outcome we disagree with Our submission was rejected under Guideline 4.8 – Design – Login Services, with the reviewer stating that our app uses a third-party login service but does not provide an equivalent login option that meets Apple’s requirements (limited data collection, private email option, no advertising tracking without consent). However, our game does not require or force any third-party login. The feature being treated as “login” is not a login service at all—it is Mainland China real-name / anti-addiction compliance verification. 2) Why we believe we comply with the App Review Guidelines A. The feature in question is compliance verification, not login Players do not need to create or log into any in-game account to play. The flow exists solely to satisfy Mainland China real-name/anti-addiction compliance requirements. Verification can be completed by either: Using TapTap only as a real-name verification authorization option, or Manually entering a Chinese ID number + legal name to pass verification and play. Because this is verification, not an account login, Guideline 4.8 “Login Services” should not apply in the way the rejection message assumes. B. There is no “playable account” to provide After we clarified the above, we continued to receive repeated, template-like requests to provide a “playable account.” This request does not match our product design: there is no account system required for gameplay, so there is no “review account” to provide. We have already provided the information needed to complete the verification path (ID + name for the compliance flow), yet the responses remained repetitive and did not reflect that the reviewer checked our explanation. 3) Why we believe the handling was unfair Even after clearly explaining that this is not a login system, the review communication continued with mechanical responses that did not address the clarification. This caused significant delays to our release timeline and appears to be unfair treatment compared with many existing App Store apps that use similar compliance verification flows. 4) What we are requesting from the Appeals Team Please investigate and correct the misclassification of our real-name compliance verification as a “login service” under Guideline 4.8. If the team still believes Guideline 4.8 applies, please provide: The specific guideline rationale, and The exact screen/step in our app that is being interpreted as “login.” Please advise what specific materials you need to proceed efficiently (e.g., screen recording of the verification flow, step-by-step review instructions, configuration notes). We are ready to provide them immediately.

I have filed bug reports on this to no avail, so I am bringing it up here hoping someone at Apple will address this. Since the first beta of 26.3, with voice control enabled there are now two icons in the menu bar (*plus an orange dot in full screen) that never go away. That orange microphone isn't serving its intended purpose to notify me that something is accessing my microphone if it is always displayed. I use voice control extensively, so it is nearly always on. In every prior version of macOS, the orange icon was not on for voice control. Even if voice control is not listening but simply enabled in system settings, the orange icon will be there. And there is no need for this icon to be on for a system service that is always listening. This orange icon in the menu bar at all times is incredibly irritating, as it takes up valuable space to the right of the notch, and causes other actual useful menu bar items to be hidden. As well, if some other application on my system were to turn on the mic and start recording me I would never know since that orange icon is always on. It also places an orange dot next to the control center icon taking up even more of the precious little menu bar real estate. Please fix this! Either exempt voice control (as Siri is always listening and it doesn't get the orange icon) or exempt all system services, or give me a way to turn this off. If you cannot tell, I find this incredibly annoying and frustrating.

% 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

I'm developing a passkey manager using ASCredentialProviderViewController. I've set a custom AAGUID in the attestation object during registration: let aaguid = Data([ 0xec, 0x78, 0xfa, 0xe8, 0xb2, 0xe0, 0x56, 0x97, 0x8e, 0x94, 0x7c, 0x77, 0x28, 0xc3, 0x95, 0x00 ]) However, when I test on webauthn.io, the relying party receives: AAGUID: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 Provider Name: "iCloud Keychain" It appears that macOS overwrites the AAGUID to all zeros for third-party Credential Provider Extensions. This makes it impossible for relying parties to distinguish between different passkey providers, which is one of the key purposes of AAGUID in the WebAuthn specification. Is this expected behavior? Is there a way for third-party Credential Provider Extensions to use their own registered AAGUID? Environment: macOS 26.2 Xcode 26.2

I'm testing app transferring, before, I have migrate user from teamA to teamB, including subA->transferSub->subB process, now I'm transfer the app from teamB to teamC, after the transfer requested, I can't get transfer_id by /usermigrationinfo api, which response 400 invalid request. the question is I can still get transfer sub by the auth/token api(grant_type: authorization_code) with teamB parameters(teamIdB/clientIdB/appSecretB/redirectUrlB/subB)，but the value is same as first time transfer_id which get during teamA to teamB. when use parameters above with target(teamIdC) to request /usermigrationinfo, invalid request was responsed. im sure that all parameters is correct, dose it cause by teamB still in 60-days first transferring(sure already accepted)?

Hello, I am currently process of migrating an app from Team A to Team B and attempting to generate transfer identifiers using the migration endpoint: POST https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo. Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded However, I am consistently receiving an { "error": "access_denied" } response. [Current Configuration] Team A (Source): Primary App ID: com.example.primary Grouped App IDs: com.example.service (Services ID for Web) com.example.app (App ID for iOS - The one being transferred) All identifiers are under the same App Group. Team B (Destination): New App ID and Key created. [Steps Taken] Created a Client Secret (JWT) using Team A's Key ID and Team ID. The sub (subject) in the JWT is set to the Primary App ID of Team A. Requesting with client_id (Primary App ID), client_secret (JWT), and user_token. [Questions] 1. App Group Impact: Does the fact that the App being transferred is a Grouped App ID (not the Primary) affect the usermigrationinfo request? Should I use the Primary App ID or the specific Grouped App ID as the client_id? 2. Ungrouping Safety: If I need to ungroup the App ID from the Primary App ID to resolve this: Will existing users still be able to sign in without issues? Is there any risk of changing the sub (user identifier) that the app receives from Apple? Will this cause any immediate service interruption for the live app? Any insights on why access_denied occurs in this Primary-Grouped configuration would be greatly appreciated.

Running the sample "Juice" app, which demos the Sign In With Apple flow, doesn't seem to work with Xcode 12 beta and iOS 14 beta on the simulator (worked fine on the non-beta versions and on a real device with iOS 14 beta). Once the password for the device's Apple ID is entered, the wheel in the password field just keeps spinning. No error messages and nothing handed back over to the app from the ASAuthorizationController. Anyone else seeing this problem ? Are there any workarounds ?

Hello, I’m trying to remove the “Sign in with Apple” for my app via the iOS settings (also tried on a Mac, and on the web via account.apple.com). When I tap “Stop Using”, nothing happens, the dialog disappear but the app remains listed. Someone said on a forum that the issue is linked with the ServiceId that doesn't exist anymore. But how to recover it ? And anyway this behavior is unintended and creates a gap in the process. Has anyone experienced this before? Is there a known fix, or should I contact Apple Support directly for server-side revocation? Thank you!

I have a user (myself, during development) who originally signed in with Apple successfully. I attempted to revoke access via Settings > Apple ID > Sign-In & Security > Sign in with Apple, but the app appears stuck in the list and cannot be fully removed. Now when attempting to sign in again, the identity token contains the correct sub but email is undefined. According to Apple's documentation, "Apple provides the user's email address in the identity token on all subsequent API responses." I've tried programmatically revoking via the /auth/revoke endpoint (received 200 OK), and I've implemented the server-to-server notification endpoint to handle consent-revoked events, but subsequent sign-in attempts still return no email. The same Apple ID works fine with other apps. Is there a way to fully reset the credential state for a specific app, or is this a known issue with partially-revoked authorizations?

I have a user (myself, during development) who originally signed in with Apple successfully. I attempted to revoke access via Settings > Apple ID > Sign-In & Security > Sign in with Apple, but the app appears stuck in the list and cannot be fully removed. Now when attempting to sign in again, the identity token contains the correct sub but email is undefined. According to Apple's documentation, "Apple provides the user's email address in the identity token on all subsequent API responses." I've tried programmatically revoking via the /auth/revoke endpoint (received 200 OK), and I've implemented the server-to-server notification endpoint to handle consent-revoked events, but subsequent sign-in attempts still return no email. The same Apple ID works fine with other apps. Is there a way to fully reset the credential state for a specific app, or is this a known issue with partially-revoked authorizations?

In these threads, it was clarified that Credential Provider Extensions must set both Backup Eligible (BE) and Backup State (BS) flags to 1 in authenticator data: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/745605 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/787629 However, I'm developing a passkey manager that intentionally stores credentials only on the local device. My implementation uses: kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly for keychain items kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave for private keys No iCloud sync or backup These credentials are, by definition, single-device credentials. According to the WebAuthn specification, they should be represented with BE=0, BS=0. Currently, I'm forced to set BE=1, BS=1 to make the extension work, which misrepresents the actual backup status to relying parties. This is problematic because: Servers using BE/BS flags for security policies will incorrectly classify these as synced passkeys Users who specifically want device-bound credentials for higher security cannot get accurate flag representation Request: Please allow Credential Provider Extensions to return credentials with BE=0, BS=0 for legitimate device-bound passkey implementations. Environment: macOS 26.2 (25C56), Xcode 26.2 (17C52)

Hello, I’m working on an authorization plugin which allows users to login and unlock their computer with various methods like a FIDO key. I need to add smart cards support to it. If I understand correctly, I need to construct a URLCredential object with the identity from the smart card and pass it to the completion handler of URLSessionDelegate.urlSession(_:didReceive:completionHandler:) method. I’ve read the documentation at Using Cryptographic Assets Stored on a Smart Card, TN3137: On Mac keychain APIs and implementations, and SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices and created a simple code that reads the identities from the keychain: CFArrayRef identities = nil; OSStatus status = SecItemCopyMatching((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)@{ (id)kSecClass: (id)kSecClassIdentity, (id)kSecMatchLimit: (id)kSecMatchLimitAll, (id)kSecReturnRef: @YES, }, (CFTypeRef *)&identities); if (status == errSecSuccess && identities) { os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Found identities: %{public}ld\n", CFArrayGetCount(identities)); } else { os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Error: %{public}ld\n", (long)status); } When I use this code in a simple demo app, it finds my Yubikey identities without problem. When I use it in my authorization plugin, it doesn’t find anything in system.login.console right and finds Yubikey in authenticate right only if I register my plugin as non-,privileged. I tried modifying the query in various ways, in particular by using SecKeychainCopyDomainSearchList with the domain kSecPreferencesDomainDynamic and adding it to the query as kSecMatchSearchList and trying other SecKeychain* methods, but ended up with nothing. I concluded that the identities from a smart card are being added to the data protection keychain rather than to a file based keychain and since I’m working in a privileged context, I won’t be able to get them. If this is indeed the case, could you please advise how to proceed? Thanks in advance.

Hi, I'm using webauthn.io to test my macOS Passkey application. When registering a passkey whichever value I set for User Verification, that's what I get when I check registrationRequest.userVerificationPreference on prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration registrationRequest: any ASCredentialRequest). However, when authenticating my passkey I can never get discouraged UV on prepareInterfaceToProvideCredential(for credentialRequest: any ASCredentialRequest). In the WWDC 2022 Meet Passkeys video, it is stated that Apple will always require UV when biometrics are available. I use a Macbook Pro with TouchID, but if I'm working with my lid closed, shouldn't I be able to get .discouraged?

Trusted execution is a generic name for a Gatekeeper and other technologies that aim to protect users from malicious code. General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums tag: Gatekeeper Developer > Signing Mac Software with Developer ID Apple Platform Security support document Safely open apps on your Mac support article Hardened Runtime document WWDC 2022 Session 10096 What’s new in privacy covers some important Gatekeeper changes in macOS 13 (starting at 04: 32), most notably app bundle protection WWDC 2023 Session 10053 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 14 (starting at 17:46), namely, app container protection WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 15 (starting at 12:23), namely, app group container protection Updates to runtime protection in macOS Sequoia news post Testing a Notarised Product forums post Resolving Trusted Execution Problems forums post App Translocation Notes (aka Gatekeeper path randomisation) forums post Most trusted execution problems are caused by code signing or notarisation issues. See Code Signing Resources and Notarisation Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Estou compartilhando algumas observações técnicas sobre Crash Detection / Emergency SOS no ecossistema Apple, com base em eventos amplamente observados em 2022 e 2024, quando houve chamadas automáticas em massa para serviços de emergência. A ideia aqui não é discutir UX superficial ou “edge cases isolados”, mas sim comportamento sistêmico em escala, algo que acredito ser relevante para qualquer time que trabalhe com sistemas críticos orientados a eventos físicos. Contexto resumido A partir do iPhone 14, a Detecção de Acidente passou a correlacionar múltiplos sensores (acelerômetros de alta faixa, giroscópio, GPS, microfones) para inferir eventos de impacto severo e acionar automaticamente chamadas de emergência. Em 2022, isso resultou em um volume significativo de falsos positivos, especialmente em atividades com alta aceleração (esqui, snowboard, parques de diversão). Em 2024, apesar de ajustes, houve recorrência localizada do mesmo padrão. Ponto técnico central O problema não parece ser hardware, nem um “bug pontual”, mas sim o estado intermediário de decisão: Aceleração ≠ acidente Ruído ≠ impacto real Movimento extremo ≠ incapacidade humana Quando o classificador entra em estado ambíguo, o sistema depende de uma janela curta de confirmação humana (toque/voz). Em ambientes ruidosos, com o usuário em movimento ou fisicamente ativo, essa confirmação frequentemente falha. O sistema então assume incapacidade e executa a ação fail-safe: chamada automática. Do ponto de vista de engenharia de segurança, isso é compreensível. Do ponto de vista de escala, é explosivo. Papel da Siri A Siri não “decide” o acidente, mas é um elo sensível na cadeia humano–máquina. Falhas de compreensão por ruído, idioma, respiração ofegante ou ausência de resposta acabam sendo interpretadas como sinal de emergência real. Isso é funcionalmente equivalente ao que vemos em sistemas automotivos como o eCall europeu, quando a confirmação humana é inexistente ou degradada. O dilema estrutural Há um trade-off claro e inevitável: Reduzir falsos negativos (não perder um acidente real) Aumentar falsos positivos (chamadas indevidas) Para o usuário individual, errar “para mais” faz sentido. Para serviços públicos de emergência, milhões de dispositivos errando “para mais” criam ruído operacional real. Por que isso importa para developers A Apple hoje opera, na prática, um dos maiores sistemas privados de segurança pessoal automatizada do mundo, interagindo diretamente com infraestrutura pública crítica. Isso coloca Crash Detection / SOS na mesma categoria de sistemas safety-critical, onde: UX é parte da segurança Algoritmos precisam ser auditáveis “Human-in-the-loop” não pode ser apenas nominal Reflexões abertas Alguns pontos que, como developer, acho que merecem discussão: Janelas de confirmação humana adaptativas ao contexto (atividade física, ruído). Cancelamento visual mais agressivo em cenários de alto movimento. Perfis de sensibilidade por tipo de atividade, claramente comunicados. Critérios adicionais antes da chamada automática quando o risco de falso positivo é estatisticamente alto. Não é um problema simples, nem exclusivo da Apple. É um problema de software crítico em contato direto com o mundo físico, operando em escala planetária. Justamente por isso, acho que vale uma discussão técnica aberta, sem ruído emocional. Curioso para ouvir perspectivas de quem trabalha com sistemas similares (automotivo, wearables, safety-critical, ML embarcado). — Rafa

Hello, We are experiencing an issue related to Sign in with Apple Server-to-Server (S2S) notifications, specifically involving repeated delivery of the account-deleted event, and would like to ask whether this behavior is expected or known. Background We have configured an S2S notification endpoint for Sign in with Apple in accordance with Apple’s requirements for account status change notifications. Our endpoint: Is reachable over HTTPS Consistently returns HTTP 200 OK Successfully receives other S2S events, including: email-enabled email-disabled consent-revoked Issue: Repeated 'account-deleted' events for the same Apple ID For most users, the account-deleted event is delivered only once, as expected. However, for a specific Apple ID used with Sign in with Apple, we are observing repeated deliveries of the same account-deleted event, arriving at regular intervals (approximately every 5 minutes). The payload contents are identical between deliveries and include the same user identifier (sub) and event timestamp. Notably: The Apple ID deletion itself completed successfully The payload does not change between deliveries Our endpoint continues to return HTTP 200 OK for every request Questions We would appreciate clarification on the following points: Is repeated delivery of the same account-deleted event expected behavior in any scenario? Is there a retry or redelivery mechanism for this event type, even when HTTP 200 is returned? Could repeated deliveries indicate that the deletion process is still considered “in progress” on Apple’s side? Are developers expected to treat account-deleted events as at-least-once delivery and handle them idempotently? Additional context While researching this issue, we found a forum thread describing a very similar case: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/735674 In that discussion, Apple staff advised submitting the issue via Feedback Assistant, which suggests that this behavior may already be understood internally. We have also submitted a Feedback Assistant report with detailed logs and timestamps. Any clarification on the expected behavior or recommended handling for this scenario would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and support.

Hi Apple Developers, I'm having a problem with evaluatedPolicyDomainState: on the same device, its value keeps changing and then switching back to the original. My current iOS version is 26.1. I upgraded my iOS from version 18.6.2 to 26.1. What could be the potential reasons for this issue? { NSError *error; BOOL success = YES; char *eds = nil; int edslen = 0; LAContext *context = [[LAContext alloc] init]; // test if we can evaluate the policy, this test will tell us if Touch ID is available and enrolled // success = [context canEvaluatePolicy: LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics error:&error]; if (SystemVersion > 9.3) { // test if we can evaluate the policy, this test will tell us if Touch ID is available and enrolled success = [context canEvaluatePolicy: LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthentication error:&error]; } else{ // test if we can evaluate the policy, this test will tell us if Touch ID is available and enrolled success = [context canEvaluatePolicy: LAPolicyDeviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics error:&error]; } if (success) { if (@available(iOS 18.0, *)) { NSData *stateHash = nil; if ([context respondsToSelector:@selector(domainState)]) { stateHash = [[context performSelector:@selector(domainState)] performSelector:@selector(stateHash)]; }else{ stateHash = [context evaluatedPolicyDomainState]; } eds = (char *)stateHash.bytes; edslen = (int)stateHash.length; } else { eds = (char *)[[context evaluatedPolicyDomainState] bytes]; edslen = (int)[[context evaluatedPolicyDomainState] length]; } CC_SHA256(eds, edslen, uviOut); *poutlen = CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH; } else { *poutlen = 32; gm_memset(uviOut, 0x01, 32); } }