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.

Hi. I enter a password using the security command at the command line. It appears in the keychain access app, but not in the passwords app. I don't understand why. rickhedin@Ricks-MacBook-Pro zalando % security add-generic-password -U -s "birds" -a "cats" -w "dogs" rickhedin@Ricks-MacBook-Pro zalando % rickhedin@Ricks-MacBook-Pro zalando % security find-generic-password -s "birds" -wa "cats" dogs rickhedin@Ricks-MacBook-Pro zalando % I'm told the two apps are two views of the same data, so I guess some filter must be being applied?

Why can’t sandboxed mac app store apps have full disk access available in the system settings for full disk access? I discovered mac app store apps in release mode cannot access the ai auggie command line program and other command line programs like opengrep on your system. Debug builds fine. I came up with a workaround: Since I have an ssh client built in for connecting to remote servers, why not connect to ssh on the same local machine… Ask the user for their username and password in a popup. To do this, you have to enable remote login on your mac in system settings -> sharing. In addition you must grant full disk access to cli ssh in system settings: add /usr/libexec/sshd-keygen-wrapper It all works, but I don’t see the cli program in mac settings. To remove the cli program you must run a command line program to remove all full disk access support from all apps. No way to just undo ssh. So my question is, even though I got CodeFrog all working for a mac app store release, should I not do it because it’s insecure or too complicated with the system settings? Should I instead sell the app off the store like Panic Nova? Need some advice. I have not implemented in app purchases yet. Should I just have a reality check and sell the app off the store, or try for app store approval? Bummer… Maybe I’m ahead of my time, but perhaps Apple could review the source code for apps requesting full disk access and make sure there’s nothing fraudulent in them. Then, developer tools app store apps could be in the store with the user’s assurance that nothing is happening behind the scenes that is scary. From: https://blog.greenrobot.com/2025/11/10/i-have-a-decision-to-make/ Related post: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/806187 I submitted a code level tech support question for this. They directed me here.

We have a custom SecurityAgentPlugin that is triggered by multiple authorizationdb entries. Some customers report that the SecurityAgent process takes window focus even though no UI or windows are displayed. Our plugin explicitly ignores the _securityAgent user and does not show any UI for that user. However, in macOS 26.1, it appears that the plugin still causes the SecurityAgent to take focus as soon as it is triggered. Is this a change in macOS 26.1 or a bug? Can we do anything to prevent "focus stealing"?

I cannot find any reference to this within the Apple developer documents (or certainly searching for multiple possible keywords yields no results). The only reference I can find is to documents written in support of its announcement in 2002: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=huqjyh7k. Is there any further documentation on implementing or has the capability been deprecated?

Recently, we have adapted the passkey function on the Mac, but we always encounter the error message "Unable to verify the web credentials association of xxx with domain aaa. Please try again in a few seconds." We can confirm that https://aaa/.well-known/apple-app-site-association has been configured and is accessible over the public network. Additionally, the entitlements in the app have also been set with webcredentials:aaa. This feature has been experiencing inconsistent performance. When I restart my computer or reinstall the pkg, this feature may work or it may still not work. I believe this is a system issue. Here is feed back ID: FB20876945 In the feedback, I provided the relevant logs. If you have any suggestions or assistance, please contact me. I would be extremely grateful!

Hi, I am developing a Platform SSO in order to have integrated with our IdP, which I am also adapting to provide the right endpoints for Platform SSO. I have a few questions about the implementation: does the client-request-id need to be present on all requests? Is it unique per request, or requests that are bound together like those requesting a nonce and those who will use that nonce should use the same client-request-id? I am not sure how the loginManager.presentRegistrationViewController works. I'd like to get the user to authenticate to my IdP before device registration. So I am not sure if I should provide my own Webview or something similar or if this method should do something for me; My idea is to request user authentication once, save the state when performing device registration, so that I avoid asking for user authentication twice when performing user registration. Is this the right way to do it? How does platform SSO handles tokens? If one application of my IdP requests the authentication on a common OIDC/OAuth2 flow, should I perform some sort of token exchange? How about SAML? Platform SSO seems to be token-centric, but how does one handle SAML flows? Is it by using WebView as well?

Hi, After enabling the new Enhanced Security capability in Xcode 26, I’m seeing install failures on devices running < iOS 26. Deployment target: iOS 15.0 Capability: Enhanced Security (added via Signing & Capabilities tab) Building to iOS 18 device error - Unable to Install ...Please ensure sure that your app is signed by a valid provisioning profile. It works fine on iOS 26 devices. I’d like to confirm Apple’s intent here: Is this capability formally supported only on iOS 26 and later, and therefore incompatible with earlier OS versions? Or should older systems ignore the entitlement, meaning this behavior might be a bug?

On macOS 26.1 (25B78) I can't give Full Disk Access to sshd-keygen-wrapper. Now my Jenkins jobs do not work because they do not have the permission to execute the necessary scripts. Until macOS 26.1 everything worked fine. I restarted the machine several times and tried to give access from Settings -> Privacy & Security -> Full Disk Access but it just does not work. I tried logging with ssh on the machine and executing a script but again nothing happened.

I'm looking to implement USB monitoring for FIDO2 authentication through a custom Authorization Plugin, specifically for the below ones. This plugin applies to the following macOS authorization mechanisms: system.login.console — login window authentication system.login.screensaver — screensaver unlock authentication The goal is to build a GUI AuthPlugin, an authorization plugin that presents a custom window prompting the user to "Insert your FIDO key”. Additionally, the plugin should detect when the FIDO2 device is removed and respond accordingly. Additional Info: We have already developed a custom authorization plugin which is a primary authentication using OTP at login and Lock Screen. We are now extending to include FIDO2 support as a primary. Our custom authorization plugin is designed to replace the default loginwindow:login mechanism with a custom implementation. Question: Is there a reliable approach to achieve the USB monitoring functionality through a custom authorization plugin? Any guidance or pointers on this would be greatly appreciated.

It seems it is not possible to give a CLI app (non .app bundle) full disk access in macOS 26.1. This seems like a bug and if not that is a breaking change. Anybody seeing the same problem? Our application needs full disk access for a service running as a LaunchDaemon. The binary is located in a /Library subfolder.

Hi everyone, I’m looking for clarification on best practices for storing API keys in an iOS app — for example, keys used with RevenueCat, PostHog, AWS Rekognition, barcode scanners, and similar third-party services. I understand that hard-coding API keys directly in the app’s source code is a bad idea, since they can be extracted from the binary. However, using a .plist file doesn’t seem secure either, as it’s still bundled with the app and can be inspected. I’m wondering: What are Apple’s recommended approaches for managing these kinds of keys? Does Xcode Cloud offer a built-in or best-practice method for securely injecting environment variables or secrets at build time? Would using an external service like AWS Secrets Manager or another server-side solution make sense for this use case? Any insights or examples of how others are handling this securely within Apple’s ecosystem would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for considering my questions! — Paul

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've been spending days trying to solve the memory leak in a small menu bar application I've wrote (SC Menu). I've used Instruments which shows the leaks and memory graph which shows unreleased allocations. This occurs when someone views a certificate on the smartcard. Basically it opens a new window and displays the certificate, the same way Keychain Access displays a certificate. Whenever I create an SFCertificateView instance and set setDetailsDisclosed(true) - a memory leak happens. Instruments highlights that line. import Cocoa import SecurityInterface class ViewCertsViewController: NSViewController { var selectedCert: SecIdentity? = nil override func viewDidLoad() { super.viewDidLoad() self.view = NSView(frame: NSRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: 500, height: 500)) self.view.wantsLayer = true var secRef: SecCertificate? = nil guard let selectedCert else { return } let certRefErr = SecIdentityCopyCertificate(selectedCert, &secRef) if certRefErr != errSecSuccess { os_log("Error getting certificate from identity: %{public}@", log: OSLog.default, type: .error, String(describing: certRefErr)) return } let scrollView = NSScrollView() scrollView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.borderType = .lineBorder scrollView.hasHorizontalScroller = true scrollView.hasVerticalScroller = true let certView = SFCertificateView() guard let secRef = secRef else { return } certView.setCertificate(secRef) certView.setDetailsDisclosed(true) certView.setDisplayTrust(true) certView.setEditableTrust(true) certView.setDisplayDetails(true) certView.setPolicies(SecPolicyCreateBasicX509()) certView.translatesAutoresizingMaskIntoConstraints = false scrollView.documentView = certView view.addSubview(scrollView) // Layout constraints NSLayoutConstraint.activate([ scrollView.leadingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.leadingAnchor), scrollView.trailingAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.trailingAnchor), scrollView.topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.topAnchor), scrollView.bottomAnchor.constraint(equalTo: view.bottomAnchor), // Provide certificate view a width and height constraint certView.widthAnchor.constraint(equalTo: scrollView.widthAnchor), certView.heightAnchor.constraint(greaterThanOrEqualToConstant: 500) ]) } } https://github.com/boberito/sc_menu/blob/dev_2.0/smartcard_menu/ViewCertsViewController.swift Fairly simple.

Hi, is it somehow possible to access a key that was generated by the DCAppAttestService generateKey() function? I need to be 100% sure that no actor from within or outside of my app can access the generated key with the DeviceCheck Framework. It would also be helpful to get some official resources to the topic. Thank you in advance, Mike

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 have an Autofill Passkey Provider working for Safari and Chrome via WebAuthn protocol. Unfortunately, Chrome will not offer my extension as a logon credential provider unless I add the credential to the ASCredentialIdentityStore. I wonder what is the best way to access the ASCredentialIdentityStore from an AutoFill extension? I understand I cannot access it directly from the extension context, so what is the best way to trigger my container app to run, based on a new WebAuthn registration? The best I can think of so far is for the www site to provide an App Link to launch my container app as part of the registration ceremony. Safari will offer my extension even without adding it to the ASCredentialIdentityStore, so I guess I should file a request with Chrome to work this way too, given difficulty of syncing ASCredentialIdentityStore with WebAuthn registration.

Hello, I'm an application developer related to Apple system extensions. I developed an endpoint security system extension that can run normally before the 14.x system. However, after I upgraded to 15.x, I found that when I uninstalled and reinstalled my system extension, although the system extension was installed successfully, a system warning box would pop up when I clicked enable in the Settings, indicating a failure. I conducted the following test. I reinstalled a brand-new MAC 15.x system. When I installed my applications, the system extensions could be installed successfully and enabled normally. However, when I uninstalled and reinstalled, my system extension couldn't be enabled properly and a system warning popped up as well. I tried disabling SIP and enabling System Extension Developers, but it still didn't work. When the system warning box pops up, I can see some error log information through the console application, including an error related to Failed to authorize right 'com.apple.system-extensions.admin' by client '/System/Library/ExtensionKit/Extensions/SettingsSystemExtensionController.appex' [2256] for authorization created by '/System/Library/ExtensionKit/Extensions/SettingsSystemExtensionController.appex' [2256] (3,0) (-60005) (engine 179) as shown in the screenshot. The same problem, mentioned in Cannot approve some extensions in MacOS Sequoia , but there is no solution

I'm working on integrating Passkey functionality into my iOS app (targeting iOS 16.0+), and I'm facing an issue where the system dialog still shows the "Save to another device" option during Passkey registration. I want to hide this option to force users to create Passkeys only on the current device. 1. My Current Registration Implementation Here’s the code I’m using to create a Passkey registration request. I’ve tried to use ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider (which is supposed to target platform authenticators like Face ID/Touch ID), but the "Save to another device" option still appears: `// Initialize provider for platform authenticators let provider = ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialProvider(relyingPartyIdentifier: domain) // Create registration request let registrationRequest = provider.createCredentialRegistrationRequest( challenge: challenge, name: username, userID: userId ) // Optional configurations (tried these but no effect on "another device" option) registrationRequest.displayName = "Test Device" registrationRequest.userVerificationPreference = .required registrationRequest.attestationPreference = .none // Set up authorization controller let authController = ASAuthorizationController(authorizationRequests: [registrationRequest]) let delegate = PasskeyRegistrationDelegate(completion: completion) authController.delegate = delegate // Trigger the registration flow authController.performRequests(options: .preferImmediatelyAvailableCredentials)` 2. Observation from Authentication Flow (Working as Expected) During the Passkey authentication flow (not registration), I can successfully hide the "Use another device" option by specifying allowedCredentials in the ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialAssertionRequest. Here’s a simplified example of that working code: let assertionRequest = provider.createCredentialAssertionRequest(challenge: challenge) assertionRequest.allowedCredentials = allowedCredentials After adding allowedCredentials, the system dialog no longer shows cross-device options—this is exactly the behavior I want for registration. 3. My Questions Is there a similar parameter to allowedCredentials (from authentication) that I can use during registration to hide the "Save to another device" option? Did I miss any configuration in the registration request (e.g., authenticatorAttachment or other properties) that forces the flow to use only the current device’s platform authenticator? Are there any system-level constraints or WebAuthn standards I’m overlooking that cause the "Save to another device" option to persist during registration? Any insights or code examples would be greatly appreciated!

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?