Hi, The email attached states that we need to add GoogleToolboxForMac's missing privacy manifest. I received the attached report after running my app privacy report, however it is different and does not include GoogleToolboxForMac. I'm not sure if we need to add the privacy manifest for GoogleToolboxForMac alone or for both of them. If yes, what should I put in my privacy manifest for GoogleToolboxForMac? IS IT BELOW CODE NEED TO ADD IN PRIVACY MANIFEST OR IS IT BELOW CODE NEED TO ADD IN PRIVACY MANIFEST Please reply ASAP Regards, Viharshitha

Hi, We are using the MSAL library to authenticate users, with SSO authentication implemented through the Microsoft Authenticator app. The problem is that once or twice a day, a prompt for forced authentication appears, indicating that silent token acquisition is failing and resulting in a requirement for forced authentication. Below are some of the logs: ================================================= 2025-08-28 11:00:05.034 [Info] [AppDelegate.swift:121] application(:didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:) > MSAL message: TID=751353 MSAL 1.8.1 iOS 18.5 [2025-08-28 10:00:05 - EC9D1457-2D70-4878-926F-553391EBC9D3] [MSAL] Silent flow finished. Result (null), error: -51115 error domain: MSIDErrorDomain 2025-08-28 11:00:05.034 [Info] [AppDelegate.swift:121] application(:didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:) > MSAL message: TID=751353 MSAL 1.8.1 iOS 18.5 [2025-08-28 10:00:05 - EC9D1457-2D70-4878-926F-553391EBC9D3] [MSAL] acquireTokenSilent returning with error: (MSALErrorDomain, -50002) Masked(not-null) ==================================================== We initially raised this issue with Microsoft, but according to them: In the app's logs, the single one failure it contains, was when the SSO extension returned the error com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError, -6000 during a silent call. This error code is generated by the system framework (Apple), not by our code. It indicates that the framework encountered an unexpected internal issue before or after calling the SSO extension. MSAL returning interaction_required to the client app is the most effective way to recover from this error (as you mention, after the user selects the account the app continues working as expected). Additionally, as you also mention, the interactive call is made by switching to Authenticator (not displaying a "window" without leaving Eva Lite app), which means MSAL is not able to use the SSO extension and is using the fallback to legacy authentication. The recommended next step is for the customer to request support directly from Apple as this is an issue on their side. Additionally, the customer can also try to update to the latest iOS, in case Apple has already fixed this issue. ============================================= STEPS TO REPRODUCE There is no such steps its just that this is an enterprise application which is getting used on managed devices[iPhone 14]. The device are managed using some intune policy. Platform and Version: iOS Development Environment: Xcode 15, macOS 13.6.1 Run-time Configuration: iOS 18 Please let me know if there are any solutions to resolve this problem. Thank you.

Hello, I’m storing some values in the Keychain with the attribute ‘ksecattraccessibleafterfirstunlockthisdeviceonly’ (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/ksecattraccessibleafterfirstunlockthisdeviceonly). When I migrate user data between iPhones via iCloud, this behaves as expected and the keys are not preserved. However, when I migrate using a direct connection between two devices, the keys are preserved, which seems to contradict the attribute’s intent. Is this a known behavior, and if so, is there a workaround?

Hello everyone. Hope this one finds you well) I have an issue with integrating a FIDO2 server with ASAuthorizationController. I have managed to register a user with passkey successfully, however when authenticating, the request for authentication response fails. The server can't validate signature field. I can see 2 possible causes for the issue: ASAuthorizationPlatformPublicKeyCredentialAssertion.rawAuthenticatorData contains invalid algorithm information (the server tries ES256, which ultimately fails with false response), or I have messed up Base64URL encoding for the signature property (which is unlikely, since all other fields also require Base64URL, and the server consumes them with no issues). So the question is, what encryption algorithm does ASAuthorizationController use? Maybe someone has other ideas regarding where to look into? Please help. Thanks)

Hey there, I’m currently exploring the possibility of integrating Sign in with Apple into my iOS app and backend. Regarding the iOS app, I’ve read that when a user is signed in, you always need to call getCredentialState on the app’s launch. Is this true? If so, how is it possible to sign the user out then? I intend to incorporate SwiftData and CloudKit into my application. In light of this, I’m curious about your approach to user management. Specifically, I’m wondering if you would store the user’s data in a Redis database after successful authentication on the backend. Or, would you separate the user data and save it using SwiftData/ CloudKit?

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

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

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!

Hey everyone, I'm working on a password manager app for iOS and I'm trying to implement the new iOS 18 feature that lets users enable autofill directly from within the app. I know this exists because I've seen it in action in another app. They've clearly figured it out, but I'm struggling to find any documentation or info about the specific API. Has anyone else had any luck finding this? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

I have been trying to find a way to be able to sign some data with private key of an identity in login keychain without raising any prompts. I am able to do this with system keychain (obviously with correct permissions and checks) but not with login keychain. It always ends up asking user for their login password. Here is how the code looks, roughly, NSDictionary *query = @{ (__bridge id)kSecClass: (__bridge id)kSecClassIdentity, (__bridge id)kSecReturnRef: @YES, (__bridge id)kSecMatchLimit: (__bridge id)kSecMatchLimitAll }; CFTypeRef result = NULL; OSStatus status = SecItemCopyMatching((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)query, (CFTypeRef *)&result); NSArray *identities = ( NSArray *)result; SecIdentityRef identity = NULL; for (id _ident in identities) { // pick one as required } SecKeyRef privateKey = NULL; OSStatus status = SecIdentityCopyPrivateKey(identity, &privateKey); NSData *strData = [string dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]; unsigned char hash[CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; CC_SHA256(strData.bytes, (CC_LONG)strData.length, hash); NSData *digestData = [NSData dataWithBytes:hash length:CC_SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH]; CFErrorRef cfError = NULL; NSData *signature = (__bridge_transfer NSData *)SecKeyCreateSignature(privateKey, kSecKeyAlgorithmRSASignatureDigestPKCS1v15SHA256, (__bridge CFDataRef)digestData, &cfError); Above code raises these system logs in console default 08:44:52.781024+0000 securityd client is valid, proceeding default 08:44:52.781172+0000 securityd code requirement check failed (-67050), client is not Apple-signed default 08:44:52.781233+0000 securityd displaying keychain prompt for /Applications/Demo.app(81692) If the key is in login keychain, is there any way to do SecKeyCreateSignature without raising prompts? What does client is not Apple-signed mean? PS: Identities are pre-installed either manually or via some device management solution, the application is not installing them.

I have a sandboxed Mac app which I can grant access to a folder using an NSOpenPanel. Once it’s been granted access it can enumerate the contents of the folder just fine. If I rename the folder while the app is open and then make the app enumerate the folder’s contents again, though, it seems to have lost access. What’s the recommended way to have an app’s sandbox “track” files as they’re moved around the filesystem? (NSDocument handles this for you, from what I can tell.) I’ve managed to hack something together with a combination of Dispatch sources and security-scoped bookmarks, but it feels like there must be an easier solution …

I am working on adding RFC4217 Secure FTP with TLS by extending Mike Gleason's classic libncftp client library. I refactored the code to include an FTP channel abstraction with FTP channel abstraction types for TCP, TLS, and TCP with Opportunistic TLS types. The first implementation of those included BSD sockets that libncftp has always supported with the clear TCP channel type. I first embarked on extending the sockets implementation by adding TCP, TLS, and TCP with Opportunistic TLS channel abstraction types against the new, modern Network.framework C-based APIs, including using the “tricky” framer technique to employ a TCP with Opportunistic TLS FTP channel abstraction type to support explicit FTPS as specified by RFC4217 where you have to connect first in the clear with TCP, request AUTH TLS, and then start TLS after receiving positive confirmation. That all worked great. Unfortunately, at the end of that effort, I discovered that many modern FTPS server implementations (vsftpd, pure-ftpd, proftpd) mandate TLS session reuse / resumption across the control and data channels, specifying the identical session ID and cipher suites across the control and data channels. Since Network.framework lacked a necessary and equivalent to the Secure Transport SSLSetPeerID, I retrenched and rewrote the necessary TLS and TCP with Opportunistic TLS FTP channel abstraction types using the now-deprecated Secure Transport APIs atop the Network.framework-based TCP clear FTP channel type abstraction I had just written. Using the canonical test server I had been using throughout development, test.rebex.net, this Secure Transport solution seemed to work perfectly, working in clear, secure-control-only, and secure-control+data explicit FTPS operation. I then proceeded to expand testing to include a broad set of Microsoft FTP Service, pure-ftpd, vsftpd, proftpd, and other FTP servers identified on the Internet (a subset from this list: https://gist.github.com/mnjstwins/85ac8348d6faeb32b25908d447943300). In doing that testing, beyond test.rebex.net, I was unable to identify a single (among hundreds), that successfully work with secure-control+data explicit FTPS operation even though nearly all of them work with secure-control-only explicit FTPS operation. So, I started regressing my libncftp + Network.framework + Secure Transport implementation against curl 8.7.1 on macOS 14.7.2 “Sonoma": % which curl; `which curl` --version /usr/bin/curl curl 8.7.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin23.0) libcurl/8.7.1 (SecureTransport) LibreSSL/3.3.6 zlib/1.2.12 nghttp2/1.61.0 Release-Date: 2024-03-27 Protocols: dict file ftp ftps gopher gophers http https imap imaps ipfs ipns ldap ldaps mqtt pop3 pop3s rtsp smb smbs smtp smtps telnet tftp Features: alt-svc AsynchDNS GSS-API HSTS HTTP2 HTTPS-proxy IPv6 Kerberos Largefile libz MultiSSL NTLM SPNEGO SSL threadsafe UnixSockets I find that curl (also apparently written against Secure Transport) works in almost all of the cases my libncftp does not. This is a representative example: % ./samples/misc/ncftpgetbytes -d stderr --secure --explicit --secure-both ftps://ftp.sjtu.edu.cn:21/pub/README.NetInstall which fails in the secure-control+data case with errSSLClosedAbort on the data channel TLS handshake, just after ClientHello, attempts whereas: % curl -4 --verbose --ftp-pasv --ftp-ssl-reqd ftp://ftp.sjtu.edu.cn:21/pub/README.NetInstall succeeds. I took an in-depth look at the implementation of github.com/apple-oss-distributions/curl/ and git/github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Security/ to identify areas where my implementation was, perhaps, deficient relative to curl and its curl/lib/vtls/sectransp.c Secure Transport implementation. As far as I can tell, I am doing everything consistently with what the Apple OSS implementation of curl is doing. The analysis included: SSLSetALPNProtocols Not applicable for FTP; only used for HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. SSLSetCertificate Should only be relevant when a custom, non-Keychain-based certificate is used. SSLSetEnabledCiphers This could be an issue; however, the cipher suite used for the data channel should be the same as that used for the control channel. curl talks about disabling "weak" cipher suites that are known-insecure even though the default suites macOS enables are unlikely to enable them. SSLSetProtocolVersionEnabled We do not appear to be getting a protocol version negotiation error, so this seems unlikely, but possible. SSLSetProtocolVersionMax We do not appear to be getting a protocol version negotiation error, so this seems unlikely, but possible. SSLSetProtocolVersionMin We do not appear to be getting a protocol version negotiation error, so this seems unlikely, but possible. SSLSetSessionOption( , kSSLSessionOptionFalseStart) curl does seem to enable this for certain versions of macOS and disables it for others. Possible. Running curl with the --false-start option does not seem to make a difference. SSLSetSessionOption( , kSSLSessionOptionSendOneByteRecord) Corresponds to "*****" which seems defaulted and is related to an SSL security flaw when using CBC-based block encryption ciphers, which is not applicable here. Based on that, further experiments I attempted included: Disable use of kSSLSessionOptionBreakOnServerAuth: No impact Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionFalseStart: No impact Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionSendOneByteRecord: No impact Use SSLSetProtocolVersionMin and SSLSetProtocolVersionMax in various combinations: No impact Use SSLSetProtocolVersionEnabled in various combinations: No impact Forcibly set a single cipher suite (TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384, known to work with a given server): No impact Employ a SetDefaultCipherSuites function similar to what curl does (filtering out “weak” cipher suites): No impact Notably, I can never coax a similar set of cipher suites that macOS curl does with that technique. In fact, it publishes ciphers that aren’t even in <Security/CipherSuite.h> nor referenced by github.com/apple-oss-distributions/curl/curl/lib/vtls/sectransp.c. Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionAllowRenegotiation: No impact Assert use of kSSLSessionOptionEnableSessionTickets: No impact Looking at Wireshark, my ClientHello includes status_request, signed_certificate_timestamp, and extended_master_secret extensions whereas macOS curl's never do--same Secure Transport APIs. None of the above API experiments seem to influence the inclusion / exclusion of those three ClientHello additions. Any suggestions are welcomed that might shine a light on what native curl has access to that allows it to work with ST for these FTP secure-control+data use cases.

Hello everyone, We recently transferred our iOS app from one Apple Developer account to another, and after the transfer, we encountered a serious issue where all previously stored Keychain data and the local database became inaccessible. As a result, all users are automatically logged out and lose access to their locally stored data (such as chat history) once they update to the new version signed with the new Team ID. We understand that Keychain items are tied to the App ID prefix (Team ID), which changes during an app transfer. However, we’re looking for possible workarounds or best practices to avoid user data loss. Questions: Is there any reliable method to maintain or migrate access to old Keychain data after an app transfer? Would reverting the app back to the original developer account and releasing an update from there (to persist or migrate data) before transferring it again be a viable solution? Has anyone faced a similar issue and found a practical way to handle data persistence during an app transfer? Any guidance, technical suggestions, or shared experiences would be highly appreciated. This issue is causing major impact for our users, so we’re hoping to find a safe and supported approach. Thank you, Mohammed Hassan

I need to open p12 file from other iOS applications to import private key to my application. My app is set up to be able to open nay file with following plist <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>CFBundleDocumentTypes</key> <array> <dict> <key>CFBundleTypeName</key> <string>Files</string> <key>LSHandlerRank</key> <string>Default</string> <key>LSItemContentTypes</key> <array> <string>public.item</string> <string>public.data</string> <string>public.content</string> </array> </dict> </array> </dict> </plist> But my don't appear in share dialog from Files or Mail app for example. There are however other third party apps that can accept this file. Some of them use Share extension which I don't have, but some of them don't have it as far as I can understand. At least they don't present any UI and open apps directly. Also I've tried to specify com.rsa.pkcs-12 UTI directly but it didn't help. Also noticed that *.crt files have similar behaviour. Am I missing something about this specific file type?

I work for Brave, a browser with ~80M users. We want to introduce a new system for automatic updates called Omaha 4 (O4). It's the same system that powers automatic updates in Chrome. O4 runs as a separate application on users' systems. For Chrome, this works as follows: An app called GoogleUpdater.app regularly checks for updates in the background. When a new version is found, then GoogleUpdater.app installs it into Chrome's installation directory /Applications/Google Chrome.app. But consider what this means: A separate application, GoogleUpdater.app, is able to modify Google Chrome.app. This is especially surprising because, for example, the built-in Terminal.app is not able to modify Google Chrome.app. Here's how you can check this for yourself: (Re-)install Chrome with its DMG installer. Run the following command in Terminal: mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test. This works. Undo the command: rm -rf /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test Start Chrome and close it again. mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test now fails with "Operation not permitted". (These steps assume that Terminal does not have Full Disk Access and System Integrity Protection is enabled.) In other words, once Chrome was started at least once, another application (Terminal in this case) is no longer allowed to modify it. But at the same time, GoogleUpdater.app is able to modify Chrome. It regularly applies updates to the browser. For each update, this process begins with an mkdir call similarly to the one shown above. How is this possible? What is it in macOS that lets GoogleUpdater.app modify Chrome, but not another app such as Terminal? Note that Terminal is not sandboxed. I've checked that it's not related to codesigning or notarization issues. In our case, the main application (Brave) and the updater (BraveUpdater) are signed and notarized with the same certificate and have equivalent requirements, entitlements and provisioning profiles as Chrome and GoogleUpdater. The error that shows up in the Console for the disallowed mkdir call is: kernel (Sandbox) System Policy: mkdir(8917) deny(1) file-write-create /Applications/Google Chrome.app/foo (It's a similar error when BraveUpdater tries to install a new version into /Applications/Brave Browser.app.) The error goes away when I disable System Integrity Protection. But of course, we cannot ask users to do that. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Problem Statement: Pre-requisite is to generate a PKCS#12 file using openssl 3.x or above. Note: I have created a sample cert, but unable to upload it to this thread. Let me know if there is a different way I can upload. When trying to import a p12 certificate (generated using openssl 3.x) using SecPKCS12Import on MacOS (tried on Ventura, Sonoma, Sequoia). It is failing with the error code: -25264 and error message: MAC verification failed during PKCS12 import (wrong password?). I have tried importing in multiple ways through, Security Framework API (SecPKCS12Import) CLI (security import <cert_name> -k ~/Library/Keychains/login.keychain -P "<password>”) Drag and drop in to the Keychain Application All of them fail to import the p12 cert. RCA: The issues seems to be due to the difference in the MAC algorithm. The MAC algorithm used in the modern certs (by OpenSSL3 is SHA-256) which is not supported by the APPLE’s Security Framework. The keychain seems to be expecting the MAC algorithm to be SHA-1. Workaround: The current workaround is to convert the modern p12 cert to a legacy format (using openssl legacy provider which uses openssl 1.1.x consisting of insecure algorithms) which the SecPKCS12Import API understands. I have created a sample code using references from another similar thread (https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/723242) from 2023. The steps to compile and execute the sample is mentioned in the same file. PFA the sample code by the name “pkcs12_modern_to_legacy_converter.cpp”. Also PFA a sample certificate which will help reproduce the issue by the name “modern_certificate.p12” whose password is “export”. Questions: Is there a fix on this issue? If yes, pls guide me through it; else, is it expected to be fixed in the future releases? Is there a different way to import the p12 cert which is resistant to the issue? This issue also poses a security concerns on using outdated cryptographic algorithms. Kindly share your thoughts. pkcs12_modern_to_legacy_converter.cpp

Hello -- I am developing an Authentication Plug-in for the purpose of invoking login with no user interaction (headless). There seems to be sufficient documentation and sample code on how to implement a plug-in and mechanism, and debug the same, which is great. What I am trying to understand is exactly how to modify the login right (system.login.console) in order to accomplish my goal. Question 1: I had the idea of installing my mechanism as the first mechanism of the login right, and when invoked to set the username and password into the engine’s context, in the belief that this would negate the system from needing to display the login screen. I didn’t modify or remove any other mechanisms. This did not work, in the sense that the login screen was still shown. Should this work in theory? Question 2: I then tried modifying the login right to remove anything that interacted with the user, leaving only the following: <array> <string>builtin:prelogin</string> <string>builtin:login-begin</string> <string>builtin:forward-login,privileged</string> <string>builtin:auto-login,privileged</string> <string>MyAuthPlugin:customauth,privileged</string> <string>PKINITMechanism:auth,privileged</string> <string>builtin:login-success</string> <string>HomeDirMechanism:login,privileged</string> <string>HomeDirMechanism:status</string> <string>MCXMechanism:login</string> <string>CryptoTokenKit:login</string> </array> The mechanisms I removed were: <string>builtin:policy-banner</string> <string>loginwindow:login</string> <string>builtin:reset-password,privileged</string> <string>loginwindow:FDESupport,privileged</string> <string>builtin:authenticate,privileged</string> <string>loginwindow:success</string> <string>loginwindow:done</string> In place of builtin:authenticate I supplied my own mechanism to verify the user’s password using OD and then set the username and password in the context. This attempt appears to have failed quite badly, as authd reported an error almost immediately (I believe it was related to the AuthEngine failing to init). There’s very little information to go on as to what each of these mechanisms do, and which are required, etc. Am I on the wrong track in attempting this? What would be the correct approach?

Hello! We have code that extracts macOS Installer package (.pkg, .mpkg) signature information using APIs defined in <xar/xar.h> The code opens the package using ‘xar_open’ API like this. func open(file: String) throws(XarError) { xarfile = xar_open(file, READ) if xarfile == nil { throw .fileOpenError } } This code produces a clang warning in our CI build system when built for macOS 12 and up. 'xar_open' was deprecated in macOS 12.0: xar is a deprecated file format and should not be used. Question #1: What is the appropriate / more preferred way to extract signature information from an Installer package given that xar related APIs are deprecated? We use xar APIs to validate the package signature prior to installation to prevent packagers not signed by our team ID from being installed. Question #2: “xar is a deprecated file format and should not be used.”. Does this phrase refer to the file format that should be avoided or the API that extract signature information? We distribute our product using Developer ID method that using pkg/mpkg formats which I believe internally follow the same structure as xar files. I hope this message does not mean we should rethink the distribution method for our products. Thank you. Filed FB FB17148233 as well.

I am working on improving Keychain item storage secured with Face ID using SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags. The implementation uses the .biometryAny flag as shown below: SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags( kCFAllocatorDefault, kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, .biometryAny, &amp;error ) While this approach generally works as expected, I encountered a specific edge case during testing. On iOS 18.3.1 with Xcode 15.4, the following sequence causes the Keychain item to become inaccessible: Navigate to Settings &gt; Face ID &amp; Passcode and select Reset Face ID. Before setting up a new Face ID, tap the Back button to exit the setup process. Reopen the Face ID setup and complete the enrollment. Return to the app—previously stored Keychain items protected by .biometryAny are no longer available. This behavior appears to be a change introduced in recent iOS versions. In versions prior to iOS 15, resetting or deleting Face ID entries did not invalidate existing Keychain items protected by .biometryAny. This difference in behavior between iOS versions raises questions about the changes to biometric protection handling. Any suggestions are welcomed that might shine a light on what the best practice to use keychain access control and prevent the data to become unavailable.