Hello, I have created an app for both iOs and Android where upon speaking two trigger words, the listening app sends a text and then calls to an inputted designated phone contact. The Android version works perfectly. The iOs version also works perfectly but the iOs app emiits a PopUp for each, the text and then the call asking "Do you really want to send the text -or- make the call". Basically, I input the contact info and I spoke the trigger words. So, yes I want to send the text and make the call. So, I have to click the two PopUps then the device sends and calls. Is there a way to suppress the PopUps in any way? The app is designed for emergencies. So, a dely to anser a popup is not at all good. Maybe by telling the device to allow auto calls and texts from my app? Any and all help on this issue will be very welcomed... Thanks :)

Hello, I am developing a macOS menu bar window-management utility (similar in functionality to Magnet / Rectangle) that relies on the Accessibility (AXUIElement) API to move and resize windows and on global hotkeys. I am facing a consistent issue when App Sandbox is enabled. Summary: App Sandbox enabled Hardened Runtime enabled Apple Events entitlement enabled NSAccessibilityDescription present in Info.plist AXIsProcessTrustedWithOptions is called with prompt enabled Observed behavior: When App Sandbox is enabled, the Accessibility permission prompt never appears. The app cannot be manually added in System Settings → Privacy & Security → Accessibility. AXIsProcessTrusted always returns false. As a result, window snapping does not work. When App Sandbox is disabled: The Accessibility prompt appears correctly. The app functions as expected. This behavior occurs both: In local builds In TestFlight builds My questions: Is this expected behavior for sandboxed macOS apps that rely on Accessibility APIs? Are window-management utilities expected to ship without App Sandbox enabled? Is there any supported entitlement or configuration that allows a sandboxed app to request Accessibility permission? Thank you for any clarification.

WebAuthn Level 3 § 5.1.3 Step 22 Item 4 states the steps a user agent MUST follow when "conditional" mediation is used in conjunction with required user verification: Let userVerification be the effective user verification requirement for credential creation, a Boolean value, as follows. If pkOptions.authenticatorSelection.userVerification is set to required If options.mediation is set to conditional and user verification cannot be collected during the ceremony, throw a ConstraintError DOMException. Let userVerification be true. On my iPhone 15 Pro Max running iOS 18.5, Safari + Passwords does not exhibit this behavior; instead an error is not reported and user verification is not performed (i.e., the UV bit is 0). Per the spec this results in a registration ceremony failure on the server which is made all the more "annoying" since the credential was created in Passwords forcing a user to then delete the credential. : If the Relying Party requires user verification for this registration, verify that the UV bit of the flags in authData is set. In contrast when I use Google Password Manager + Chrome on a Samsung Galaxy S24 running Android 15, user verification is enforced and the UV bit is 1. Either the UV bit should be 1 after enforcing user verification or an error should be thrown since user verification cannot be performed.

Hello, I'm seeking some clarification regarding the use of accessibility and input monitoring APIs in sandboxed apps that are distributed through the App Store. I understand that accessibility permissions are generally restricted for App Store apps. However, I've seen several recently released apps request these permissions directly upon first launch. I'm aware that apps submitted prior to 2012 may have legacy access to certain APIs, but the ones I'm referring to appear to be recent - within the past year. While it's possible these apps were approved despite the restrictions, I want to make sure I'm not overlooking something. I also came across a recent discussion on this topic, and one post in particular stood out: Link I’d really appreciate some clarification on what's officially allowed. Specifically: Are accessibility permissions ever allowed? If so, under what circumstances? Is input monitoring permitted for apps on the App Store? (The referenced post says yes, but since it's from 2022, I just want to confirm) The linked post suggests that event generation might be allowed on the App Store, though the author hadn’t explored that privilege in detail and recommended opening a DTS tech support incident. I’ve done that and have a support case open - would it be possible to take a closer look at this? For context, my app (currently distributed outside the App Store) uses CGEventPost and CGEventCreateMouseEvent to modify mouse behavior. Thank you

We recently upgraded OpenSSL from version 1.1.1 to 3.4.0. After this upgrade, we observed that PKCS#12 files generated using OpenSSL 3.4.0 fail to import into the macOS Keychain with the following error: Failed to import PKCS#12 data: -25264 (MAC verification failed during PKCS12 import (wrong password?)) This issue is reproducible on macOS 14.8.2. The same PKCS#12 files import successfully on other macOS versions, including 15.x and 26.x. Additionally, PKCS#12 files that fail to import on macOS 14.8 work correctly when copied and imported on other macOS versions without any errors. PKCS#12 Creation The PKCS#12 data is created using the following OpenSSL API: const char* platformPKCS12SecureKey = _platformSecureKey.has_value() ? _platformSecureKey.value().c_str() : NULL; PKCS12* p12 = PKCS12_create( platformPKCS12SecureKey, NULL, keys, _cert, NULL, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ); if (!p12) { throw std::runtime_error("Failed to create PKCS#12 container"); } PKCS#12 Import The generated PKCS#12 data is imported into the macOS Keychain using the following code: NSString *certPassKey = [NSString stringWithUTF8String:getCertPassKey()]; NSDictionary *options = @{ (__bridge id)kSecImportExportPassphrase: certPassKey, (__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessible: (__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly, (__bridge id)kSecAttrIsExtractable: @YES, (__bridge id)kSecAttrIsPermanent: @YES, (__bridge id)kSecAttrAccessGroup: APP_GROUP }; CFArrayRef items = NULL; OSStatus status = SecPKCS12Import( (__bridge CFDataRef)pkcs12Data, (__bridge CFDictionaryRef)options, &items );

I’m having an issue with my Credential Provider Extension for passkey registration. On the browser I click on registration, in IOS i can select my App for passkey registration with a continue button. Wenn I click the continue button the prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration:) function is called but the MainInterface is not shown —it only appears when I click the continue button a second time. Here’s a simplified version of my prepareInterface method: override func prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration registrationRequest: ASCredentialRequest) { guard let request = registrationRequest as? ASPasskeyCredentialRequest, let identity = request.credentialIdentity as? ASPasskeyCredentialIdentity else { extensionContext.cancelRequest(withError: ASExtensionError(.failed)) return } self.identity = identity self.request = request log.info("prepareInterface called successfully") } In viewDidAppear, I trigger FaceID authentication and complete the registration process if register is true. However, the UI only shows after a second “Continue” tap. Has anyone encountered this behavior or have suggestions on how to ensure the UI appears immediately after prepareInterface is called? Could it be a timing or lifecycle issue with the extension context? Thanks for any insights!

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

We have been having very high response times in device check device validation service (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/accessing-and-modifying-per-device-data#Create-the-payload-for-a-device-validation-request) since 17 July at 19:10hs GMT. The service information page says the service was running in green status but that isn't the case and we currenly have stop consuming it. Is it being looked at? Are you aware of this issue? Can you give us an estimate of when it should be working correctly?

I'd like to implement unit tests that exercise keys made available via a persistent token interface. However, when attempting to list available tokens by passing kSecAttrAccessGroupToken as the kSecAttrAccessGroup to SecItemCopyMatching from a unit test, -34018 is returned. It succeeds without the kSecAttrAccessGroup, which makes sense given the unit test binary does not have com.apple.token Keychain Group. The Xcode UI indicates "Capabilities are not supported" for the unit test binary when attempting to add a Keychain Sharing capability to enable use of persistent tokens. This feels like a dead end but begs the question is there any way to implement unit tests to exercise a persistent token interface? It seems like the only path may be write unit tests that drive an independent app that handles the interactions with the persistent token.

I have my custom Authplugin implemented at login (system.login.console), and I want to remove password requirement validation/authentication from system.login.console authorization right. Do you see any functionality loss in completely removing password need at login. And is there any reference which can help me here to acheive this?

Hi, is it legal to use open APIs to get the users's country country code using the Ip address in the app? I mean I want to know the user country for the game leaderboards data, and there are sites say this is free and open. So, I have two questions, first, is this making the user calling open api to get its country code concept legal? second question, what if these sites suddenly decided that it is not legal to use their apis for commercial use, and i miss that announcement; will you remove my app from the store? or what action will you take exactly?

Hi, I have an application that uses SecureEnclave keys to protect secrets. By passing an LAContext object to the Secure Enclave operations, authentication state can be preserved across decrypt operations, and you do not need to re-authenticate for doing different operations. However, for security reasons, I would like to avoid that it is possible to do operations in batch with certain keys generated by the Secure Enclave, by any application. This would avoid malicious binaries to batch-extract all the secrets that are protected by a key from my Secure Enclave, and force to re-authenticate on every operation. Is there a way to prevent batch operations without re-authenticating for Secure Enclave keys? thanks, Remko

Hi, I am in need of your help with publishing my game. I got the following explanation for the negative review of my app/game. Issue Description One or more purpose strings in the app do not sufficiently explain the use of protected resources. Purpose strings must clearly and completely describe the app's use of data and, in most cases, provide an example of how the data will be used. Next Steps Update the local network information purpose string to explain how the app will use the requested information and provide a specific example of how the data will be used. See the attached screenshot. Resources Purpose strings must clearly describe how an app uses the ability, data, or resource. The following are hypothetical examples of unclear purpose strings that would not pass review: "App would like to access your Contacts" "App needs microphone access" See examples of helpful, informative purpose strings. The problem is that they say my app asks to allow my app to find devices on local networks. And that this needs more explanation in the purpose strings. Totally valid to ask, but the problem is my app doesn't need local access to devices, and there shouldn't be code that asks this?? FYI the game is build with Unity. Would love some help on how to turn this off so that my app can get published.

Hello everyone, I've noticed some unusual behavior while debugging my application on the iOS 26 beta. My standard testing process relies on the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) authorization status being reset whenever I uninstall and reinstall my app. This is crucial for me to test the permission flow. However, on the current beta, I've observed the following: 1 I installed my app on a device running the iOS 26 beta for the first time. The ATTrackingManager.requestTrackingAuthorization dialog appeared as expected. 2 I completely uninstalled the application. 3 I then reinstalled the app. Unexpected Result: The tracking permission dialog did not appear. And more importantly, the device's advertisingIdentifier appears to have remained unchanged. This is highly unusual, as the IDFA is expected to be reset with a fresh app installation. My question: Is this an intentional change, and is there a fundamental shift in how the operating system handles the persistence of the IDFA or the authorization status? Or could this be a bug in the iOS 26 beta? Any information or confirmation on this behavior would be greatly appreciated.

Hi everyone, I'm developing a C++ plugin (.bundle) for a third-party host application (Autodesk Maya) on macOS, and I'm finalizing the design for our licensing system. The plugin is distributed outside the Mac App Store. My goal is to securely store a license key in the user's Keychain. After some research, my proposed implementation is as follows: On activation, store the license data in the user's login keychain as a Generic Password (kSecClassGenericPassword) using the SecItem APIs. To ensure the plugin can access the item when loaded by Maya, I will use a specific Keychain Access Group (e.g., MY_TEAM_ID.com.mywebsite). The final .bundle will be code-signed with our company's Developer ID certificate. The signature will include an entitlements file (.entitlements) that specifies the matching keychain-access-groups permission. My understanding is that this combination of a unique Keychain Access Group and a properly signed/entitled bundle is the key to getting reliable Keychain access. This should also correctly trigger the one-time user permission prompt on first use. Does this sound like the correct and most robust approach for this scenario? Are there any common pitfalls with a plugin's Keychain access from within a host app that I should be aware of? Thanks for any feedback!

We are working with an iOS app where we have enabled the “Generate Debug Symbols” setting to true in Xcode. As a result, the .dSYM files are generated and utilized in Firebase Crashlytics for crash reporting. However, we received a note in our Vulnerability Assessment report indicating a potential security concern. The report mentions that the .ipa file could be reverse-engineered due to the presence of debug symbols, and that such symbols should not be included in a released app. We could not find any security-related information about this flag, “Generate Debug Symbols,” in Apple’s documentation. Could you please clarify if enabling the “Generate Debug Symbols” flag in Xcode for a production app creates any security vulnerabilities, such as the one described in the report? The report mentions the following vulnerability: TEST-0219: Testing for Debugging Symbols The concern raised is that debugging symbols, while useful for crash symbolication, may be leveraged to reverse-engineer the app and should not be present in a production release. Your prompt confirmation on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Our business model is to identify Frauds using our advanced AI/ML model. However, in order to do so we need to collect many device information which seems to be ok according to https://developer.apple.com/app-store/user-privacy-and-data-use/ But it's also prohibited to generate a fingerprint, so I need more clarification here. Does it mean I can only use the data to identify that a user if either fraud or not but I cannot generate a fingerprint to identify the device? If so, I can see many SKD in the market that generates Fingerprints like https://fingerprint.com/blog/local-device-fingerprint-ios/ and https://shield.com/?

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

While working with Platform SSO on macOS, I’m trying to better understand how the system handles cases where a user’s local account password becomes unsynchronized with their Identity Provider (IdP) password—for example, when the device is offline during a password change. My assumption is that macOS may store some form of persistent token during the Platform SSO user registration process (such as a certificate or similar credential), and that this token could allow the system to unlock the user’s login keychain even if the local password no longer matches the IdP password. I’m hoping to get clarification on the following: Does macOS actually use a persistent token to unlock the login keychain when the local account password is out of sync with the IdP password? If so, how is that mechanism designed to work? If such a capability exists, is it something developers can leverage to enable a true passwordless authentication experience at the login window and lock screen (i.e., avoiding the need for a local password fallback)? I’m trying to confirm what macOS officially supports so I can understand whether passwordless login is achievable using the persistent-token approach. Thanks in advance for any clarification.

Hello Team, We’ve recently started receiving reports from our customer base (Trellix) regarding issues with Full Disk Access (FDA) for Trellix binaries on macOS devices running Tahoe 26.1 (released on November 3, 2025). The issue occurs when users attempt to add Trellix CLI binaries under FDA to grant the required permissions; the binaries fail to appear under the FDA settings, even after selection. Upon further investigation, this appears to be a macOS 26.1–specific issue and not observed in earlier versions. Similar reports have been noted across various forums, indicating that the issue affects multiple binaries, not just Trellix: Some of the discussions on the same issue I see online. https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/806187 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/806156 https://forum.logik.tv/t/macos-26-1-installation-issue-wait-before-updating/13761 https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/1os1ph3/cant_add_anything_to_privacy_security_full_disk/ I have also logged FB21009024 for the same. We would like to understand when we can expect this to be fixed, since the issue persists even in 26.2 Beta and also whether the workaround of dragging and dropping the binaries can still be suggested?