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.

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

Binary code is associated with the NSUserTrackingUsageDescription deleted at present, but in the revised App privacy will contain NSUserTrackingUsageDescription, I feel very confused, don't know should shouldn't solve.

Our Goal: We are implementing a workflow for derived credentials. Our objective is to have a PIV/CAC derived credential (from Entrust), installed via the Intune MDM Company Portal app, and then use it within our (managed) app to generate digital signatures. Challenge: The Intune Company Portal installs these identities into the System Keychain. Because third-party apps are restricted from accessing private keys in the System Keychain, we are running into a roadblock. Our Question: 1) Is there an API that allows us to create a signature without us having to pass the private key itself, but instead just pass a handle/some reference to the private key and then the API can access the private key in the system keychain and create the signature under the hood. SecKeyCreateSignature is the API method that creates a signature but requires passing a private key. 2) If #1 is not feasible, is there a way to get access to system keychain to retrieve certs + private key for managed apps

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

Trying to apply 'always trust' to certificate added to keychain using both SecItemAdd() and SecPKCS12Import() with SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings(). I created a launchdaemon for this purpose. AuthorizationDB is modified so that any process running in root can apply trust to certificate. let option = SecTrustSettingsResult.trustRoot.rawValue // SecTrustSettingsResult.trustAsRoot.rawValue for non-root certificates let status = SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings(secCertificate, SecTrustSettingsDomain.admin, [kSecTrustSettingsResult: NSNumber(value: option.rawValue)] as CFTypeRef). Above code is used to trust certificates and it was working on os upto 14.7.4. In 14.7.5 SecTrustSettingsSetTrustSettings() returns errAuthorizationInteractionNotAllowed. In 15.5 modifying authorization db with AuthorizationRightSet() itself is returning errAuthorizationDenied.Tried manually editing authorization db via terminal and same error occurred. Did apple update anything on Security framework? Any other way to trust certificates?

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"

Hi everyone, I'm working on an app that stores multiple secrets in the Keychain, each protected with .userPresence. My goal is to authenticate the user once via FaceID/TouchID and then read multiple Keychain items without triggering subsequent prompts. I am reusing the same LAContext instance for these operations, and I have set: context.touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration = LATouchIDAuthenticationMaximumAllowableReuseDuration However, I'm observing that every single SecItemCopyMatching call triggers a new FaceID/TouchID prompt, even if they happen within seconds of each other using the exact same context. Here is a simplified flow of what I'm doing: Create a LAContext. Set touchIDAuthenticationAllowableReuseDuration to max. Perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item A, passing [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID. Success. Immediately perform a query (SecItemCopyMatching) for Item B, passing the same [kSecUseAuthenticationContext: context]. Result: System prompts for FaceID again. My question is: Does the .userPresence access control flag inherently force a new user interaction for every Keychain access, regardless of the LAContext reuse duration? Is allowableReuseDuration only applicable for LAContext.evaluatePolicy calls and not for SecItem queries? If so, is there a recommended pattern for "unlocking" a group of Keychain items with a single biometric prompt? Environment: iOS 17+, Swift. Thanks!

In my app, I use SecItem to store some data in the Keychain. I’d like to know — when a user sets up a new iPhone and transfers data from the old device, will those Keychain items be migrated or synced to the new device?

I am not very well versed in this area, so I would appreciate some guidance on what should be enabled or disabled. My app is an AppKit app. I have read the documentation and watched the video, but I find it hard to understand. When I added the Enhanced Security capability in Xcode, the following options were enabled automatically: Memory Safety Enable Enhanced Security Typed Allocator Runtime Protections Enable Additional Runtime Platform Restrictions Authenticate Pointers Enable Read-only Platform Memory The following options were disabled by default: Memory Safety Enable Hardware Memory Tagging Memory Tag Pure Data Prevent Receiving Tagged Memory Enable Soft Mode for Memory Tagging Should I enable these options? Is there anything I should consider disabling?

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

There’s a critical, actively exploited vulnerability in Apple’s iOS activation servers allowing unauthenticated XML payload injection: https://cyberpress.org/apple-ios-activation-vulnerability/ This flaw targets the core activation process, bypassing normal security checks. Despite the severity, it’s barely discussed in public security channels. Why is this not being addressed or publicly acknowledged? Apple developers and security researchers should urgently review and audit activation flows—this is a direct attack vector on device trust integrity. Any insights or official response appreciated.

I'm seeing some odd behavior which may be a bug. I've broken it down to a least common denominator to reproduce it. But maybe I'm doing something wrong. I am opening a file read-write. I'm then mapping the file read-only and private: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_PRIVATE, fd, 0); I then unmap the memory and close the file. After the close, eslogger shows me this: {"close":{"modified":false,[...],"was_mapped_writable":false}} Which makes sense. I then change the mmap statement to: void* pointer = mmap(NULL, 17, PROT_READ, MAP_FILE | MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); I run the new code and and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false, [....], "was_mapped_writable":true}} Which also makes sense. I then run the original again (ie, with MAP_PRIVATE vs. MAP_SHARED) and the close looks like: {"close":{"modified":false,"was_mapped_writable":true,[...]} Which doesn't appear to be correct. Now if I just open and close the file (again, read-write) and don't mmap anything the close still shows: {"close":{ [...], "was_mapped_writable":true,"modified":false}} And the same is true if I open the file read-only. It will remain that way until I delete the file. If I recreate the file and try again, everything is good until I map it MAP_SHARED. I tried this with macOS 13.6.7 and macOS 15.0.1.

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

To use passkeys, you need to place the correct AASA file on the web server and add an entry in the Entitlements.plist, for example webcredentials:mydomain.com. This is clear so far, but I would like to ask if it's possible to set this webcredentials in a different way in the app? The reason for this is that we are developing a native app and our on-premise customers have their own web servers. We cannot know these domains in advance so creating a dedicated app for each customer is not option for us. Thank you for your help!

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

Background We're building a macOS application that acts as a CryptoTokenKit software token. The architecture follows the documented pattern: a container app (a long-running agent process) manages token registration and identity updates via TKTokenDriverConfiguration, and a separate appex extension process handles the actual signing operations for client sessions. What we're doing At agent startup, the container app calls [TKTokenDriverConfiguration driverConfigurations] to obtain our token driver, then registers a token instance ID: NSDictionary<TKTokenDriverClassID, TKTokenDriverConfiguration *> *driverConfigurations = [TKTokenDriverConfiguration driverConfigurations]; TKTokenDriverConfiguration driver = / first value from driverConfigurations */; [driver addTokenConfigurationForTokenInstanceID:@"setoken"]; When the agent renews a certificate, it pushes updated TKTokenKeychainItem objects to ctkd by setting keychainItems on the TKTokenConfiguration: TKTokenConfiguration *tokenCfg = driver.tokenConfigurations[@"setoken"]; tokenCfg.keychainItems = updatedItems; This works correctly during normal operation. The failure When ctkd is restarted (e.g., killall ctkd, or the system restarts the daemon), all subsequent calls through the existing TKTokenDriverConfiguration reference silently fail. Specifically: [TKTokenDriverConfiguration driverConfigurations] returns the same stale object - it does not establish a new connection to the newly-started ctkd process. There is no error, no exception, and no indication the returned object is invalid. driver.tokenConfigurations[@"setoken"] still returns a non-nil value reflecting the pre-restart state - so any nil check intended to detect "token not registered with ctkd" does not fire. [driver addTokenConfigurationForTokenInstanceID:@"setoken"] appears to succeed (no error) but the token is not actually registered with the new ctkd instance. Setting tokenCfg.keychainItems = updatedItems appears to succeed but the new ctkd instance has no knowledge of the update. The only reliable recovery we've found is restarting the container app process itself, at which point [TKTokenDriverConfiguration driverConfigurations] returns a fresh object connected to the new ctkd instance. What we've investigated There is no public API on TKTokenDriverConfiguration to invalidate or refresh the internal XPC connection to ctkd TKTokenWatcher can observe token insertions/removals, but we found no documented way to use it to detect a ctkd process restart specifically The NSXPCConnection invalidation handler pattern is not accessible through the TKTokenDriverConfiguration abstraction Moving credential management into the appex extension. Since the appex extension is recreated when the ctkd process restarts, we are able to update keychainItems from the extension. However, this comes with it's own set of problems: the extension is ephemeral and using the keychain APIs directly from the extension is not well documented and does not appear to be a supported pattern. Questions Is there a supported API to detect that ctkd has restarted and that the existing TKTokenDriverConfiguration reference is no longer valid? Is there a supported way to obtain a fresh TKTokenDriverConfiguration without restarting the container app? Should the container app be re-architected to avoid holding long-lived TKTokenDriverConfiguration references?

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

On Tahoe and earlier, ScreenCapture permissions can disappear and not return. Customers are having an issue with this disappearing and when our code executes CGRequestScreenCaptureAccess() nothing happens, the prompt does not appear. I can reproduce this by using the "-" button and removing the entry in the settings, then adding it back with the "+" button. CGPreflightScreenCaptureAccess() always returns the correct value but once the entry has been removed, CGRequestScreenCaptureAccess() requires a reboot before it will work again.

Is there any way for an iOS app to get a log of all Airdrop transfers originating in all apps on the iOS device e.g. from the last week?