Hi, It may be a stupid question, but we really wonder if there is a way for MDM to push a unique mTLS cert to our iOS application or if it can populate a client certificate in the iOS where our application can access it. Like browser app, how do browser mTLS certs get pushed? Thanks, Ying

Hi, I am developing an app that checks if biometric authentication capabilities (Face ID and Touch ID) are available on a device. I have a few questions: Do I need to include a privacy string in my app to use the LAContext's canEvaluatePolicy function? This function checks if biometric authentication is available on the device, but does not actually trigger the authentication. From my testing, it seems like a privacy declaration is only required when using LAContext's evaluatePolicy function, which would trigger the biometric authentication. Can you confirm if this is the expected behavior across all iOS versions and iPhone models? When exactly does the biometric authentication permission pop-up appear for users - is it when calling canEvaluatePolicy or evaluatePolicy? I want to ensure my users have a seamless experience. Please let me know if you have any insights on these questions. I want to make sure I'm handling the biometric authentication functionality correctly in my app. Thank you!

Seeing the following error when attempting automatic passkey upgrade - [Warning] NotAllowedError: The request is not allowed by the user agent or the platform in the current context, possibly because the user denied permission. We're trying to enable Automatic passkey upgrade (https://aninterestingwebsite.com/videos/play/wwdc2024/10125/?time=38) for our website but it's not working from our testing on iOS 18.2 and 18.3 Beta Safari. The flow on our website looks like: the customers use autofill to fill out email and password on the sign-in page (abc.com/signin) PublicKeyCredential.getClientCapabilities is called to check if conditionalCreate supported. land on another page of our website (abc.com/pageX), which calls navigator.credentials.create with mediation conditional (Right after sign-in). We checked that we followed the steps in above video: Allow automatic passkey upgrades is enabled, mediation is set to conditional and password autofill is used to signed in. However, Safari threw an error [Warning] NotAllowedError: The request is not allowed by the user agent or the platform in the current context, possibly because the user denied permission. Can Apple help guide us if anything is missed here?

Hi,is there an option to mark the file or folder or item stored in user defaults ... not to be backed up when doing unencrypted backup in iTunes?We are developing iOS app that contains sensitive data. But even if we enable Data Protection for the iOS app it can be backed up on mac unencrypted using iTunes. Is there a way to allow backing up content only if the backup is encrypted?

Hi team, is there a native way to detect if a change has been made to biometrics using FaceID or TouchID? Thanks in advance.

On iOS 26, QuickLookAR (ARQuickLookPreviewItem) shares the actual .usdz file via the system Share Sheet instead of the original website URL. This is a regression from iOS 17–18, where sharing correctly preserved and sent only the source URL. Repro steps: 1. Open a web-hosted USDZ model in QuickLookAR (Safari). 2. Tap Share. 3. Share via any messenger. 4. The full .usdz file is sent. Expected: Share Sheet sends only the original URL. Actual: Share Sheet sends the USDZ file. Impact: Uncontrolled distribution of proprietary 3D assets. Critical IP / data leak. Blocks production AR deployments relying on QuickLook. Environment: iOS 26.0–26.1, iPhone 14 / 15. Works as expected on iOS 17–18. Test case: https://admixreality.com/ios26/

During internal testing, we observed the following behavior and would appreciate clarification on whether it is expected and supported in production environments. When generating an elliptic-curve cryptographic key pair using "kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave", and explicitly specifying a "kSecAttrAccessGroup", we found that cryptographic operations (specifically encryption and decryption) could be successfully performed using this key pair from two distinct applications. Both applications had the Keychain Sharing capability enabled and were signed with the same provisioning profile identity. Given the documented security properties of Secure Enclave, backed keys, namely that private key material is protected by hardware and access is strictly constrained by design, we would like to confirm whether the ability for multiple applications (sharing the same keychain access group and signing identity) to perform cryptographic operations with the same Secure Enclave–backed key is expected behavior on iOS. Specifically, we are seeking confirmation on: Whether this behavior is intentional and supported in production. Whether the Secure Enclave enforces access control primarily at the application-identifier (App ID) level rather than the individual app bundle level in this scenario. Whether there are any documented limitations or guarantees regarding cross-application usage of Secure Enclave keys when keychain sharing is configured. Any guidance or references to official documentation clarifying this behavior would be greatly appreciated.

Hey, there are plans to design a government app. When a citizen will login they will see their passport, driving license etc... What is the solution of avoiding mandatory in-app user data deletion?

Due to business requirements, we need to transfer our app Gem Space for iOS from our current Apple Developer account to a new account. We have a major concern regarding our users and the data associated with the app. The user data is currently stored using an App Group with the identifier, for example: "group.com.app.sharedData" According to some information we’ve found, it might be possible to complete the transfer by removing the App Group from the old account and creating a new one with the same identifier in the new account. However, other sources suggest that App Group containers are owned by the specific team, and data stored in the container may become inaccessible after the app is transferred to a different team. This raises concerns about the possibility of users losing access to their data after updating the app from the new account. Could you please clarify the expected behavior of App Groups in this case? Do we need to perform any kind of data migration, and if so, could you please provide detailed guidance on how to do it safely and without impacting user data access?

I want iOS device identifier for a framework that is used in multiple vendor's apps. I'm developing a framework to control a peripheral. The framework has to send unique information to register the device with the peripheral. My naive idea was to use IdentifierForVendor. But this API provides the device identifier for the same vendor's apps, not the framework. (The framework will be used by multiple vendors.) Is there a usable device identifier for the framework, regardless of app vendor? Please tell me any solution.

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.

I have a custom NSWindow that I want to exclude from screen capture by setting its sharing state to kCGWindowSharingStateSharingNone. The goal is to prevent this window from appearing in the content captured by ScreenCaptureKit. [window setSharingType:NSWindowSharingType::NSWindowSharingNone]; However, on macOS 15.4+ (Sequoia), the window is still captured by ScreenCaptureKit and appears in the shared content. Does anyone know if kCGWindowSharingStateSharingNone is still effective with ScreenCaptureKit on macOS 15.4 and later?

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://aninterestingwebsite.com/forums/thread/806187 https://aninterestingwebsite.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?

Recently, we received an user enquiry regarding the inability to perform bookings for the app. After investigation, we found that the issue appears to be caused by the failure of the Apple DeviceCheck service. Based on our checks, approximately 0.01% of requests fail each day (e.g., on 26 June: 6 failures out of 44,544 requests) when using Apple DeviceCheck. Could you please assist in raising the following enquiries with Apple Support? What is the typical failure rate of Apple DeviceCheck? Are there any reliability metrics or benchmarks for its performance? How can the failures be prevented, or is there a recommended retry mechanism to handle such failures? Does the iOS version affect the performance or reliability of Apple DeviceCheck? Are there known issues or limitations with specific iOS versions? How long does the token remain valid, and when should a new one be retrieved? Does using a jailbroken device affect the functionality of Apple DeviceCheck?

Hi... It would be nice if Apple / XCode would be so gracious to explore the possibility of providing the ability to include: Code scrambling / renaming Control-flow obfuscation String encryption Anti-debugging Anti-hooking Jailbreak detection App integrity checks Runtime tamper detection That way, we could eliminate the need to settle for third-party software. Who do we have to bribe to submit such a request and entertain such an idea?

We are experiencing a significant issue with macOS security alerts that began on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. This alert is incorrectly identifying output files from our snippet tests as malware, causing these files to be blocked and moved to the Trash. This is completely disrupting our automated testing workflows. Issue Description: Alert: We are seeing the "Malware Blocked and Moved to Trash" popup window. Affected Files: The security alert triggers when attempting to execute .par files generated as outputs from our snippet tests. These .par files are unique to each individual test run; they are not a single, static tool. System-Wide Impact: This issue is impacting multiple macOS hosts across our testing infrastructure. Timeline: The issue began abruptly on July 9th, at approximately 4:40 AM UTC. Before that time, our tests were functioning correctly. macOS Versions: The problem is occurring on hosts running both macOS 14.x and 15.x. Experimental Host: Even after upgrading an experimental host to macOS 15.6 beta 2, the issue persisted. Local execution: The issue can be reproduced locally. Observations: The security system is consistently flagging these snippet test output files as malware. Since each test generates a new .par file, and this issue is impacting all generated files, the root cause doesn't appear to be specific to the code within the .par files themselves. This issue is impacting all the snippet tests, making us believe that the root cause is not related to our code. The sudden and widespread nature of the issue strongly suggests a change in a security database or rule, rather than a change in our testing code. Questions: Could a recent update to the XProtect database be the cause of this false positive? Are there any known issues or recent changes in macOS security mechanisms that could cause this kind of widespread and sudden impact? What is the recommended way to diagnose and resolve this kind of false positive? We appreciate any guidance or assistance you can provide. Thank you.

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.

Hi, I’d like to confirm something regarding the hosting of the apple-app-site-association (AASA) file. We have a server that publicly hosts the AASA file and is accessible globally. However, this server sits behind an additional security layer (a security server/reverse proxy). My question is: Will this security layer affect Apple’s ability to access and validate the AASA file for Universal Links or App Clips? Are there specific requirements (e.g. headers, redirects, TLS versions, etc.) that we need to ensure the security server does not block or modify? Any guidance or best practices would be appreciated.

I’d like to confirm something regarding the hosting of the apple-app-site-association (AASA) file. We have a server that publicly hosts the AASA file and is accessible globally. However, this server sits behind an additional security layer (a security server/reverse proxy). My question is: Will this security layer affect Apple’s ability to access and validate the AASA file for Universal Links or App Clips? Are there specific requirements (e.g. headers, redirects, TLS versions, etc.) that we need to ensure the security server does not block or modify? Any guidance or best practices would be appreciated. Thanks!

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.