Hi everyone, I’ve been working on an experimental prototype called FaceBridge that explores whether Secure Enclave–backed biometric authorization can be delegated between macOS and iPhone using only public Apple APIs. The goal of the project was to better understand the architectural boundaries of cross-device trust and approval flows that resemble Apple’s built-in Touch ID / Continuity authorization experiences. FaceBridge implements a local authorization pipeline where: macOS generates a signed authorization request the request is delivered to a trusted nearby iPhone over BLE / Network framework the iPhone verifies sender identity Face ID approval is requested using LocalAuthentication the iPhone signs the approval response using Secure Enclave–backed keys macOS validates the response and unlocks a protected action Security properties currently implemented: • Secure Enclave–backed signing identities per device • cryptographic device pairing and trust persistence • replay protection using nonce + timestamp binding • structured authorization request/response envelopes • signed responder identity verification • trusted-device registry model • local encrypted transport over BLE and local network This is intentionally not attempting to intercept or replace system-level Touch ID dialogs (App Store installs, Keychain prompts, loginwindow, etc.), but instead explores what is possible within application-level authorization boundaries using public APIs only. The project is open source: https://github.com/wesleysfavarin/facebridge Technical architecture write-up: https://medium.com/@wesleysfavarin/facebridge I’m particularly interested in feedback around: • recommended Secure Enclave identity lifecycle patterns • best practices for cross-device trust persistence • LocalAuthentication usage in delegated approval scenarios • whether similar authorization models are expected to become more formally supported across Apple platforms in the future Thanks in advance for any guidance or suggestions.

Hi, we were recently approved for the com.apple.developer.web-browser.public-key-credential entitlement and have added it to our app. It initially worked as expected for a couple of days, but then it stopped working. We're now seeing the same error as before adding the entitlement: Told not to present authorization sheet: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServicesCore.AuthorizationError Code=1 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 "(null)" Do you have any insights into what might be causing this issue? Thank you!

We are using ASWebAuthenticationSession with apps on IoS to achieve SSO between apps. The IdP for authentication (OIDC) is an on-premise and trusted enterprise IdP based on one of the leading products in the market. Our problem is that the user is prompted for every login (and logouts) with a consent dialogue box: “AppName” wants to use “internal domain-name” to Sign In This allows the app and website to share information about you. Cancel Continue” I have read in various places that Apple has a concept of “Trusted domains” where you can put an “Apple certified” static web-page on the IdP. This page needs to contain specific metadata that iOS can verify. Once a user logs in successfully a few times, and if the IdP is verified as trusted, subsequent logins would not prompt the consent screen. Question: I struggle to find Apple documentation on how to go about a process that ends with this “Apple certified web-page” on our IdP”. Anyone who has experience with this process, or who can point me in some direction to find related documentation?

I have two applications, and I recently decided to add the Apple Sign In feature. Initially, I configured it for one of the apps as the Primary ID for this feature. Everything worked well, and I decided to add it to the second app. I made a mistake and used the First app as Primary ID using the "Group with an existing primary App ID" flag. Now, when I sign in using the second app, I don't see it in the list of apps in iPhone Settings for Apple Sign In; I only see the primary app. And with that, I no longer see a prompt for sharing/hiding email, and I am unable to revoke credentials correctly. I decided to change the Second app's Sign-in config and set it as the Primary ID for the feature. I was hoping to get two apps independent for the SignIn. However, it doesn't seem to make a difference. The second app behaves the same way, as long as the first app used SignIn, the second one always thinks that the user has already used that feature and never shows the correct prompt. Is there something I missed after changing the Configuration?

Our company has a micro service which sends a notification email to an iCloud account/email and the email is going to the junk folder. As we tested, the email generated from user-field.company.com goes to the Inbox, while the email from user-dev.company.com goes to the Junk folder. Is there a way to avoid sending the emails to client's Junk folder when the email is sent from a specific company domain?

% curl -v https://app-site-association.cdn-apple.com/a/v1/zfcs.bankts.cn Host app-site-association.cdn-apple.com:443 was resolved. IPv6: (none) IPv4: 218.92.226.151, 119.101.148.193, 218.92.226.6, 115.152.217.3 Trying 218.92.226.151:443... Connected to app-site-association.cdn-apple.com (218.92.226.151) port 443 ALPN: curl offers h2,http/1.1 (304) (OUT), TLS handshake, Client hello (1): CAfile: /etc/ssl/cert.pem CApath: none (304) (IN), TLS handshake, Server hello (2): (304) (IN), TLS handshake, Unknown (8): (304) (IN), TLS handshake, Certificate (11): (304) (IN), TLS handshake, CERT verify (15): (304) (IN), TLS handshake, Finished (20): (304) (OUT), TLS handshake, Finished (20): SSL connection using TLSv1.3 / AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 / [blank] / UNDEF ALPN: server accepted http/1.1 Server certificate: subject: C=US; ST=California; O=Apple Inc.; CN=app-site-association.cdn-apple.com start date: Sep 25 13:58:08 2025 GMT expire date: Mar 31 17:44:25 2026 GMT subjectAltName: host "app-site-association.cdn-apple.com" matched cert's "app-site-association.cdn-apple.com" issuer: CN=Apple Public Server RSA CA 11 - G1; O=Apple Inc.; ST=California; C=US SSL certificate verify ok. using HTTP/1.x GET /a/v1/zfcs.bankts.cn HTTP/1.1 Host: app-site-association.cdn-apple.com User-Agent: curl/8.7.1 Accept: / Request completely sent off < HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found < Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 < Content-Length: 10 < Connection: keep-alive < Server: nginx < Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 02:26:00 GMT < Expires: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 02:26:10 GMT < Age: 24 < Apple-Failure-Details: {"cause":"context deadline exceeded (Client.Timeout exceeded while awaiting headers)"} < Apple-Failure-Reason: SWCERR00301 Timeout < Apple-From: https://zfcs.bankts.cn/.well-known/apple-app-site-association < Apple-Try-Direct: true < Vary: Accept-Encoding < Via: https/1.1 jptyo12-3p-pst-003.ts.apple.com (acdn/3.16363), http/1.1 jptyo12-3p-pac-043.ts.apple.com (acdn/3.16363), https/1.1 jptyo12-3p-pfe-002.ts.apple.com (acdn/3.16363) < X-Cache: MISS KS-CLOUD < CDNUUID: 736dc646-57fb-43c9-aa0d-eedad3a534f8-1154605242 < x-link-via: yancmp83:443;xmmp02:443;fzct321:443; < x-b2f-cs-cache: no-cache < X-Cache-Status: MISS from KS-CLOUD-FZ-CT-321-35 < X-Cache-Status: MISS from KS-CLOUD-XM-MP-02-16 < X-Cache-Status: MISS from KS-CLOUD-YANC-MP-83-15 < X-KSC-Request-ID: c4a640c815640ee93c263a357ee919d6 < CDN-Server: KSFTF < X-Cdn-Request-ID: c4a640c815640ee93c263a357ee919d6 < Not Found Connection #0 to host app-site-association.cdn-apple.com left intact

Hello, I currently have an app that includes the "Sign in with Apple" feature, and I need to transfer this app to another app team. I have reviewed all official documentation but have not found the answer I need. My situation has some specificities, and I hope to receive assistance. The .p8 key created by the original developer team has been lost, and the app’s backend does not use a .p8 key for verification—instead, it verifies by obtaining Apple’s public key. However, according to the official documentation I reviewed, obtaining a transfer identifier during the app transfer process requires a client_secret generated from the original team’s .p8 key. This has left us facing a challenge, and we have two potential approaches to address this issue: Q1: During the transfer, is it possible to skip obtaining the transfer identifier and proceed directly with the app transfer, without performing any backend operations? Is this approach feasible? Q2: If the above approach is not feasible, should we create a new .p8 key in the original team’s account and use this new key for the transfer? If a new key is generated, do we need to re-release a new version of the app before initiating the transfer? If neither of the above approaches is feasible, are there better solutions to resolve our issue? I hope to receive a response. Thank you. TN3159: Migrating Sign in with Apple users for an app transfer | Apple Developer Documentation/ https://aninterestingwebsite.com/documentation/signinwithapple/transferring-your-apps-and-users-to-another-team

I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. There have been substantial changes in this space recently. While much of this is now covered in the official docs (r. 92322409), I’ve updated this post to go into all the gory details. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the App & System Services > Core OS topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if your question is about app group containers, also include Files and Storage. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony There are two styles of app group ID: iOS-style app group IDs start with group., for example, group.eskimo1.test. macOS-style app group IDs start with your Team ID, for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. This difference has been the source of numerous weird problems over the years. Starting in Feb 2025, iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on macOS for all product types [1]. If you’re writing new code that uses app groups, use an iOS-style app group ID. If you have existing code that uses a macOS-style app group ID, consider how you might transition to the iOS style. IMPORTANT The Feb 2025 changes aren’t tied to an OS release but rather to a Developer website update. For more on this, see Feb 2025 Changes, below. [1] If your product is a standalone executable, like a daemon or agent, wrap it in an app-like structure, as explained in Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement. iOS-Style App Group IDs An iOS-style app group ID has the following features: It starts with the group. prefix, for example, group.eskimo1.test. You allocate it on the Developer website. This assigns the app group ID to your team. You then claim access to it by listing it in the App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. That claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile [1]. The Developer website will only let you include your team’s app group IDs in your profile. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. iOS-style app group IDs originated on iOS with iOS 3.0. They’ve always been supported on iOS’s child platforms (iPadOS, tvOS, visionOS, and watchOS). On the Mac: They’ve been supported by Mac Catalyst since that technology was introduced. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Starting in Feb 2025, they’re supported for other Mac products. [1] Strictly speaking macOS does not require that, but if your claim is not authorised by a profile then you might run into other problems. See Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. macOS-Style App Group IDs A macOS-style app group ID has the following features: It should start with your Team ID [1], for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. It can’t be explicitly allocated on the Developer website. Code that isn’t sandboxed doesn’t need to claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. [2] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted on macOS, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile [3]. However, if you claim an app group ID that’s not authorised in some way, you might run into problems. More on that later in this post. If you submit an app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense, that is, they either start with your Team ID (macOS style) or are assigned to your team (iOS style). [1] This is “should” because, historically, macOS has not actually required it. However, that’s now changing, with things like app group container protection. [2] This was true prior to macOS 15. It may still technically be true in macOS 15 and later, but the most important thing, access to the app group container, requires the entitlement because of app group container protection. [3] Technically it’s a validation-required entitlement, something that we’ll come back to in the Entitlements-Validated Flag section. Feb 2025 Changes On 21 Feb 2025 we rolled out a change to the Developer website that completes the support for iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Specifically, it’s now possible to create a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group ID. Note This change doesn’t affect Mac Catalyst or iOS Apps on Mac, which have always been able to use iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Prior to this change it was possible to use an iOS-style app group ID on the Mac but that might result in some weird behaviour. Later sections of this post describe some of those problems. Of course, that information is now only of historical interest because, if you’re using an iOS-style app group, you can and should authorise that use with a provisioning profile. We also started seeding Xcode 16.3, which has since been release. This is aware of the Developer website change, and its Signing & Capabilities editor actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. Note This Xcode behaviour is the only option for iOS and its child platforms. With Xcode 16.3, it’s now the default for macOS as well. If you have existing project, enable this behaviour using the Register App Groups build setting. Finally, we updated a number of app group documentation pages, including App Groups entitlement and Configuring app groups. Crossing the Streams In some circumstances you might need to have a single app that accesses both an iOS- and a macOS-style app group. For example: You have a macOS app. You want to migrate to an iOS-style app group ID, perhaps because you want to share an app group container with a Mac Catalyst app. But you also need to access existing content in a container identified by a macOS-style app group ID. Historically this caused problems (FB16664827) but, as of Jun 2025, this is fully supported (r. 148552377). When the Developer website generates a Mac provisioning profile for an App ID with the App Groups capability, it automatically adds TEAM_ID.* to the list of app group IDs authorised by that profile (where TEAM_ID is your Team ID). This allows the app to claim access to every iOS-style app group ID associated with the App ID and any macOS-style app group IDs for that team. This helps in two circumstances: It avoids any Mac App Store Connect submission problems, because App Store Connect can see that the app’s profile authorises its use of all the it app group IDs it claims access to. Outside of App Store — for example, when you directly distribute an app using Developer ID signing — you no longer have to rely on macOS granting implicit access to macOS-style app group IDs. Rather, such access is explicitly authorised by your profile. That ensures that your entitlements remain validated, as discussed in the Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. A Historical Interlude These different styles of app group IDs have historical roots: On iOS, third-party apps have always used provisioning profiles, and thus the App Groups entitlement is restricted just like any other entitlement. On macOS, support for app groups was introduced before macOS had general support for provisioning profiles [1], and thus the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted. The unrestricted nature of this entitlement poses two problems. The first is accidental collisions. How do you prevent folks from accidentally using an app group ID that’s in use by some other developer? On iOS this is easy: The Developer website assigns each app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. macOS achieved a similar result by using the Team ID as a prefix. The second problem is malicious reuse. How do you prevent a Mac app from accessing the app group containers of some other team? Again, this isn’t an issue on iOS because the App Groups entitlement is restricted. On macOS the solution was for the Mac App Store to prevent you from publishing an app that used an app group ID that’s used by another team. However, this only works for Mac App Store apps. Directly distributed apps were free to access app group containers of any other app. That was considered acceptable back when the Mac App Store was first introduced. That’s no longer the case, which is why macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. See App Group Container Protection, below. [1] I’m specifically talking about provisioning profiles for directly distributed apps, that is, apps using Developer ID signing. Entitlements-Validated Flag The fact that the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted on macOS is, when you think about it, a little odd. The purpose of entitlements is to gate access to functionality. If an entitlement isn’t restricted, it’s not much of a gate! For most unrestricted entitlements that’s not a problem. Specifically, for both the App Sandbox and Hardened Runtime entitlements, those are things you opt in to, so macOS is happy to accept the entitlement at face value. After all, if you want to cheat you can just not opt in [1]. However, this isn’t the case for the App Groups entitlement, which actually gates access to functionality. Dealing with this requires macOS to walk a fine line between security and compatibility. Part of that solution is the entitlements-validated flag. When a process runs an executable, macOS checks its entitlements. There are two categories: Restricted entitlements must be authorised by a provisioning profile. If your process runs an executable that claims a restricted entitlement that’s not authorised by a profile, the system traps. Unrestricted entitlements don’t have to be authorised by a provisioning profile; they can be used by any code at any time. However, the App Groups entitlement is a special type of unrestricted entitlement called a validation-required entitlement. If a process runs an executable that claims a validation-required entitlement and that claim is not authorised by a profile, the system allows the process to continue running but clears its entitlements-validated flag. Some subsystems gate functionality on the entitlements-validated flag. For example, the data protection keychain uses entitlements as part of its access control model, but refuses to honour those entitlements if the entitlement-validated flag has been cleared. Note If you’re curious about this flag, use the procinfo subcommand of launchctl to view it. For example: % sudo launchctl procinfo `pgrep Test20230126` … code signing info = valid … entitlements validated … If the flag has been cleared, this line will be missing from the code signing info section. Historically this was a serious problem because it prevented you from creating an app that uses both app groups and the data protection keychain [2] (r. 104859788). Fortunately that’s no longer an issue because the Developer website now lets you include the App Groups entitlement in macOS provisioning profiles. [1] From the perspective of macOS checking entitlements at runtime. There are other checks: The App Sandbox is mandatory for Mac App Store apps, but that’s checked when you upload the app to App Store Connect. Directly distributed apps must be notarised to pass Gatekeeper, and the notary service requires that all executables enable the hardened runtime. [2] See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain a historical oddity associated with keychain access. The Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps article says: Application groups When you collect related apps into an application group using the App Groups entitlement, they share access to a group container, and gain the ability to message each other in certain ways. You can use app group names as keychain access group names, without adding them to the Keychain Access Groups entitlement. On iOS this makes a lot of sense: The App Groups entitlement is a restricted entitlement on iOS. The Developer website assigns each iOS-style app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. The required group. prefix means that these keychain access groups can’t collide with other keychain access groups, which all start with an App ID prefix (there’s also Apple-only keychain access groups that start with other prefixes, like apple). However, this didn’t work on macOS [1] because the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted there. However, with the Feb 2025 changes it should now be possible to use an iOS-style app group ID as a keychain access group on macOS. Note I say “should” because I’ve not actually tried it (-: Keep in mind that standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on all platforms, using the restricted Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for Mac Catalyst apps and iOS Apps on Mac. Not Entirely Unsatisfied When you launch a Mac app that uses app groups you might see this log entry: type: error time: 10:41:35.858009+0000 process: taskgated-helper subsystem: com.apple.ManagedClient category: ProvisioningProfiles message: com.example.apple-samplecode.Test92322409: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups Note The exact format of that log entry, and the circumstances under which it’s generated, varies by platform. On macOS 13.0.1 I was able to generate it by running a sandboxed app that claims a macOS-style app group ID in the App Groups entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. It means that the App Groups entitlement claims an entitlement that’s not authorised by a provisioning profile. On iOS this would trap, but on macOS the system allows the process to continue running. It does, however, clear the entitlements-validate flag. See Entitlements-Validated Flag for an in-depth discussion of this. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to authorise your app group ID claims with a provisioning profile. If there’s some reason you can’t do that, watch out for potential problems with: The data protection keychain — See the discussion of that in the Entitlements-Validated Flag and App Groups and the Keychain sections, both above. App group container protection — See App Group Container Protection, below. App Group Container Protection macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. To access an app group container without user intervention: Claim access to the app group by listing its ID in the App Groups entitlement. Locate the container by calling the containerURL(forSecurityApplicationGroupIdentifier:) method. Ensure that at least one of the following criteria are met: Your app is deployed via the Mac App Store (A). Or via TestFlight when running on macOS 15.1 or later (B). Or the app group ID starts with your app’s Team ID (C). Or your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D) [1]. If your app doesn’t follow these rules, the system prompts the user to approve its access to the container. If granted, that consent applies only for the duration of that app instance. For more on this, see: The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15 Release Notes The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15.1 Release Notes WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy, starting at 12:23 The above criteria mean that you rarely run into the app group authorisation prompt. If you encounter a case where that happens, feel free to start a thread here on DevForums. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Note Prior to the Feb 2025 change, things generally worked out fine when you app was deployed but you might’ve run into problems during development. That’s no longer the case. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Revision History 2025-08-12 Added a reference to the Register App Groups build setting. 2025-07-28 Updated the Crossing the Streams section for the Jun 2025 change. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-04-16 Rewrote the document now that iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on the Mac. Changed the title from App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight! to App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony 2025-02-25 Fixed the Xcode version number mentioned in yesterday’s update. 2025-02-24 Added a quick update about the iOS-style app group IDs on macOS issue. 2024-11-05 Further clarified app group container protection. Reworked some other sections to account for this new reality. 2024-10-29 Clarified the points in App Group Container Protection. 2024-10-23 Fleshed out the discussion of app group container protection on macOS 15. 2024-09-04 Added information about app group container protection on macOS 15. 2023-01-31 Renamed the Not Entirely Unsatisfactory section to Not Entirely Unsatisfied. Updated it to describe the real impact of that log message. 2022-12-12 First posted.

General: Forums subtopic: Privacy & Security > General Forums tag: App Sandbox App Sandbox documentation App Sandbox Design Guide documentation — This is no longer available from Apple. There’s still some info in there that isn’t covered by the current docs but, with the latest updates, it’s pretty minimal (r. 110052019). Still, if you’re curious, you can consult an old copy [1]. App Sandbox Temporary Exception Entitlements archived documentation — To better understand the role of temporary exception entitlements, see this post. Embedding a command-line tool in a sandboxed app documentation Discovering and diagnosing App Sandbox violations (replaces the Viewing Sandbox Violation Reports forums post) Resolving App Sandbox Inheritance Problems forums post The Case for Sandboxing a Directly Distributed App forums post Implementing Script Attachment in a Sandboxed App forums post Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" [1] For example, this one archived by the Wayback Machine.

I want to add the "Sign In with Apple" feature to my iPadOS application. I've already done the following: Include com.apple.developer.applesignin in mobileprovision Include com.apple.developer.applesignin in entitlements However, I'm getting the following errors: `Authorization failed: Error Domain=AKAuthenticationError Code=-7026 "(null)" UserInfo={AKClientBundleID=xxxx} LaunchServices: store (null) or url (null) was nil: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "process may not map database" UserInfo={_LSLine=72, _LSFunction=_LSServer_GetServerStoreForConnectionWithCompletionHandler, _LSFile=LSDReadService.mm, NSDebugDescription=process may not map database} Attempt to map database failed: permission was denied. This attempt will not be retried. Failed to initialize client context with error Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "process may not map database" UserInfo={_LSLine=72, _LSFunction=_LSServer_GetServerStoreForConnectionWithCompletionHandler, _LSFile=LSDReadService.mm, NSDebugDescription=process may not map database} Failed to get application extension record: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1000 "(null)" ` What is this problem? How can I solve it? Hoping someone can help, thank you!

I want to use incrementalUpdates for my app but store always returns false on my iPad with OS18.3.2. I want to know what are th conditions in which store says its unable to perform incrementalUpdates?

Confirmation on "Sign in with Apple JS" Web Implementation Compatibility Hello Developers We are trying to implement "Sign in with Apple JS" on our e-commerce website, which is built on a SaaS platform called Ticimax in Turkey. Our platform provider (Ticimax) claims that a web-based implementation of "Sign in with Apple" is not currently possible. They state this is due to "Apple's browser security policies" that prevent consistent and secure support across all major browsers, particularly Safari with its privacy features. Could you please confirm if there are any fundamental security policies or technical restrictions imposed by Apple that would prevent a standard, secure implementation of "Sign in with Apple JS" on a typical e-commerce website? We know many global websites use this feature successfully. We need to know if our provider's claim has a technical basis from Apple's perspective, or if this is a standard implementation challenge that developers are expected to handle (e.g., using pop-ups instead of redirects to comply with ITP). Any official clarification or documentation you can provide on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hi , I have a requirement like, Develop an app for iPad and app uses .net core apis. App will be in kiosk mode, and app doesn't have any type of authentication even OTP also. As the apis will be publishing to all over internet, how can we achieve security to apis? Kindly provide suggestions for this implementation

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, I am implementing "Sign in with Apple" on my backend and validating the Identity Token (JWT) received from the client. I noticed that for some users who choose the "Hide My Email" option, the is_private_email claim is missing from the ID Token payload, even though the email address clearly belongs to the private relay domain (@privaterelay.appleid.com). Here is an example of the decoded payload I received: { "iss": "https://appleid.apple.com", "aud": "xxx", "exp": 1764402438, "iat": 1764316038, "sub": "xxxxxxxx", "c_hash": "3FAJNf4TILzUgo_YFe4E0Q", "email": "xxx@privaterelay.appleid.com", "email_verified": true, "auth_time": 1764316038, "nonce_supported": true // "is_private_email": true <-- This field is missing } My Questions: Is the is_private_email claim considered optional in the ID Token? Is it safe and recommended to rely solely on the email domain suffix (@privaterelay.appleid.com) to identify if a user is using a private email? Any insights or official references would be appreciated. Thanks.

When implementing Sign In with Apple I created an App ID and a Service ID for my app. I didn't configure the Server-to-Server Notification URL properly there and token revocation didn't work. Later on I updated the url config and the name of the identifiers. However, when I Sign in with Apple in my app I still see the old identifier name in my iPhone Settings->Apple Account->Sign in with Apple. I would assume that if the name doesn't update, the configuration doesn't update either. I'm using automatic Xcode signing, I have deleted all the profiles locally, cleaned project, bumped versions, waited for a week, nothing worked. Token revocation for account deletion doesn't work properly I would assume because of the initial misconfiguration. I want to mention that this is working fine for my development build (another bundleID, AppID, ServiceID) What am I missing here?

My application is supporting hybrid transport on FIDO2 webAuthn specs to create credential and assertion. And it support legacy passkeys which only mean to save to 1 device and not eligible to backup. However In my case, if i set the Backup Eligibility and Backup State flag to false, it fails on the completion of the registrationRequest to save the passkey credential within credential extension, the status is false instead of true. self.extension.completeRegistrationRequest(using: passkeyRegistrationCredential) The attestation and assertion flow only works when both flags set to true. Can advice why its must have to set both to true in this case?

冷启动后我们读文件，发现："error_msg":"未能打开文件“FinishTasks.plist”，因为你没有查看它的权限。 是否有这些问题： 「iOS 26 iPhone 16,2 cold launch file access failure」） 核心内容：多名开发者反馈 iPhone 15 Pro（iOS 26.0/26.1）冷启动时读取 Documents 目录下的 plist 文件提示权限拒绝，切后台再切前台恢复，苹果员工回复「建议延迟文件操作至 applicationDidBecomeActive 后」。

I'm implementing Apple Sign-In in my Next.js application with a NestJS backend. After the user authenticates with Apple, instead of redirecting to my configured callback URL, the browser makes a POST request to a mysterious endpoint /appleauth/auth/federate that doesn't exist in my codebase, resulting in a 404 error. Tech Stack Frontend: Next.js 16.0.10, React 19.2.0 Backend: NestJS with Passport (using @arendajaelu/nestjs-passport-apple) Frontend URL: https://myapp.example.com Backend URL: https://api.example.com Apple Developer Configuration Service ID: (configured correctly in Apple Developer Console) Return URL (only one configured): https://api.example.com/api/v1/auth/apple/callback Domains verified in Apple Developer Console: myapp.example.com api.example.com example.com Backend Configuration NestJS Controller (auth.controller.ts): typescript @Public() @Get('apple') @UseGuards(AuthGuard('apple')) async appleAuth() { // Initiates Apple OAuth flow } @Public() @Post('apple/callback') // Changed from @Get to @Post for form_post @UseGuards(AuthGuard('apple')) async appleAuthCallback(@Req() req: any, @Res() res: any) { const result = await this.authService.socialLogin(req.user, ipAddress, userAgent); // Returns HTML with tokens that uses postMessage to send to opener window } Environment Variables: typescript APPLE_CLIENT_ID=<service_id> APPLE_TEAM_ID=<team_id> APPLE_KEY_ID=<key_id> APPLE_PRIVATE_KEY_PATH=./certs/AuthKey_XXX.p8 APPLE_CALLBACK_URL=https://api.example.com/api/v1/auth/apple/callback FRONTEND_URL=https://myapp.example.com The passport-apple strategy uses response_mode: 'form_post', so Apple POSTs the authorization response to the callback URL. Frontend Implementation Next.js API Route (/src/app/api/auth/apple/route.js): javascript export async function GET(request) { const backendUrl = new URL(`${API_URL}/auth/apple`); const response = await fetch(backendUrl.toString(), { method: "GET", headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json", }, }); const responseText = await response.text(); return new NextResponse(responseText, { status: response.status, headers: { "Content-Type": contentType || "text/html" }, }); } Frontend Auth Handler: javascript export const handleAppleLogin = (router, setApiError) => { const frontendUrl = window?.location?.origin; // Opens popup to /api/auth/apple window.open( `${frontendUrl}/api/auth/apple`, "appleLogin", "width=500,height=600" ); }; The Problem Expected Flow: User clicks "Login with Apple" Frontend opens popup → https://myapp.example.com/api/auth/apple Frontend proxies to → https://api.example.com/api/v1/auth/apple Backend redirects to Apple's authentication page User authenticates with Apple ID Apple POSTs back to → https://api.example.com/api/v1/auth/apple/callback Backend processes and returns success HTML Actual Behavior: After step 5 (user authentication with Apple), instead of Apple redirecting to my callback URL, the browser makes this unexpected request: POST https://myapp.example.com/appleauth/auth/federate?isRememberMeEnabled=false Status: 404 Not Found Request Payload: json { "accountName": "user@example.com", "rememberMe": false } Network Tab Analysis From Chrome DevTools, the call stack shows: send @ app.js:234 ajax @ app.js:234 (anonymous) @ app.js:10 Ee.isFederated @ app.js:666 _callAuthFederate @ app.js:666 The Ee.isFederated and _callAuthFederate functions appear to be minified library code, but I cannot identify which library. What I've Verified ✅ The /appleauth/auth/federate endpoint does not exist anywhere in my codebase: bash grep -r "appleauth" src/ # No results grep -r "federate" src/ # No results ✅ Apple Developer Console shows only ONE Return URL configured (verified multiple times) ✅ Changed callback route from @Get to @Post to handle form_post response mode ✅ Rebuilt frontend completely multiple times: bash rm -rf .next npm run build ✅ Tested in: Incognito/Private browsing mode Different browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari) Different devices After clearing all cache and cookies ✅ No service workers registered in the application ✅ No external <script> tags or CDN libraries loaded ✅ package.json contains no AWS Amplify, Auth0, Cognito, or similar federated auth libraries ✅ Checked layout.js and all root-level files - no external scripts Additional Context Google Sign-In works perfectly fine using the same approach The mysterious endpoint uses a different path structure (/appleauth/ vs /api/auth/) The call appears to originate from client-side JavaScript (based on the call stack) The app.js file with the mysterious functions is the built Next.js bundle Questions Where could this /appleauth/auth/federate endpoint be coming from? Why is the browser making this POST request instead of following Apple's redirect to my configured callback URL? Could this be related to the response_mode: 'form_post' in the Apple Passport strategy? Is there something in the Apple Developer Primary App ID configuration that could trigger this behavior? Could this be a Next.js build artifact or some hidden dependency? The mysterious call stack references (Ee.isFederated, _callAuthFederate) suggest some library is intercepting the Apple authentication flow, but I cannot identify what library or where it's being loaded from. The minified function names suggest federated authentication, but I have no such libraries in my dependencies. Has anyone encountered similar issues with Apple Sign-In where an unexpected endpoint is being called?

I keep getting the following error when trying to run Passkey sign in on macOS. Told not to present authorization sheet: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServicesCore.AuthorizationError Code=1 "(null)" ASAuthorizationController credential request failed with error: Error Domain=com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError Code=1004 "(null)" This is the specific error. Application with identifier a is not associated with domain b I have config the apple-app-site-association link and use ?mode=developer Could there be any reason for this?