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?

this is my monitor image that shows DeviceCheck api responding very slowly.

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?

Our organization operates a web platform that hosts numerous newspaper properties. We recently acquired a new newspaper and are in the process of integrating it into our platform. As part of this transition, we’ve successfully transferred the App and App ID for the acquired newspaper into our Apple Developer portal. However, no Service ID associated with Sign in with Apple was included in the transfer. Our current implementation uses a single, unified Service ID for all existing newspaper properties. This Service ID facilitates OAuth via a centralized Identity Server. The organization we acquired provided a CSV file containing a list of transport_ids, and based on our understanding, we’re expected to use the Apple endpoint: https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo to initiate a registration process by submitting our Service ID (client_id) along with each transport ID. This step is required before users can sign in, and it should return the existing relay email address. We have a few key concerns: Service ID Compatibility It appears that users cannot be transferred between Service IDs. In our case, there are now two: a.) Our existing Service ID (used across all current newspaper properties) b.) A separate Service ID previously associated with the acquired newspaper 3.) Due to architectural constraints, our platform cannot dynamically toggle between multiple Apple Service IDs. All properties authenticate through our unified Identity Server bound to our existing Service ID. 4.) Is it possible to call /usermigrationinfo using our existing Service ID rather than the one originally used by the acquired property? 5.) Relay Email and Apple ID Consistency 6.) We’re seeing conflicting information about whether the Apple relay email address (@privaterelay.appleid.com) and the Apple user ID are preserved during this migration. Some sources suggest that the relay email and Apple ID are tightly coupled to both the Service ID and Team ID. 7.) If we call /usermigrationinfo with our existing Service ID, will the same relay email be returned, or will Apple issue a new one?

Hi! I'm trying to add Sign in with Apple to my macOS app. I enabled this capability from the developer portal and created the corresponding certificate & provisioning profile (both of type Developer ID Application.) However, Xcode keeps prompting me that the profile doesn't support Sign in with Apple. If I enable Automatically manage signing from Xcode, I can build and run the app but not distribute. If I turn it off and use the profile I got, it just keeps showing the errors below and doesn't even let me build.

Please provide a descriptive title for your feedback: Downloading Developer ID provisioning profiles - missing new entitlements Which area are you seeing an issue with? App Store Connect What type of feedback are you reporting? Incorrect/Unexpected Behavior Please provide the App name/App ID if possible: com.onexengineering.themedeck.macos Please describe the issue and what steps we can take to reproduce it bug in App Store Connect where downloading Developer ID provisioning profiles are missing the new entitlements regenerated from scratch -- App Store Connect says entitlements are good, but actual file confirms entitlements are missing App Store provisioning profiles seem to be unaffected (ignore my incorrect naming of files)

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.

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.

Recently, we have adapted the passkey function on the Mac, but we always encounter the error message "Unable to verify the web credentials association of xxx with domain aaa. Please try again in a few seconds." We can confirm that https://aaa/.well-known/apple-app-site-association has been configured and is accessible over the public network. Additionally, the entitlements in the app have also been set with webcredentials:aaa. This feature has been experiencing inconsistent performance. When I restart my computer or reinstall the pkg, this feature may work or it may still not work. I believe this is a system issue. Here is feed back ID: FB20876945 In the feedback, I provided the relevant logs. If you have any suggestions or assistance, please contact me. I would be extremely grateful!

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.

Our app (app1) was recently transferred from Team A to Team B. While reviewing the Apple login implementation, we discovered that "Sign in with Apple" had been incorrectly set up to use the Service ID and App ID of another app (app2) — specifically, it was using app2.service as the Service ID and app2 as the App ID. In other words, app1’s users were authenticated through app2’s credentials due to a misconfiguration on our part. Now that app1 has been transferred to Team B, we’re trying to preserve those users. However, app2 is still in Team A, and we cannot maintain Team A anymore — meaning app2 must also be transferred to Team B if we want to retain access to the user data. One idea we considered is submitting app2 for App Review (even though it's non-functional) just to fulfill the transfer requirements, and then transferring it to Team B solely to retain the Apple login setup. Is this approach acceptable? Are there any recommended ways to handle this kind of misconfiguration while preserving existing Sign in with Apple users?

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!

My existing iOS app has a legacy App ID prefix which does not match my Team ID. I am planning on migrating it to my Team ID. I am aware of the potential issues with keychain access groups, however I wanted to double check that there are no issues related to "Sign in with Apple". My app is currently the "Primary App ID" in the "Sign in with Apple" settings. The full App ID is listed there, including the prefix. Can someone from the relevant team at Apple confirm that changing the App ID prefix to Team ID has no effect related to "Sign in with Apple"?

I am developing a macOS system service (standalone binary running as a LaunchDaemon) that requires the ability to sign data using a private key which will be deployed via MDM. The Setup: Deployment: A .mobileconfig pushes a PKCS12 identity to the System Keychain. Security Requirement: For compliance and security reasons, we cannot set AllowAllAppsAccess to <true/>. The key must remain restricted. The Goal: I need to use the private key from the identity to be able to sign the data The Problem: The Certificate Payload does not support a TrustedApplications or AccessControl array to pre-authorize binary paths. As a result, when the process tries to use the private key for signing (SecKeyCreateSignature), it prompts the user to allow this operation which creates a disruption and is not desired. What i've tried so far: Manually adding my process to the key's ACL in keychain access obviously works and prevents any prompts but this is not an "automatable" solution. Using security tool in a script to attempt to modify the ACL in an automated way, but that also asks user for password and is not seamless. The Question: Is there a documented, MDM-compatible way to inject a specific binary path into the ACL of a private key? If not, is there a better way to achieve the end goal?

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. Some of my users are signing in using "Sign in with Apple" and choosing the "Hide My Email" option. As expected, Apple generates a private relay email address. However, emails that we send to these addresses are not being delivered — the users report that they are not receiving anything. We’ve configured our email sending domains in the Apple Developer portal, and all domains have been successfully verified with SPF records marked as OK. Our system is sending the emails as usual, and we're not receiving any bounce-back or error messages. Everything looks fine on our end. Is there something specific we need to configure to ensure emails sent to privaterelay.appleid.com addresses are delivered correctly? Are there any known limitations or additional requirements for using Apple's private relay service? Thank you!

I'm trying to confirm the correct URL for Apple Attest development. There seems to be a fraud metric risk section that uses this: https://data-development.appattest.apple.com/v1/attestationData However the key verification seems to use this: https://data-development.appattest.apple.com/v1/attestation Currently I'm attempting to verify the key, so the second one seems likely. However I keep receiving a 404 despite vigorous validation of all fields included in the JSON as well as headers. Can anyone confirm please, which URL I should be sending my AppleAttestationRequest to?

We’ve noticed an unexpected behavior in our production iOS app where the UIDevice.current.identifierForVendor value occasionally changes, even though: The app is distributed via the App Store (not TestFlight or Xcode builds) We do not switch provisioning profiles or developer accounts No App Clips, App Thinning, or other advanced features are in use There’s no manual reinstall or device reset in the scenarios observed (as per user feedback) Any insights or confirmations would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Hi Community, We've implemented Sign In with Apple in our application. Our domains are properly registered in the developer console, but we're experiencing inconsistent email functionality with Apple's privacy email service. Some domains work correctly while others show delivery problems, even though all domains have identical configurations. Apple's console displays green verification status for all domains, yet testing reveals that emails to privacy-protected accounts don't arrive as expected. We're using SendGrid as our email service provider, and all domains have valid authentication records (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) in place. Has anyone encountered similar inconsistencies with Apple's privacy email service? Would appreciate any configuration tips or troubleshooting guidance. Thanks.

In our mobile we are using UUID as a device identifier . With this ID we using certain function like Primary device and secondary devices .
Primary device has more control to the app other than secondary device .
In our case user is getting new iPhone and the apps related data are moved to new device from old device from clone option.

While moving the keychain data is also moved , which is causing the new device also has same UUID and the customer are using both the devices in some cases ,

So both devices are considered as primary in our app .
Is there any way to identify the device is cloned ,

Needed suggestion