My app Mocawave is a music player distributed through the Mac App Store. It declares specific audio document types (public.mp3, com.microsoft.waveform-audio, public.mpeg-4-audio, public.aac-audio) in its CFBundleDocumentTypes with a Viewer role. When a user sets Mocawave as the default app for audio files and double-clicks an MP3 downloaded from the internet (which has the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute), macOS displays the alert: "Apple could not verify [filename] is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy." This does not happen when: Opening the same file via NSOpenPanel from within the app Opening the same file with Apple's Music.app or QuickTime Player The app is: Distributed through the Mac App Store Sandboxed (com.apple.security.app-sandbox) Uses com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write entitlement The file being opened is a regular audio file (MP3), not an executable. Since the app is sandboxed and distributed through the App Store, I expected it to have sufficient trust to open quarantined data files without triggering Gatekeeper warnings — similar to how Music.app and QuickTime handle them. Questions: Is there a specific entitlement or Info.plist configuration that allows a sandboxed Mac App Store app to open quarantined audio files without this alert? Is this expected behavior for third-party App Store apps, or could this indicate a misconfiguration on my end? Environment: macOS 15 (Sequoia), app built with Swift/SwiftUI, targeting macOS 13+.

Could you tell me about account security and passkeys? Our service is considering implementing passkeys, and these questions are to understand how Apple protects accounts from third parties. ① Apple website states that two-factor authentication is mandatory for newly created Apple Accounts. When did this requirement come into effect? What are the conditions for users who do not have two-factor authentication enabled? ② Apple website mentions that a verification code may be required when signing into an Apple Account from a new device or browser. Is my understanding of the situations where a verification code is requested accurate, as listed below? Are there any other situations? Completely signing out of the Apple Account on that device. Erasing the device. Needing to change the password for security reasons. ③ If a user is already using a passkey on an Apple device, and then upgrades to a new device, will additional authentication, such as entering a PIN code, be required to use the passkey on the new device?

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.

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?

Hi, After enabling the new Enhanced Security capability in Xcode 26, I’m seeing install failures on devices running < iOS 26. Deployment target: iOS 15.0 Capability: Enhanced Security (added via Signing & Capabilities tab) Building to iOS 18 device error - Unable to Install ...Please ensure sure that your app is signed by a valid provisioning profile. It works fine on iOS 26 devices. I’d like to confirm Apple’s intent here: Is this capability formally supported only on iOS 26 and later, and therefore incompatible with earlier OS versions? Or should older systems ignore the entitlement, meaning this behavior might be a bug?

(Xcode 26.2, iPhone 17 Pro) I can't seem to get hardware tag checks to work in an app launched without the special "Hardware Memory Tagging" diagnostics. In other words, I have been unable to reproduce the crash example at 6:40 in Apple's video "Secure your app with Memory Integrity Enforcement". When I write a heap overflow or a UAF, it is picked up perfectly provided I enable the "Hardware Memory Tagging" feature under Scheme Diagnostics. If I instead add the Enhanced Security capability with the memory-tagging related entitlements: I'm seeing distinct memory tags being assigned in pointers returned by malloc (without the capability, this is not the case) Tag mismatches are not being caught or enforced, regardless of soft mode The behaviour is the same whether I launch from Xcode without "Hardware Memory Tagging", or if I launch the app by tapping it on launchpad. In case it was related to debug builds, I also tried creating an ad hoc IPA and it didn't make any difference. I realise there's a wrinkle here that the debugger sets MallocTagAll=1, so possibly it will pick up a wider range of issues. However I would have expected that a straight UAF would be caught. For example, this test code demonstrates that tagging is active but it doesn't crash: #define PTR_TAG(p) ((unsigned)(((uintptr_t)(p) >> 56) & 0xF)) void *p1 = malloc(32); void *p2 = malloc(32); void *p3 = malloc(32); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p1 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p1, PTR_TAG(p1)); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p2 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p2, PTR_TAG(p2)); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p3 = %p (tag: %u)\n", p3, PTR_TAG(p3)); free(p2); void *p2_realloc = malloc(32); os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "p2 after free+malloc = %p (tag: %u)\n", p2_realloc, PTR_TAG(p2_realloc)); // Is p2_realloc the same address as p2 but different tag? os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Same address? %s\n", ((uintptr_t)p2 & 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFF) == ((uintptr_t)p2_realloc & 0x00FFFFFFFFFFFFFF) ? "YES" : "NO"); // Now try to use the OLD pointer p2 os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Attempting use-after-free via old pointer p2...\n"); volatile char c = *(volatile char *)p2; // Should this crash? os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Read succeeded! Value: %d\n", c); Example output: p1 = 0xf00000b71019660 (tag: 15) p2 = 0x200000b711958c0 (tag: 2) p3 = 0x300000b711958e0 (tag: 3) p2 after free+malloc = 0x700000b71019680 (tag: 7) Same address? NO Attempting use-after-free via old pointer p2... Read succeeded! Value: -55 For reference, these are my entitlements. [Dict] [Key] application-identifier [Value] [String] … [Key] com.apple.developer.team-identifier [Value] [String] … [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.checked-allocations [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.checked-allocations.enable-pure-data [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.dyld-ro [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.enhanced-security-version [Value] [Int] 1 [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.hardened-heap [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.hardened-process.platform-restrictions [Value] [Int] 2 [Key] get-task-allow [Value] [Bool] true What do I need to do to make Memory Integrity Enforcement do something outside the debugger?

QuickLookAR shares the actual USDZ model instead of the original website URL — critical copyright and data leak issue on iOS 26 Since iOS 26, QuickLookAR (or ARQuickLookPreviewItem) no longer preserves the original web URL when sharing a model. Instead of sending the link to the hosted file, the system directly shares the actual USDZ model file with the recipient. This is a critical regression and a severe breach of intellectual property protection, as it exposes proprietary 3D models that must never be distributed outside of the controlled web environment. In earlier iOS versions (tested up to iOS 18), QuickLookAR correctly handled sharing — the share sheet would send the website link where the model is hosted, not the file itself. Starting with iOS 26, this behavior has changed and completely breaks the intended secure flow for AR experiences. Our project relies on allowing users to view models in AR via QuickLook, without ever transferring the underlying 3D assets. Now, the share operation forces full file sharing, giving end users unrestricted access to the model file, which can be copied, rehosted, or reverse-engineered. This issue critically affects production environments and prevents us from deploying our AR-based solutions. Implement a standard QuickLookAR preview with a USDZ file hosted on your web server (e.g., via ARQuickLookPreviewItem). 2. Open the AR view on iOS 26. 3. Tap the Share icon from QuickLookAR. 4. Send via any messenger (Telegram, WhatsApp, etc.). 5. Observe that the actual .usdz model is sent instead of the original website URL. ⸻ Expected behavior: QuickLookAR should share only the original URL (as in iOS 17–18), not the file itself. This ensures that intellectual property and licensed 3D models remain protected and controlled by the content owner. ⸻ Actual behavior: QuickLookAR shares the entire USDZ file, leaking the model content outside of the intended environment. ⸻ Impact: • Violation of copyright and confidential data policies • Loss of control over proprietary 3D assets • Breaking change for all existing web-based AR integrations • Critical blocker for AR production deployment ⸻ Environment: • iOS 26.0 and 26.1 (tested on iPhone 14, iPhone 15) • Safari + QuickLookAR integration • Works correctly on iOS 17 / iOS 18 ⸻ Notes: This regression appears to have been introduced in the latest iOS 26 system handling of QuickLookAR sharing. Please escalate this issue to the ARKit / QuickLook engineering team as it directly affects compliance, IP protection, and usability of AR features across production applications. Additional Notes / Verification: Please test this behavior yourself using the CheckAR test model on my website: https://admixreality.com/ios26/ • If the login page appears, click “Check AR” and then “View in Your Space”. • On iOS 18 and earlier, sharing correctly sends the website URL. • On iOS 26, sharing sends the actual USDZ model file. This clearly demonstrates the regression and the security/IP issue.

I am trying to integrate those into my app, stuck on it would not transfer to view that inside app, can someone help? Scott

Hello, we are using DeviceCheck – App Attest in a production iOS app. The integration has been live for some time and works correctly for most users, but a small subset of users encounter non-deterministic failures that we are unable to reproduce internally. Environment iOS 14+ Real devices only (no simulator) App Attest capability enabled Correct App ID, Team ID and App Attest entitlement Production environment Relevant code let service = DCAppAttestService.shared service.generateKey { keyId, error in // key generation } service.attestKey(keyId, clientDataHash: hash) { attestation, error in // ERROR: com.apple.devicecheck.error 3 / 4 } service.generateAssertion(keyId, clientDataHash: clientDataHash) { assertion, error in // ERROR: com.apple.devicecheck.error 3 / 4 } For some users we intermittently receive: com.apple.devicecheck.error error 3 com.apple.devicecheck.error error 4 Characteristics: appears random affects only some users/devices sometimes resolves after time or reinstall not reproducible on our test devices NSError contains no additional diagnostic info Some questions: What is the official meaning of App Attest errors 3 and 4? Are these errors related to key state, device conditions, throttling, or transient App Attest service issues? Is there any recommended way to debug or gain more insight when this happens in production? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated, as this impacts real users and is difficult to diagnose. Thank you.

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

I'm building a macOS app that registers itself for HTTP(S) url handling and would like it to participate in the ASWebAuthenticationSession fow. I did: update the plist to register as a handler for URL shemes (http, https, file) use NSWorkspace setDefaultApplication API to set this app as a default handler for urls in question wrote custom ASWebAuthenticationSessionWebBrowserSessionHandling implementation and set it as SessionManager's sessionHandler I launched this app from Xcode, then I triggered authentication flow from a third-party app. When the sign in flow is initiated, I can see that my app is activeated (willBecomeActive and didBecomeActive callbacks are both called), but there is no call for sessionHandler's begin() method. With some additional debugging I see that my app receives an apple event when the flow is started: {sfri,auth target=SafariLaunchAgent {qntp=90/$627......},aapd=TRUE If I switch system default browser back to Safari and then start the login flow, it correctly displays a sign in web page. What do I miss? PS. I'm on Tahoe 26.2

Hi, I’m seeing a production issue on iOS 26+ that only affects some users. symptoms: It does NOT happen for all users. It happens for a subset of users on iOS 26+. If we write a value to Keychain and read it immediately in the same session, it succeeds. However, after terminating the app and relaunching, the value appears to be gone: SecItemCopyMatching returns errSecItemNotFound (-25300). Repro (as observed on affected devices): Launch app (iOS 26+). Save PIN data to Keychain using SecItemAdd (GenericPassword). Immediately read it using SecItemCopyMatching -> success. Terminate the app (swipe up / kill). Relaunch the app and read again using the same service -> returns -25300. Expected: The Keychain item should persist across app relaunch and remain readable (while the device is unlocked). Actual: After app relaunch, SecItemCopyMatching returns errSecItemNotFound (-25300) as if the item does not exist. Implementation details (ObjC): We store a “PIN” item like this (simplified): addItem: kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword kSecAttrService: <FIXED_STRING> kSecValueData: kSecAttrAccessControl: SecAccessControlCreateWithFlags(..., kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly, 0, ...) readItem (SecItemCopyMatching): kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword kSecAttrService: <FIXED_STRING> kSecReturnData: YES (uses kSecUseOperationPrompt in our async method) Question: On iOS 26+, is there any known issue or new behavior where a successfully added GenericPassword item could later return errSecItemNotFound after app termination/relaunch for only some users/devices? What should we check to distinguish: OS behavior change/bug vs. entitlement/access-group differences (app vs extension, provisioning/team changes), device state/policies (MDM, passcode/biometrics changes), query attributes we should include to make the item stable across relaunch? Build / Dev Environment: macOS: 15.6.1 (24G90) Xcode: 26.2

[Q] When is the kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient set by macOS and in which conditions? From what I'm gathering, the kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient can not be set by a configuration profile and the end user can only grant full disk access. I searched for documentation on Apple's develop website (with the "kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient" search) and did not get any useful result. Using a more complete search engine, or the forum search engine, only points to the old annoying big bug in macOS Ventura. The problem I'm investigating is showing a process being listed as getting granted kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient permissions in the TCC database when: it's not an Endpoint Security client. it does not have the ES Client entitlement. the bundle of the process includes another process that is an ES Client and is spawn-ed by this process but I don't see why this should have an impact. This process is supposed to have been granted kTCCServiceSystemPolicyAllFiles via end user interaction or configuration profile. AFAIK, the kTCCServiceEndpointSecurityClient permission can only be set by macOS itself. So this looks like to be either a bug in macOS, an undocumented behavior or I'm missing something. Hence the initial question. macOS 15.7.3 / Apple Silicon

We are using SecItemCopyMatching from LocalAuthentication to access the private key to sign a challenge in our native iOS app twice in a few seconds from user interactions. This was working as expected up until about a week ago where we started getting reports of it hanging on the biometrics screen (see screenshot below). From our investigation we've found the following: It impacts newer iPhones using iOS 26.1 and later. We have replicated on these devices: iPhone 17 Pro max iPhone 16 Pro iPhone 15 Pro max iPhone 15 Only reproducible if the app tries to access the private key twice in quick succession after granting access to face ID. Looks like a race condition between the biometrics permission prompt and Keychain private key access We were able to make it work by waiting 10 seconds between private key actions, but this is terrible UX. We tried adding adding retries over the span of 10 seconds which fixed it on some devices, but not all. We checked the release notes for iOS 26.1, but there is nothing related to this. Screenshot:

Apple has repeatedly ignored my reports about a critical privacy issue in Spotlight on macOS 26, and the problem persists in version 26.3 RC. This is not a minor glitch, it is a fundamental breach of user trust and privacy. Several aspects of Spotlight fail to respect user settings: • Hidden apps still exposed: In the Apps section (Cmd+1), Spotlight continues to display apps marked with the hidden flag, even though they should remain invisible. • Clipboard reactivation: The clipboard feature repeatedly turns itself back on after logout or restart, despite being explicitly disabled by the user. • Excluded files revealed: Most concerning, Spotlight exposes files in Suggestions and Recents (Cmd+3) even when those files are explicitly excluded under System Settings > Spotlight > Search Privacy. This behavior directly violates user expectations and system settings. It is not only a major privacy issue but also a security risk, since sensitive files can be surfaced without consent. Apple must address this immediately. Users rely on Spotlight to respect their privacy configurations, and the current behavior undermines both trust and security.

a I am submitting this appeal because we believe our app was misunderstood and the review outcome and follow-up communication have been unfair and mechanically handled. 1) What happened / Outcome we disagree with Our submission was rejected under Guideline 4.8 – Design – Login Services, with the reviewer stating that our app uses a third-party login service but does not provide an equivalent login option that meets Apple’s requirements (limited data collection, private email option, no advertising tracking without consent). However, our game does not require or force any third-party login. The feature being treated as “login” is not a login service at all—it is Mainland China real-name / anti-addiction compliance verification. 2) Why we believe we comply with the App Review Guidelines A. The feature in question is compliance verification, not login Players do not need to create or log into any in-game account to play. The flow exists solely to satisfy Mainland China real-name/anti-addiction compliance requirements. Verification can be completed by either: Using TapTap only as a real-name verification authorization option, or Manually entering a Chinese ID number + legal name to pass verification and play. Because this is verification, not an account login, Guideline 4.8 “Login Services” should not apply in the way the rejection message assumes. B. There is no “playable account” to provide After we clarified the above, we continued to receive repeated, template-like requests to provide a “playable account.” This request does not match our product design: there is no account system required for gameplay, so there is no “review account” to provide. We have already provided the information needed to complete the verification path (ID + name for the compliance flow), yet the responses remained repetitive and did not reflect that the reviewer checked our explanation. 3) Why we believe the handling was unfair Even after clearly explaining that this is not a login system, the review communication continued with mechanical responses that did not address the clarification. This caused significant delays to our release timeline and appears to be unfair treatment compared with many existing App Store apps that use similar compliance verification flows. 4) What we are requesting from the Appeals Team Please investigate and correct the misclassification of our real-name compliance verification as a “login service” under Guideline 4.8. If the team still believes Guideline 4.8 applies, please provide: The specific guideline rationale, and The exact screen/step in our app that is being interpreted as “login.” Please advise what specific materials you need to proceed efficiently (e.g., screen recording of the verification flow, step-by-step review instructions, configuration notes). We are ready to provide them immediately.

I have filed bug reports on this to no avail, so I am bringing it up here hoping someone at Apple will address this. Since the first beta of 26.3, with voice control enabled there are now two icons in the menu bar (*plus an orange dot in full screen) that never go away. That orange microphone isn't serving its intended purpose to notify me that something is accessing my microphone if it is always displayed. I use voice control extensively, so it is nearly always on. In every prior version of macOS, the orange icon was not on for voice control. Even if voice control is not listening but simply enabled in system settings, the orange icon will be there. And there is no need for this icon to be on for a system service that is always listening. This orange icon in the menu bar at all times is incredibly irritating, as it takes up valuable space to the right of the notch, and causes other actual useful menu bar items to be hidden. As well, if some other application on my system were to turn on the mic and start recording me I would never know since that orange icon is always on. It also places an orange dot next to the control center icon taking up even more of the precious little menu bar real estate. Please fix this! Either exempt voice control (as Siri is always listening and it doesn't get the orange icon) or exempt all system services, or give me a way to turn this off. If you cannot tell, I find this incredibly annoying and frustrating.

% 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

I'm developing a passkey manager using ASCredentialProviderViewController. I've set a custom AAGUID in the attestation object during registration: let aaguid = Data([ 0xec, 0x78, 0xfa, 0xe8, 0xb2, 0xe0, 0x56, 0x97, 0x8e, 0x94, 0x7c, 0x77, 0x28, 0xc3, 0x95, 0x00 ]) However, when I test on webauthn.io, the relying party receives: AAGUID: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 Provider Name: "iCloud Keychain" It appears that macOS overwrites the AAGUID to all zeros for third-party Credential Provider Extensions. This makes it impossible for relying parties to distinguish between different passkey providers, which is one of the key purposes of AAGUID in the WebAuthn specification. Is this expected behavior? Is there a way for third-party Credential Provider Extensions to use their own registered AAGUID? Environment: macOS 26.2 Xcode 26.2

I'm testing app transferring, before, I have migrate user from teamA to teamB, including subA->transferSub->subB process, now I'm transfer the app from teamB to teamC, after the transfer requested, I can't get transfer_id by /usermigrationinfo api, which response 400 invalid request. the question is I can still get transfer sub by the auth/token api(grant_type: authorization_code) with teamB parameters(teamIdB/clientIdB/appSecretB/redirectUrlB/subB)，but the value is same as first time transfer_id which get during teamA to teamB. when use parameters above with target(teamIdC) to request /usermigrationinfo, invalid request was responsed. im sure that all parameters is correct, dose it cause by teamB still in 60-days first transferring(sure already accepted)?