Hi Apple Developer Team, I am encountering an issue with the “Sign in with Apple” feature. While implementing this functionality in my dotnet application, I noticed that the user’s first name and last name are not being returned, even though I have explicitly requested the name scope. However, the email and other requested information are returned successfully. Here are the details of my implementation: 1. Scope Requested: name, email 2. Response Received: Email and other data are present, but fullName is missing or null. 3. Expected Behavior: I expected to receive the user’s first and last name as per the fullName scope. I have verified the implementation and ensured that the correct scopes are being passed in the request. Could you please help clarify the following? 1. Are there specific conditions under which Apple may not return the user’s fullName despite the scope being requested? 2. Is there a recommended approach or fallback mechanism to handle this scenario? 3. Could this behavior be related to a limitation or change in the API, or might it be an issue on my end? I also came to know that for initial sign in the user details will be displayed in the signin-apple payload as Form data but how do I fetch those form-data from the signin-apple request, please suggest I would greatly appreciate any guidance or solutions to resolve this issue. Thank you for your support!

We are developing an app that uses Authentication Services to authenticate users. According to the documentation, this framework will open the default web browser if it supports auth session handling, and Safari otherwise. This is not entirely true, and users will be frustrated! macOS version: Sequoia 15.5; Safari version: 18.5. When: The default browser is not Safari, and supports auth session handling (Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge as examples); and - The Safari app is already running; The auth flow will: Present the confirmation dialog box with the default browser icon. Good! Open a Safari window, instead of the default browser's one. Bad! Respond with "User Cancelled" error to the app, after making the end user believe the auth was good. Very Bad!! If the app retries the auth session, the default browser window will open as expected, and it will work as expected. However, requiring users to authenticate twice is a very bad users experience... This issue does not reproduce, when either: Safari is not running at the moment of auth session start; The default browser does not support auth session handling; or - Safari is the default browser. Fellow developers, be warned! Apple engineers, feedback #18426939 is waiting for you. Cheers!

We implemented a feature to receive name and email address after Sign in with Apple, and it works perfectly in our testing. However, during the app review, they says it doesn't work, and the app is rejected. Why does it work differently?

We are experiencing an issue with Apple’s Private Email Relay service for Sign in with Apple users. Our setup details are as follows: • Domain: joinalyke.com • Domain successfully added under “Sign in with Apple for Email Communication” • SPF verified • DKIM enabled (2048-bit Easy DKIM via AWS SES) • Emails are being sent from S***@joinalyke.com Amazon SES confirms that emails sent to users’ @privaterelay.appleid.com addresses are successfully delivered (Delivery events recorded in SES and no bounce reported). However, users are not receiving the forwarded emails in their actual inboxes. Since: SES shows successful delivery, SPF and DKIM are properly configured, Domain is registered in the Apple Developer portal, we suspect that the Private Email Relay service may be blocking or not forwarding these emails. Could you please investigate whether: Our domain or IP reputation is being blocked or filtered, There are additional configuration requirements, The relay service is rejecting emails after acceptance, There are content-related filtering policies we should review. We are happy to provide message IDs, timestamps, and sample relay email addresses if required.

Hello everyone, I'm encountering a persistent 503 Server Temporarily Not Available error when trying to implement "Sign in with Apple" for my web application. I've already performed a full review of my configuration and I'm confident it's set up correctly, which makes this server-side error particularly confusing. Problem Description: Our web application uses Firebase Authentication to handle the "Sign in with Apple" flow. When a user clicks the sign-in button, they are correctly redirected to the appleid.apple.com authorization page. However, instead of seeing the login prompt, the page immediately displays a 503 Server Temporarily Not Available error. This is the redirect URL being generated (with the state parameter truncated for security): https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize?response_type=code&client_id=XXXXXX&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2FXXXXXX.firebaseapp.com%2F__%2Fauth%2Fhandler&state=AMbdmDk...&scope=email%20name&response_mode=form_post Troubleshooting Steps Performed: Initially, I was receiving an invalid_client error, which prompted me to meticulously verify every part of my setup. I have confirmed the following: App ID Configuration: The "Sign in with Apple" capability is enabled for our primary App ID. Services ID Configuration: We have a Services ID configured specifically for this. The "Sign in with Apple" feature is enabled on this Services ID. The domain is registered and verified under "Domains and Subdomains". Firebase Settings Match Apple Settings: The Services ID from Apple is used as the Client ID in our Firebase configuration. The Team ID is correct. We have generated a private key, and both the Key ID and the .p8 file have been correctly uploaded to Firebase. The key is not revoked in the Apple Developer portal. Since the redirect to Apple is happening with the correct client_id and redirect_uri, and the error is a 5xx server error (not a 4xx client error like invalid_client), I believe our configuration is correct and the issue might be on Apple's end. This has been happening consistently for some time. My Questions: What could be causing a persistent 503 Server Temporarily Not Available error on the /auth/authorize endpoint when all client-side configurations appear to be correct? What is the formal process for opening a technical support ticket (TSI) directly with Apple Developer Support for an issue like this? Thank you for any insights or help you can provide.

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?

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)?

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.

Issue with passport-apple: req.user Returning Undefined Data & Callback URL Issue I am facing an issue with passport-apple where, after successful authentication, the callback function does not receive the expected user data. Instead, req.user contains undefined values, and there seems to be an issue with the callback URL handling. Steps to Reproduce I have configured passport-apple with the following strategy: passport.use( new AppleStrategy( { clientID: process.env.APPLE_CLIENT_ID, teamID: process.env.APPLE_TEAM_ID, keyID: process.env.APPLE_KEY_ID, privateKeyLocation: path.join(__dirname, 'Auth.p8'), callbackURL: process.env.APPLE_CALLBACK_URL, scope: ['name', 'email'], passReqToCallback: true }, async (req, accessToken, refreshToken, idToken, profile, done) => { try { const decoded = jwt.decode(idToken); const user = { id: decoded?.sub || null, email: decoded?.email || null, name: profile?.name?.firstName || 'Unknown' }; const userApp = await authController.handleAppleAuth(user.email, accessToken, refreshToken); done(null, userApp); } catch (error) { return done(error); } } ) ); Observed Behavior Apple login succeeds, and an existing user is found in the database. However, req.user contains undefined values after authentication. The callback URL does not seem to function correctly, leading to potential misrouting or incomplete authentication flow. Expected Behavior req.user should contain the authenticated user's ID, email, and name. The callback URL should properly handle the authentication response. Actual Behavior req.user contains undefined values instead of valid user data, and the callback URL handling seems to be incorrect. Log Output: { id: '001412.13cccc5062074c35833683f6f0bcf5f6.1212', email: 'xyz@somemail.com', name: 'Unknown' } user checking redirectionn [Function: next] 📍 Processing Apple callback 📍 Authentication successful for user: { id: undefined, email: undefined } { id: undefined, email: undefined, firstName: undefined, lastName: undefined, subscriptionStatus: undefined }

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

I’ve explained this point many times on the forums, so I figured I’d write it up properly once and for all. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread in Privacy & Security > General and add the App Sandbox tag. That way I’ll be sure to see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" The Case for Sandboxing a Directly Distributed App Many folks consider the App Sandbox to be a binary choice: “My app ships in the Mac App Store, so I must sandbox it.” “I directly distribute my app, so I’ll ignore the App Sandbox.” However, those are not your only options. In many cases it makes sense to sandbox a directly distributed app. Sandboxing your app has at least three benefits: It enables app container protection. See Trusted Execution Resources for a link to more info on that. If your app includes any app extensions, it simplifies your development experience because your app and its extensions run in a similar environment. It improves your app’s security (although the actual benefits vary based on the specifics of your app). Sandboxing some apps can be tricky because of the additional security limits applied by the sandbox. However, in a directly distributed app you have access to two techniques that are not available to Mac App Store apps: Temporary exception entitlements Non-sandboxed XPC services Temporary exception entitlements Use temporary exception entitlements to selectively disable specific sandbox security limits. Imagine, for example, that you’re creating a simple document-based app that’s generally compatible with the sandbox. However, that app needs to send an Apple event to Music to create a playlist. That Apple event is blocked by the sandbox. You don’t need to disable the entire App Sandbox just to get around this security limit. Instead, use the com.apple.security.temporary-exception.apple-events entitlement to open a small hole in the sandbox. There are temporary exception entitlements to disable most sandbox security limits. For more information about them, follow the link in App Sandbox Resources. IMPORTANT Don’t be alarmed by the temporary in temporary exception entitlements. That word makes sense when you view this from the Mac App Store perspective. Back in the early days of the Mac App Store, some apps were allowed to use temporary exception entitlements because of limitations in the App Sandbox. Once App Sandbox was sufficiently enhanced, these temporary exception entitlements were no longer allowed in the Mac App Store. However, there’s nothing temporary about the implementation of these entitlements. They work today and are expected to continue working in the future. Using them in a directly distributed app is not a problem. Non-sandboxed XPC services Not all sandbox security limits have a corresponding temporary exception entitlement. For example, the sandbox prevents you from sending a Unix signal to other processes, and there’s no temporary exception entitlement to allow that. If you run into such a limit, move that code to a non-sandboxed XPC service, then have the main app request that the XPC service perform the operation on its behalf. An XPC service can be useful even when there is a temporary exception entitlement to disable a specific sandbox security limit. Continuing the Apple event example from above, if you put the code that sends the Apple event into an XPC service, you only need to apply the temporary exception entitlement to that service, not to your app as a whole. Conclusion If you directly distribute your app, consider enabling the App Sandbox. It has some important benefits, and it might be more feasible than you think.

Estou compartilhando algumas observações técnicas sobre Crash Detection / Emergency SOS no ecossistema Apple, com base em eventos amplamente observados em 2022 e 2024, quando houve chamadas automáticas em massa para serviços de emergência. A ideia aqui não é discutir UX superficial ou “edge cases isolados”, mas sim comportamento sistêmico em escala, algo que acredito ser relevante para qualquer time que trabalhe com sistemas críticos orientados a eventos físicos. Contexto resumido A partir do iPhone 14, a Detecção de Acidente passou a correlacionar múltiplos sensores (acelerômetros de alta faixa, giroscópio, GPS, microfones) para inferir eventos de impacto severo e acionar automaticamente chamadas de emergência. Em 2022, isso resultou em um volume significativo de falsos positivos, especialmente em atividades com alta aceleração (esqui, snowboard, parques de diversão). Em 2024, apesar de ajustes, houve recorrência localizada do mesmo padrão. Ponto técnico central O problema não parece ser hardware, nem um “bug pontual”, mas sim o estado intermediário de decisão: Aceleração ≠ acidente Ruído ≠ impacto real Movimento extremo ≠ incapacidade humana Quando o classificador entra em estado ambíguo, o sistema depende de uma janela curta de confirmação humana (toque/voz). Em ambientes ruidosos, com o usuário em movimento ou fisicamente ativo, essa confirmação frequentemente falha. O sistema então assume incapacidade e executa a ação fail-safe: chamada automática. Do ponto de vista de engenharia de segurança, isso é compreensível. Do ponto de vista de escala, é explosivo. Papel da Siri A Siri não “decide” o acidente, mas é um elo sensível na cadeia humano–máquina. Falhas de compreensão por ruído, idioma, respiração ofegante ou ausência de resposta acabam sendo interpretadas como sinal de emergência real. Isso é funcionalmente equivalente ao que vemos em sistemas automotivos como o eCall europeu, quando a confirmação humana é inexistente ou degradada. O dilema estrutural Há um trade-off claro e inevitável: Reduzir falsos negativos (não perder um acidente real) Aumentar falsos positivos (chamadas indevidas) Para o usuário individual, errar “para mais” faz sentido. Para serviços públicos de emergência, milhões de dispositivos errando “para mais” criam ruído operacional real. Por que isso importa para developers A Apple hoje opera, na prática, um dos maiores sistemas privados de segurança pessoal automatizada do mundo, interagindo diretamente com infraestrutura pública crítica. Isso coloca Crash Detection / SOS na mesma categoria de sistemas safety-critical, onde: UX é parte da segurança Algoritmos precisam ser auditáveis “Human-in-the-loop” não pode ser apenas nominal Reflexões abertas Alguns pontos que, como developer, acho que merecem discussão: Janelas de confirmação humana adaptativas ao contexto (atividade física, ruído). Cancelamento visual mais agressivo em cenários de alto movimento. Perfis de sensibilidade por tipo de atividade, claramente comunicados. Critérios adicionais antes da chamada automática quando o risco de falso positivo é estatisticamente alto. Não é um problema simples, nem exclusivo da Apple. É um problema de software crítico em contato direto com o mundo físico, operando em escala planetária. Justamente por isso, acho que vale uma discussão técnica aberta, sem ruído emocional. Curioso para ouvir perspectivas de quem trabalha com sistemas similares (automotivo, wearables, safety-critical, ML embarcado). — Rafa

I can't find any information about why this is happening, nor can I reproduce the 'successful' state on this device. My team needs to understand this behavior, so any insight would be greatly appreciated! The expected behavior: If I delete both apps and reinstall them, attempting to open the second app from my app should trigger the system confirmation dialog. The specifics: I'm using the MSAL library. It navigates the user to the Microsoft Authenticator app and then returns to my app. However, even after resetting the phone and reinstalling both apps, the dialog never shows up (it just opens the app directly). Does anyone know the logic behind how iOS handles these prompts or why it might be persistent even after a reset? Thanks in advance!

I received a notification stating that we need to register a server-to-server notification endpoint to handle the following three events: Changes in email forwarding preferences. Account deletions in your app. Permanent Apple Account deletions. However, even though we have registered the API endpoint under our Identifier configuration, it appears that we are not receiving any API calls when these events trigger. I honestly have no idea what’s going wrong. I’ve checked our WAF logs and there’s no trace of any incoming traffic at all. Is it possible that Apple hasn't started sending these notifications yet, or is there something I might be missing? I’m stuck and don’t know how to resolve this. I would really appreciate any help or insights you could share. Thank you.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/apptrackingtransparency/attrackingmanager/authorizationstatus/notdetermined Note: Discussion If you call ATTrackingManager.trackingAuthorizationStatus in macOS, the result is always ATTrackingManager.AuthorizationStatus.notDetermined. So, does macOS support getting ATT?

I'm experiencing a strange issue where ASWebAuthenticationSession works perfectly when running from Xcode (both Debug and Release), but fails on TestFlight builds. The setup: iOS app using ASWebAuthenticationSession for OIDC login (Keycloak) Custom URL scheme callback (myapp://) prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = false The issue: When using iOS Keychain autofill (with Face ID/Touch ID or normal iphone pw, that auto-submits the form) -> works perfectly When manually typing credentials and clicking the login button -> fails with white screen When it fails, the form POST from Keycloak back to my server (/signin-oidc) never reaches the server at all. The authentication session just shows a white screen. Reproduced on: Multiple devices (iPhone 15 Pro, etc.) iOS 18.x Xcode 16.x Multiple TestFlight testers confirmed same behavior What I've tried: Clearing Safari cookies/data prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = true and false Different SameSite cookie policies on server Verified custom URL scheme is registered and works (testing myapp://test in Safari opens the app) Why custom URL scheme instead of Universal Links: We couldn't get Universal Links to trigger from a js redirect (window.location.href) within ASWebAuthenticationSession. Only custom URL schemes seemed to be intercepted. If there's a way to make Universal Links work in this context, without a manual user-interaction we'd be happy to try. iOS Keychain autofill works The only working path is iOS Keychain autofill that requires iphone-authentication and auto-submits the form. Any manual form submission fails, but only on TestFlight - not Xcode builds. Has anyone encountered this or know a workaround?

I have been working on integrate sign in with apple. I failed for a while. So I download the demo app from this link: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authenticationservices/implementing-user-authentication-with-sign-in-with-apple And change the bundle id and add it to my paid apple developer account team. Then run it and test it on my all device. It always failed with showing sign up not completed and the log like below: Authorization failed: Error Domain=AKAuthenticationError Code=-7003 "(null)" UserInfo={AKClientBundleID=com.shuaichang.testsignin} LaunchServices: store (null) or url (null) was nil: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-54 "process may not map database" UserInfo={NSDebugDescription=process may not map database, _LSLine=72, _LSFunction=_LSServer_GetServerStoreForConnectionWithCompletionHandler} 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={NSDebugDescription=process may not map database, _LSLine=72, _LSFunction=_LSServer_GetServerStoreForConnectionWithCompletionHandler} 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=1001 "(null)" authorizationController error: The operation couldn’t be completed. (com.apple.AuthenticationServices.AuthorizationError error 1001.)

Hi, My app keeps getting rejected during App Review with the reason that the Sign in with Apple button is unresponsive. However, I have tested it extensively on: • A real iPad Pro (iPadOS 18.3.2) • Multiple Xcode simulators • Including an iPad Air 5th simulator (18.3.1) In all of these cases, the button works correctly. The reviewer mentioned they are using an iPad Air 5th running iPadOS 18.3.2, which I cannot find as a simulator in Xcode, nor do I have access to this exact device around me. I’m using standard SignInWithAppleButton code with no custom wrappers or UI layers on top. Here is the relevant snippet: GeometryReader { geometry in ZStack { Color.black.opacity(0.3) .ignoresSafeArea() .onTapGesture { prompt = "" showChat = false } VStack(alignment: .leading, spacing: 0){ switch purchaseManager.hasAISubscription { case 1: HStack{ } case 2: HStack{ } case 3: HStack{ } default: HStack{ } } Divider() ScrollView { VStack(alignment: .leading, spacing: 8) { ForEach(filteredChatHistory, id: \.id) { chat in } } Spacer() } .frame(maxHeight: geometry.size.height * 0.7) .defaultScrollAnchor(.bottom) .padding() Divider() HStack(){ if httpManager.isLoggedIn && purchaseManager.hasAISubscription > 0 { } } else if purchaseManager.hasAISubscription == 0{ } else{ Spacer() SignInWithAppleButton(.continue){ request in request.requestedScopes = [.email] } onCompletion: { result in switch result { case .success(let auth): switch auth.credential { case let appleCredential as ASAuthorizationAppleIDCredential: let userID = appleCredential.user saveToKeychain(userID, for: "com.xing-fu.aireader.apple.userid") if let identityTokenData = appleCredential.identityToken, let identityToken = String(data: identityTokenData, encoding: .utf8) { Task { //后端认证过,才算登录成功 await httpManager.loginWithApple(identityToken) } } break default: break } case .failure(let error): print("error") } } .frame(maxWidth: 350, maxHeight: 40) .padding() .cornerRadius(10) Spacer() } } } .overlay( // 边框 RoundedRectangle(cornerRadius: 10) .stroke(Color.g2, lineWidth: 4) ) .background(Color(UIColor.systemBackground)) .cornerRadius(10) // 圆角 .shadow(color: Color.black.opacity(0.1), radius: 5, x: 0, y: 5) .frame(width: geometry.size.width * 0.8) .onDisappear{ httpManager.alertMessage = nil } } }

We are implementing authentication login in our iOS mobile application, and during the sign-in/sign-out process, a native system popup appears with the following message: "This allows the app and website to share information about you." This popup interrupts the user experience, and we are concerned it may cause confusion for end users and negatively impact the adoption of our login flow. We would like clarification on the following points: What triggers this popup during the authentication process? Are there any recommended configurations or approaches to suppress or avoid this dialog? If the popup cannot be avoided, what best practices are suggested to ensure a clear and seamless user experience? Our objective is to provide a smooth, user-friendly authentication flow without unexpected system interruptions.

Hello everyone, I'm developing a FIDO2 service using the AuthenticationServices framework. I've run into an issue when a user manually deletes a passkey from their password manager. When this happens, the ASAuthorizationError I get doesn't clearly indicate that the passkey is missing. The error code is 1001, and the localizedDescription is "The operation couldn't be completed. No credentials available for login." The userInfo also contains "NSLocalizedFailureReason": "No credentials available for login." My concern is that these localized strings will change depending on the user's device language, making it unreliable for me to programmatically check for a "no credentials" scenario. Is there a more precise way to determine that the user has no passkey, without relying on localized string values? Thank you for your help.