I'm are attempting to use the device management migration feature in Apple Business Manager / Apple School Manager (for devices running iOS 26 / iPadOS 26) to re-assign managed devices from one MDM server to another. We followed the published procedure (select device(s) → Assign Device Management → Set deadline → Continue). However, we are observing that on the device side, no notification or prompt appears to the user (such as “Enrollment Required” or “Your organization requires this device to enroll in a different device management service”), even after the migration deadline has passed. Here are the environment details: Device OS version: (iOS 26.1) Device ownership: enrolled via Automated Device Enrollment MDM re-assignment in ABM: old MDM server（name: https://dev5.clomo.com/panel/mackey-dev/ ） → new MDM server (name: https://obliging-bunny-equally.ngrok-free.app/ ) Deadline set: (12/10/2025 12:00 AM) Network connectivity: confirmed online at deadline time We would like to know: Under what exact conditions will the device display the notification/prompt, and what common mis-configurations prevent it from appearing? Is there any device log or activity indicator in ABM/ASM to confirm that the migration instruction has been sent to the device? In cases where the prompt does not appear, what troubleshooting steps can we perform on the device (or in the MDM/ABM configuration) to correct it?

Hi There Our app is used in the hospital field and receives remote APNS via the Notification Service Extension. We found a scenario where screen is on, our app is in background, if a "Critical" notification is displayed as a banner at the top of the screen, subsequent normal notifications will be suppressed and no sound will play. Only after the user swipes away the critical notification will the normal notification appear and play a sound. is this as expected? I could not find any document on such case from Apple. Thanks.

Hi everyone, We manage several macs through Microsoft Intune. We've deployed Platform SSO using the password based method (not the Secure Enclave) and have also enforced filevault encryption through policy. What we're trying to achieve is that multiple users can log into the same Mac. For example, I (the initial enrolling user) can log in without issues. However, we want a colleague to be able to log in as well if they're physically in front of the mac. The challenge we've run into is that once filevault is enabled (We're not sure about it but reading on forums it seems that the problem is filevault), it seems the network is not available at the login screen. This means that while the first user can create a mobile account and log in, a second user can't do the same. The moment we try to log in with another set of credentials, we get an immediate error and the password field shakes instantly, suggesting it's not even reaching out to the network or directory to validate the credentials. We'd like to confirm if this behavior is expected when FileVault is active and whether the only solution is to disable FileVault or if there are alternative solutions to allow network connectivity at the login screen. Essentially, we want to know if there's a way to let a second user log in without having to turn off disk encryption. Or if we can pre-authorize a set of users on the mac in order to create all the mobile account needed.. Thanks in advance! Thomas

May I know the checking mechanism for the ios Provisioning profile? Is my Apple app distributed by MDM inside the organisation? If the Provisioning profile is expired , what is the behaviour when user run the App and how to perform the checking mechanism , is it performed at user client side device or Apple server via online access.

We are implementing the Return to Service (RTS) with App Preservation flow. During testing, we were able to successfully fetch the Bootstrap Token as part of the ADE enrollment process. However, when attempting to initiate the Return to Service command with App Preservation enabled, the following error was returned: [ { "ErrorCode": 12089, "ErrorDomain": "MDMErrorDomain", "LocalizedDescription": "Could not erase device.", "USEnglishDescription": "Could not erase device." }, { "ErrorCode": 66002, "ErrorDomain": "MDMBootstrapTokenErrorDomain", "LocalizedDescription": "Failed to generate LAContext for bootstrap token", "USEnglishDescription": "Failed to generate LAContext for bootstrap token" } ] Below is the sample request (with dummy data). The actual request contained valid values in all fields: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>Command</key> <dict> <key>RequestType</key> <string>EraseDevice</string> <key>ReturnToService</key> <dict> <key>Enabled</key> <true /> <key>WiFiProfileData</key> <data>WiFiProfileData</data> <key>BootstrapToken</key> <data>BootstrapTokenValue</data> <key>MDMProfileData</key> <data>MDM Profile Data</data> </dict> </dict> <key>CommandUUID</key> <string>3670</string> </dict> </plist>

Hello! I’m testing certificate issuance using a locally running Smallstep step-ca ACME server with the device-attest-01 challenge. I’ve created a custom MDM profile for this purpose. When I install the profile, the certificate is issued successfully, but it is not saved to the Keychain as stated in the documentation. I can only see the certificate via mdmclient or in the Wi-Fi settings dropdown menu. Is this expected behavior, or are there additional settings that need to be included in the MDM profile?

I'm using Apple's MDM protocol InstalledApplicationListCommand to get information about installed apps. From iOS/iPadOS 26, the app information obtained by InstalledApplicationListCommand includes information on all apps including system apps (apps that come standard with iOS/iPadOS). https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicemanagement/installed-application-list-command I want iOS/iPadOS26 to get the same information as the app information I get from the previous iOS/iPadOS, and I want to exclude system apps from the app information I get with the InstalledApplicationListCommand. As a way to exclude system apps, you can use the app ID I'm thinking of a way to exclude anything that starts with "com.apple" (the Identifier key value of the InstalledApplicationListResponse.InstalledApplicationListItem object). As a way to exclude system apps, please tell us whether the above method is appropriate and whether there will be any problems in the future.

This is in reference to the feedback ticket : https://feedbackassistant.apple.com/draft/57929340, we would like to know if there are any test enterprise websites that Apple can suggest to test passkeys declaration.

Hi, We developed a Platform SSO extension for our IdP, Keycloak. It would be great to get some feedback on it: https://francisaugusto.com/2025/Platform_single_sign_on_diy/

We have created provisioning profile from apple developer account for our iPadOS app, the expiry date shown in the profile is 20-Aug-2026. However, when when I build the app with this provisional profile the expiry date shown in the app is 6-May-2026. My Certification expires on 2027. I see a embeded.mobileprovision profile inside the app, and it has an expiry of 6-May-2026. I did a clean build, cleared unnecessary profiles from profile folder, created a new provisional profile and tried, but nothing seems help. We have a few apps, and no other app has this issue, only those two apps have this issue. As the expiry date the shorten, we also need to special handle these two apps, Will you please help me to resolve this issue? Thanks.

We have been trying to figure out how to block Apple Private Relay in our enterprise so we can monitor and filter our employees traffic. We are able to block the Private Relay via this process: We used this article from Fortinet to achieve this: https://community.fortinet.com/t5/FortiGate/Technical-Tip-How-to-block-iCloud-Private-Relay-from-bypassing/ta-p/228629 This also appears to block the users ability to utilize Apple iCloud Drive Backups. They would like to allow that still. Is there a way to block iCloud Private Relay while still allowing iCloud Drive Backups to work? I am not finding a document listing the URL requirements for iCloud Drive Backups. We currently have this solution in place: https://community.fortinet.com/t5/FortiGate/Technical-Tip-How-to-allow-iCloud-private-relay/ta-p/383703 Basically this solution is allowing all Apple URL/IPs to go through the firewall and not be filtered. They would like to scan the traffic through. When scanning is enabled the firewall blocks the iCloud Private Relay traffic as it is blocked as being a proxy. Any guidance is greatly appreciated.

Hello, We're testing the new allowedExternalIntelligenceWorkspaceIDs key in the MDM Restrictions payload on supervised iPads. According to Apple's documentation, this key expects an "external integration workspace ID", but it's not clear what this specifically refers to. We've tried the following IDs individually (one at a time, as documentation says only one is supported currently): OpenAI Organization ID ChatGPT user email Apple ID used in ChatGPT Google ID used in ChatGPT login The profile installs correctly via MDM and the key is set, but we want to confirm: What exactly is considered a valid "external integration workspace ID" for this key? Is there a way to verify that the restriction is working as intended on the device (e.g. does it limit specific integrations or apps)? Is there an official list of services that currently support this? Any clarification from Apple or other developers with experience on this would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

I recently reviewed the device management restrictions page of the developer docs (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicemanagement/restrictions) and noticed that several items are now marked "In a future release, this restriction will begin requiring supervision." Some of these changes are likely to have a dramatic impact on our app and business! So my question is threefold: a) where can I find out or request more information about the planned changes (e.g. timeline would be especially helpful)? b) why are these changes being implemented at all? c) to whom / where can I protest these changes (aside from this forum and feedback assistant)?

We are experiencing a critical issue where VPP app installations are consistently taking an excessive amount of time, leading to significant delays in asset association. We are deployionThis is a systemic problem that affects all VPP apps, not just an isolated case. Apps: 39470db7-e475-4269-9709-c80641657027 => com.zimride.instant d0876900-2579-463e-99f1-b7c85ef5c5e8 com.microsoft.azureauthenticator Troubleshooting: We have performed extensive troubleshooting and can confirm the following: VPP Token: The VPP token has been successfully renewed and is currently active and valid. License Availability: We've verified that there are sufficient VPP licenses available for the apps being deployed. Device Status: We've attempted the following on the affected devices: Restarted the devices. Switched to different Wi-Fi networks. Uninstalled and re-installed the apps. App Status: The issue is not limited to a single app; all VPP apps are failing to install. License Revocation: We attempted to revoke and reassign licenses for some devices, but this did not resolve the issue. The app was not pushed, and the pending status remained. Troubleshooting: Through our internal investigation, we have determined that the core issue is that the Asset Association Status is consistently taking excessive time. This seems to be preventing the app installation queue from processing. We have observed a significant delay in the processing of events within the Notification Channel. The time between the event being created and a response being received is excessively long, indicating a potential backlog or issue. We have included a few recent examples below for your reference: Event ID: 39470db7-e475-4269-9709-c80641657027 com.zimride.instant Created Time: 2025-08-26 01:02:04 Response Time: 2025-08-26 01:34:05 Event ID: d0876900-2579-463e-99f1-b7c85ef5c5e8 com.microsoft.azureauthenticator Created Time: 2025-08-25 21:16:29 Response Time: 2025-08-25 22:21:07 We would appreciate your help in the following areas: Resolution: Could you provide any known solutions or workarounds for an asset association status that is taking excessive amount of time'? Best Practices: Are there any recommended best practices or additional parameters we should be checking with the MDM that might influence the queueing of VPP app assignments? Queueing Parameters: Could you provide insight into the parameters or conditions that can affect the queueing and processing of VPP app installations on Apple's servers? Please let us know if there is any additional information or logs we can provide.

For additional security we would like to avoid keeping generated certificates (their private keys) on our server after installing them on a device, but still be able to reference them in later installed configuration profiles via MDM. However, it seems that for a configuration profile's payload to use a certificate (e.g. VPN payload), the certificate payload must be present in the same profile. Are we missing anything, perhaps it's already possible somehow? Ideal workflow for us would be: our MDM server generates a certificate (private+public keys) for a given device our MDM server sends this certificate to the device as configuration profile and saves PayloadUUID of the certificate's payload our MDM server deletes the generated private key from its storage. At this point the private key is present only on the device. at some point in the future our MDM server sends a configuration profile that references the certificate from step 2 via the saved PayloadUUID (e.g. using key PayloadCertificateUUID in a VPN payload) Current result: device responds to MDM server with error "The profile “VPN” could not be installed. Certificates needed for the VPN service “VPN” are invalid." Desired result: device is able to find the previously installed certificate via its PayloadUUID. Alternatively, it could be certificate fingerprint or something similar. One more alternative could be to replace steps 1-3 by an app on the device that obtains a certificate (in any way), installs it to device as a configuration profile, passes the certificate's PayloadUUID to our MDM server and then doing step 4.

m personal iPhone is managed by an Unauthorized and Unknown mdm management team, The profile isn’t showing up in VPN Settings and I can’t remove them from having Remote access and control over my Personal Device! I’ve SPENT MANY MONTHS TRYING TO GET SUPPORT VIA EMAILING APPLE DEVELOPER AND SPEAKING TO APPLE SUPPORT WHICH HAS BEEN EXTREMELY EXHAUSTING AND HUMILIATIN! I’ve resorted to contacting Internet crime websit, the federal trade commissio, Better business bureau and Consumer Affairs to file an online complaint against Apple for not complying with their Security and Privacy policy for consumers accounts! Because of this unauthorized and unknown mdm device management profile I don’t have COMPLETE CONTROL OVER MY OWN IPHONE! ! Unable to find a team with the given Team II 'L95TAW5KWP' to which you belong. Pleas Developer Program Support. https://developer.apple.com/support I contacted developer support via email and also tried calling but they don’t respond!

We have a WebContentFilter that has an AllowList with a couple of domains and a DenyList that includes www.apple.com. This works on iOS18.x but doesn't work in iOS26 as www.apple.com can be reached. https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/deployment/depc77c9609/web Indicates that .apple.com is always accessible but evidence seems to indicate this wasn't the case pre iOS26. An older version of this page https://web.archive.org/web/20220427202204/https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/deployment/depc77c9609/web has no mention of .apple.com although field names are also different. Has this change come about due to the filtering changes introduced in iOS26 and is there any way we can still block .apple.com going forward. Would a content plugin be an options ?

We’ve run into what looks like a gap in how forceAirDropUnmanaged is enforced on iOS devices. Setup: Device: iOS 17.x (unsupervised, enrolled in MDM) MDM Restriction: forceAirDropUnmanaged = true Managed Open-In restriction also applied (block unmanaged destinations). Verified: from a managed app, the AirDrop icon is hidden in the share sheet. This part works as expected. Issue: When two iOS devices are brought close together, the proximity-initiated AirDrop / NameDrop flow still allows transfer of photos, videos, or files between devices. In this path, forceAirDropUnmanaged does not appear to apply, even though the same restriction works correctly in the standard sharing pane. What I’d expect: If forceAirDropUnmanaged is enabled, all AirDrop transfer paths (including proximity/NameDrop) should be treated as unmanaged, and thus blocked when “Managed Open-In to unmanaged destinations” is restricted. What I observe instead: Share sheet → AirDrop hidden ✅ Proximity/NameDrop → transfer still possible ❌ Questions for Apple / Community: Is this a known limitation or expected behavior? Is there a different restriction key (or combination) that also covers proximity-based AirDrop? If not currently supported, should this be filed as Feedback (FB) to request alignment between share sheet AirDrop and NameDrop enforcement? This behaviour introduces a compliance gap for organisations relying on MDM to control data exfiltration on unsupervised or user-enrolled devices. Any clarification or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Steps to Reproduce Step 1: Fetch Initial Device List Called the device list endpoint to retrieve all devices and saved the cursor: GET https://mdmenrollment.apple.com/server/devices Step 2: Modify Devices Added and deleted several devices via https://business.apple.com/ Step 3: Sync Without Pagination Called the sync endpoint using the cursor from Step 1 (no limit): GET https://mdmenrollment.apple.com/devices/sync?cursor={step1_cursor} Result: Returned 3 device records as expected: { "devices": [ { "serial_number": "F70JJ4C16L", "op_type": "added", "op_date": "2025-12-11T07:05:05Z" }, { "serial_number": "F70JJ4C16L", "op_type": "deleted", "op_date": "2025-12-11T07:04:36Z" }, { "serial_number": "C8RWGXZXJWF5", "op_type": "deleted", "op_date": "2025-12-11T07:04:52Z" } ], "more_to_follow": false } Step 4: Sync With Pagination (First Page) Called the sync endpoint using the same cursor from Step 1 with limit=1: GET https://mdmenrollment.apple.com/devices/sync?cursor={step1_cursor}&limit=1 Result: Returned 1 record with more_to_follow: true — indicating more data exists: { "devices": [ { "serial_number": "F70JJ4C16L", "op_type": "added", "op_date": "2025-12-11T07:05:05Z" } ], "more_to_follow": true, "cursor": "MTowOjE3NjU0MzgyNDI5ODc6..." } Step 5: Sync With Pagination (Second Page) Called the sync endpoint using the cursor from Step 4 with limit=1: { "devices": [], "more_to_follow": false } Expected Behavior When paginating with limit=1, the API should return all 3 records across 3 sequential requests. Actual Behavior Without pagination: Returns 3 records ✓ With pagination (limit=1): Returns only 1 record, then empty array ✗ 2 records are missing when using pagination. Impact This inconsistency makes the sync API unreliable for incremental device synchronization workflows.

I am having an issue with duplicated SCEP client certificates on an iOS device. We deployed an SCEP profile via MDM, then deleted and redeployed it via MDM. In Settings > General > VPN & Device Management, only one SCEP profile is visible. However, Safari shows duplicated certificates when a server requests a client certificate. We have tried removing the cert profile on MDM and unenrolling the device from MDM, but only the latest certificate got removed, leaving previous ones stuck on the device or in the Safari app. We have found no way to remove these duplicated certificates other than factory reset the devices. This appears to be a potential iOS bug affecting certificate cleanup. We need assistance to resolve this issue. Also, the issue is difficult to reproduce but has happened to a number of our managed devices.