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

Hello Apple Developer Community and Support, Our team is encountering a critical and persistent issue with our backend integration of Sign In with Apple, and we are hoping for some insights or assistance. Problem: We consistently receive an "invalid_client" error (HTTP 400 status) when our backend service attempts to exchange the authorization code for tokens at Apple's https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token endpoint. The error message from Apple's response is simply {"error":"invalid_client"}. Our Setup: Client Application: An iOS native application. Backend Service: A Go backend responsible for server-to-server token exchange and user management. Sign In with Apple Flow: The iOS app initiates the Sign In with Apple flow, obtains an authorization code, and then passes this code to our backend for token exchange. Extensive Troubleshooting Performed (No Success): We have meticulously followed all official Apple documentation (including TN3107: Resolving Sign In with Apple Response Errors) and industry best practices. Here's a summary of our verification steps, all of which currently show correct configurations and parameters: Backend client_secret JWT Construction: We generate a client_secret JWT as required for server-to-server communication. We've confirmed the claims in the generated JWT are correct: iss (Issuer): Our Team ID (e.g., XXXXXXXXXX). sub (Subject): Our Service ID (e.g., com.example.service.backendauth). aud (Audience): https://appleid.apple.com. kid (Key ID): The Key ID associated with our .p8 private key (e.g., YYYYYYYYYY). We have performed rigorous verification of the .p8 private key content itself, ensuring no corruption, extra characters, or formatting issues in the environment variable. Our backend logs confirm it's parsing the correct PEM content. Token Exchange Request Parameters: The client_id parameter sent in the POST request to /auth/token is correctly set to our App Bundle ID (e.g., com.example.app.ios), as this is the identifier for which the code was originally issued. The redirect_uri parameter sent in the POST request to /auth/token is precisely matched to a registered "Return URL" in our Apple Developer Portal (e.g., https://api.example.com:port/api/auth/callback?provider=apple). Apple Developer Portal Configuration (Meticulously Verified): App ID: Enabled for "Sign In with Apple". Service ID: Enabled for "Sign In with Apple". Its "Primary App ID" is correctly linked to our App Bundle ID (e.g., com.example.app.ios). Its "Return URLs" exactly match our backend's redirect_uri (e.g., https://api.example.com:port/api/auth/callback?provider=apple). Key: Our .p8 key has "Sign In with Apple" enabled. Crucially, in its configuration panel, the "Primary App ID" is correctly linked to our App Bundle ID (e.g., com.example.app.ios). We've ensured this key is specifically created for "Sign In with Apple" and not other services like APNs. We have performed multiple full revocations and meticulous re-creations of the App ID, Service ID, and Key in the Apple Developer Portal, ensuring correct linkages and using new identifiers to bypass any potential caching issues. Network & System Health Checks: Network connectivity from our backend server to https://appleid.apple.com (port 443) has been confirmed as fully functional via ping and curl -v. The incoming TLS handshake from our iOS client app to our backend server's callback URL (https://api.example.com:port/...) is successful and verified via openssl s_client -connect. There are no longer any TLS handshake errors (EOF). Our backend server's system clock is accurately synchronized via NTP. Request for Assistance: Given that all our visible configurations, environment variables, and request parameters appear to be correct and align with Apple's documentation, and network connectivity is confirmed, we are at a loss for why the invalid_client error persists. Based on TN3107, this error typically implies an issue with the client secret's signature or its validity for the given client_id. However, our logs confirm correct iss, sub, aud, and kid, and the private key content. Has anyone encountered this persistent invalid_client error when all checks pass? Are there any less common configurations or troubleshooting steps we might be missing? Could this indicate a caching or propagation delay on Apple's servers, even after waiting periods? Any insights or guidance would be greatly appreciated. We are prepared to provide detailed, anonymized logs and screenshots to Apple Developer Support privately if requested. Thank you.

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

On Thursday, June 12, 2025, Sign in with Apple was impacted by an incorrect subdomain defined in its /.well-known/openid-configuration file. The JSON returned incorrectly provided https://account.apple.com instead of the expected https://appleid.apple.com. For Sign in with Apple, the value for the issuer (iss) claim in the user's identity token is https://appleid.apple.com. Additionally, if your clients use the Sign in with Apple REST API, the following endpoints should be used for each request: https://appleid.apple.com/auth/authorize https://appleid.apple.com/auth/token https://appleid.apple.com/auth/revoke https://appleid.apple.com/auth/keys This issue with the /.well-known/openid-configuration file was resolved the same day. Use the URL below to confirm the expected subdomain is provided, as needed: https://appleid.apple.com/.well-known/openid-configuration Cheers, Paris X Pinkney |  WWDR | DTS Engineer

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

Hi everyone, I'm developing an iOS app using the AppsFlyer SDK. I understand that starting with iOS 14.5, if a user denies the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) permission, we are not allowed to access the IDFA or perform cross-app tracking. However, I’d like to clarify which in-app events are still legally and technically safe to send when the user denies ATT permission. Specifically, I want to know: Is it acceptable to send events like onboarding_completed, paywall_viewed, subscription_started, subscribe, subscribe_price, or app_opened if they are not linked to IDFA or any form of user tracking? Would sending such internal behavioral events (used purely for SKAdNetwork performance tracking or in-app analytics) violate Apple’s privacy policy if no device identifiers are attached? Additionally, if these events are sent in fully anonymous form (i.e., not associated with IDFA, user ID, email, or any identifiable metadata), does Apple still consider this a privacy concern? In other words, can onboarding_completed, paywall_viewed, subsribe, subscribe_price, etc., be sent in anonymous format without violating ATT policies? Are there any official Apple guidelines or best practices that outline what types of events are considered compliant in the absence of ATT consent? My goal is to remain 100% compliant with Apple’s policies while still analyzing meaningful user behavior to improve the in-app experience. Any clarification or pointers to documentation would be greatly appreciated. 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.

Hi, Xcode Instruments shows multiple Points of Interest with the information that the framework is not listed in my Privacy Manifest. However, I have already included them in the Privacy Manifest under the privacy tracking domains. I have this problem with every tracking domain i listed in the Privacy Manifest's Privacy Tracking Domains. Did I make a mistake in my Privacy Manifest declaration?

Hi, I am in need of your help with publishing my game. I got the following explanation for the negative review of my app/game. Issue Description One or more purpose strings in the app do not sufficiently explain the use of protected resources. Purpose strings must clearly and completely describe the app's use of data and, in most cases, provide an example of how the data will be used. Next Steps Update the local network information purpose string to explain how the app will use the requested information and provide a specific example of how the data will be used. See the attached screenshot. Resources Purpose strings must clearly describe how an app uses the ability, data, or resource. The following are hypothetical examples of unclear purpose strings that would not pass review: "App would like to access your Contacts" "App needs microphone access" See examples of helpful, informative purpose strings. The problem is that they say my app asks to allow my app to find devices on local networks. And that this needs more explanation in the purpose strings. Totally valid to ask, but the problem is my app doesn't need local access to devices, and there shouldn't be code that asks this?? FYI the game is build with Unity. Would love some help on how to turn this off so that my app can get published.

Hi, We are operating a service that uses Sign in with Apple for user registration and login. As part of our security incident response and periodic security improvements, we are planning to rotate the private key used to generate the client secret (JWT) for Sign in with Apple. I have read the Human Interface Guidelines and the AuthenticationServices documentation, but I could not find a clear description of the behavior and user impact when rotating this private key. I would like to ask the following questions: Background: We issue a Sign in with Apple private key (with a Key ID) in our Apple Developer account. Our server uses this private key to generate the client secret (JWT). This is used for Sign in with Apple login on our web / mobile app. We are planning to invalidate the existing private key and switch to a newly issued one. Questions: Impact on existing logged-in sessions Will rotating the private key force already logged-in users (who previously signed in with Apple) to be logged out from our service? Can the user identifier (such as the "sub" claim) for existing Sign in with Apple users change due to key rotation? Recommended frequency and best practices Does Apple recommend rotating this private key only when it is compromised, or on a regular basis? If there are any official documents or examples that describe how to safely perform key rotation in production, we would appreciate a pointer. Impact on marketing / analytics We are using user IDs (linked via Sign in with Apple) for analytics and marketing attribution. Is there any expected impact on such use cases caused by rotating the private key? For example, is there any possibility that user identifiers change as a result of key rotation, or anything we should be careful about from a data linkage perspective? Our goal is to rotate the private key in a secure way without causing service downtime, mass logouts, or loss of account linkage. If there is already an official document that covers this, please let me know the URL. Thank you in advance.

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?

Hi, We're in the process of implementing Apple's App Integrity, but am getting stalled due to missing documents. Can anyone assist with this? We've been following https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck/validating-apps-that-connect-to-your-server to make the necessary updates, but have come up short with where the document references decoding the Attestation Object. Can we get more information here and how the decoding process work?

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

We’ve identified an issue in our app where, upon clicking the "Call Customer Center" button, users are unexpectedly shown a logo and message option on a native pop-up window. However, this wasn't the case before, and it should only display a phone number to dial, which was given inside our code. This is incorrect and misleading for our users, as: We are a Canadian-based service and have no affiliation with US messaging chat. The messaging feature was never enabled or intended for our app. Our app should only initiate a phone call to our customer support center — no messages or branding from third parties should appear

Hi community, I'm wondering how can I request the permission of "System Audio Recording Only" under the Privacy & Security -> Screen & System Audio Recording via swift? Did a bunch of search but didn't find good documentation on it. Tried another approach here https://github.com/insidegui/AudioCap/blob/main/AudioCap/ProcessTap/AudioRecordingPermission.swift which doesn't work very reliably.

override func prepareInterface(forPasskeyRegistration registrationRequest: any ASCredentialRequest) int this function how can i get the "challenge" from user agent, the params "challenge" need to be used in webauthn navigator.credentials.create

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

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

I would like to make an app that uses Sign in with Apple to provide the users with a very convenient way of authenticating their (anonymous) identity. I'm using the identityToken that the SignInWithAppleButton provides to the onCompletion closure to build an AWS Identity Resolver that will be used to access AWS resources for that user. At the moment, everything works fine, except that the identityToken eventually stops working (I think after 24 hours) and is no longer usable for AWS identity resolvers. Is there a way to refresh the identityToken, or to generate a new one, without user interaction? I don't mind at all, if in some situations (eg logout from another device, deletion of account, etc), it cannot refresh the token, and it directs me to take further action by giving an error. Most importantly, I don't want the user to be forced to deal with the SignInWithAppleButton every time that they interact with web services. From the user's point of view, I would like the experience to be that they simply confirm that they agree to use SignInWithApple on first use (maybe once per device), and are never inconvenienced by it again. P.S. Sorry for posting this here. I tried to set the topic to "Privacy & Security" and ran into form validation errors.

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.