From what I've gathered from the (rather old) documentation and sample projects on Authorization Plugins, I understand that those can be used to extend the macOS authorization services with custom (and possibly quite complex) requirements for privilege management. During my testing, I found it to be technically possible to allow a normal (non-admin) user to perform some actions that they normally couldn't by leveraging plugin mechanisms. For instance, if I alter the class of system.preferences.network from user to evaluate-mechanisms I can make it so my custom plugin decides which user is actually able to make modifications to the system through the Network settings pane. However, I've noticed that if I leave the actual authentication to the built-in authentication mechanism and perform my validations after that, the user will face a rather odd message: Clearly, even though this seems to work like I'd expected it to, there's something strange going on here. So my question is, what can I actually achieve with authorization plugins in terms of managing system privileges, and what should I use it for? Are there any alternatives I could consider? And if so, could they offer me the flexibility that implementing my own custom logic as a plugin does? I'm not sure what the best practices and recommendations are in terms of both security and usability regarding these plugins, and would very much appreciate some pointers in the right direction.

If you’re on macOS and targeting the file-based keychain, kSecMatchLimitAll always defaults to kSecMatchLimitOne I regularly help developers with keychain problems, both here on DevForums and for my Day Job™ in DTS. Over the years I’ve learnt a lot about the API, including many pitfalls and best practices. This post is my attempt to collect that experience in one place. If you have questions or comments about any of this, put them in a new thread and apply the Security tag so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices It’s just four functions, how hard can it be? The SecItem API seems very simple. After all, it only has four function calls, how hard can it be? In reality, things are not that easy. Various factors contribute to making this API much trickier than it might seem at first glance. This post explains some of the keychain’s pitfalls and then goes on to explain various best practices. Before reading this, make sure you understand the fundamentals by reading its companion post, SecItem: Fundamentals. Pitfalls Lets start with some common pitfalls. Queries and Uniqueness Constraints The relationship between query dictionaries and uniqueness constraints is a major source of problems with the keychain API. Consider code like this: var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecAttrGeneric: Data("SecItemHints".utf8), ] as NSMutableDictionary let err = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { query[kSecValueData] = Data("opendoor".utf8) let err2 = SecItemAdd(query, nil) if err2 == errSecDuplicateItem { fatalError("… can you get here? …") } } Can you get to the fatal error? At first glance this might not seem possible because you’ve run your query and it’s returned errSecItemNotFound. However, the fatal error is possible because the query contains an attribute, kSecAttrGeneric, that does not contribute to the uniqueness. If the keychain contains a generic password whose service (kSecAttrService) and account (kSecAttrAccount) attributes match those supplied but who’s generic (kSecAttrGeneric) attribute does not, the SecItemCopyMatching calls will return errSecItemNotFound. However, for a generic password item, of the attributes shown here, only the service and account attributes are included in the uniqueness constraint. If you try to add an item where those attributes match an existing item, the add will fail with errSecDuplicateItem even though the value of the generic attribute is different. The take-home point is that that you should study the attributes that contribute to uniqueness and use them in a way that’s aligned with your view of uniqueness. See the Uniqueness section of SecItem: Fundamentals for a link to the relevant documentation. Erroneous Attributes Each keychain item class supports its own specific set of attributes. For information about the attributes supported by a given class, see SecItem: Fundamentals. I regularly see folks use attributes that aren’t supported by the class they’re working with. For example, the kSecAttrApplicationTag attribute is only supported for key items (kSecClassKey). Using it with a certificate item (kSecClassCertificate) will cause, at best, a runtime error and, at worst, mysterious bugs. This is an easy mistake to make because: The ‘parameter block’ nature of the SecItem API means that the compiler won’t complain if you use an erroneous attribute. On macOS, the shim that connects to the file-based keychain ignores unsupported attributes. Imagine you want to store a certificate for a particular user. You might write code like this: let err = SecItemAdd([ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecAttrApplicationTag: Data(name.utf8), kSecValueRef: cert, ] as NSDictionary, nil) The goal is to store the user’s name in the kSecAttrApplicationTag attribute so that you can get back their certificate with code like this: let err = SecItemCopyMatching([ kSecClass: kSecClassCertificate, kSecAttrApplicationTag: Data(name.utf8), kSecReturnRef: true, ] as NSDictionary, &copyResult) On iOS, and with the data protection keychain on macOS, both calls will fail with errSecNoSuchAttr. That makes sense, because the kSecAttrApplicationTag attribute is not supported for certificate items. Unfortunately, the macOS shim that connects the SecItem API to the file-based keychain ignores extraneous attributes. This results in some very bad behaviour: SecItemAdd works, ignoring kSecAttrApplicationTag. SecItemCopyMatching ignores kSecAttrApplicationTag, returning the first certificate that it finds. If you only test with a single user, everything seems to work. But, later on, when you try your code with multiple users, you might get back the wrong result depending on the which certificate the SecItemCopyMatching call happens to discover first. Ouch! Context Matters Some properties change behaviour based on the context. The value type properties are the biggest offender here, as discussed in the Value Type Subtleties section of SecItem: Fundamentals. However, there are others. The one that’s bitten me is kSecMatchLimit: In a query and return dictionary its default value is kSecMatchLimitOne. If you don’t supply a value for kSecMatchLimit, SecItemCopyMatching returns at most one item that matches your query. In a pure query dictionary its default value is kSecMatchLimitAll. For example, if you don’t supply a value for kSecMatchLimit, SecItemDelete will delete all items that match your query. This is a lesson that, once learnt, is never forgotten! Note Although this only applies to the data-protection keychain. If you’re on macOS and targeting the file-based keychain, kSecMatchLimit always defaults to kSecMatchLimitOne (r. 105800863). Fun times! Digital Identities Aren’t Real A digital identity is the combination of a certificate and the private key that matches the public key within that certificate. The SecItem API has a digital identity keychain item class, namely kSecClassIdentity. However, the keychain does not store digital identities. When you add a digital identity to the keychain, the system stores its components, the certificate and the private key, separately, using kSecClassCertificate and kSecClassKey respectively. This has a number of non-obvious effects: Adding a certificate can ‘add’ a digital identity. If the new certificate happens to match a private key that’s already in the keychain, the keychain treats that pair as a digital identity. Likewise when you add a private key. Similarly, removing a certificate or private key can ‘remove’ a digital identity. Adding a digital identity will either add a private key, or a certificate, or both, depending on what’s already in the keychain. Removing a digital identity removes its certificate. It might also remove the private key, depending on whether that private key is used by a different digital identity. Keys Aren’t Stored in the Secure Enclave Apple platforms let you protect a key with the Secure Enclave (SE). The key is then hardware bound. It can only be used by that specific SE [1]. Earlier versions of the Protecting keys with the Secure Enclave article implied that SE-protected keys were stored in the SE itself. This is not true, and it’s caused a lot of confusion. For example, I once asked the keychain team “How much space does the SE have available to store keys?”, a question that’s complete nonsense once you understand how this works. In reality, SE-protected keys are stored in the standard keychain database alongside all your other keychain items. The difference is that the key is wrapped in such a way that only the SE can use it. So, the key is protected by the SE, not stored in the SE. A while back we updated the docs to clarify this point but the confusion persists. [1] Technically it’s that specific iteration of that specific SE. If you erase the device then the key material needed to use the key is erased and so the key becomes permanently useless. This is the sort of thing you’ll find explained in Apple Platform Security. Careful With that Shim, Mac Developer As explained in TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations, macOS has a shim that connects the SecItem API to either the data protection keychain or the file-based keychain depending on the nature of the request. That shim has limitations. Some of those are architectural but others are simply bugs in the shim. For some great examples, see the Investigating Complex Attributes section below. The best way to avoid problems like this is to target the data protection keychain. If you can’t do that, try to avoid exploring the outer reaches of the SecItem API. If you encounter a case that doesn’t make sense, try that same case with the data protection keychain. If it works there but fails with the file-based keychain, please do file a bug against the shim. It’ll be in good company. Add-only Attributes Some attributes can only be set when you add an item. These attributes are usually associated with the scope of the item. For example, to protect an item with the Secure Enclave, supply the kSecAttrAccessControl attribute to the SecItemAdd call. Once you do that, however, you can’t change the attribute. Calling SecItemUpdate with a new kSecAttrAccessControl won’t work. Lost Keychain Items A common complaint from developers is that a seemingly minor update to their app has caused it to lose all of its keychain items. Usually this is caused by one of two problems: Entitlement changes Query dictionary confusion Access to keychain items is mediated by various entitlements, as described in Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps. If the two versions of your app have different entitlements, one version may not be able to ‘see’ items created by the other. Imagine you have an app with an App ID of SKMME9E2Y8.com.example.waffle-varnisher. Version 1 of your app is signed with the keychain-access-groups entitlement set to [ SKMME9E2Y8.groupA, SKMME9E2Y8.groupB ]. That makes its keychain access group list [ SKMME9E2Y8.groupA, SKMME9E2Y8.groupB, SKMME9E2Y8.com.example.waffle-varnisher ]. If this app creates a new keychain item without specifying kSecAttrAccessGroup, the system places the item into SKMME9E2Y8.groupA. If version 2 of your app removes SKMME9E2Y8.groupA from the keychain-access-groups, it’ll no longer be able to see the keychain items created by version 1. You’ll also see this problem if you change your App ID prefix, as described in App ID Prefix Change and Keychain Access. IMPORTANT When checking for this problem, don’t rely on your .entitlements file. There are many steps between it and your app’s actual entitlements. Rather, run codesign to dump the entitlements of your built app: % codesign -d --entitlements - /path/to/your.app Lost Keychain Items, Redux Another common cause of lost keychain items is confusion about query dictionaries, something discussed in detail in this post and SecItem: Fundamentals. If SecItemCopyMatching isn’t returning the expected item, add some test code to get all the items and their attributes. For example, to dump all the generic password items, run code like this: func dumpGenericPasswords() throws { let itemDicts = try secCall { SecItemCopyMatching([ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecMatchLimit: kSecMatchLimitAll, kSecReturnAttributes: true, ] as NSDictionary, $0) } as! [[String: Any]] print(itemDicts) } Then compare each item’s attributes against the attributes you’re looking for to see why there was no match. Best Practices With the pitfalls out of the way, let’s talk about best practices. Less Painful Dictionaries I look at a lot of keychain code and it’s amazing how much of it is way more painful than it needs to be. The biggest offender here is the dictionaries. Here are two tips to minimise the pain. First, don’t use CFDictionary. It’s seriously ugly. While the SecItem API is defined in terms of CFDictionary, you don’t have to work with CFDictionary directly. Rather, use NSDictionary and take advantage of the toll-free bridge. For example, consider this CFDictionary code: CFTypeRef keys[4] = { kSecClass, kSecAttrService, kSecMatchLimit, kSecReturnAttributes, }; static const int kTen = 10; CFNumberRef ten = CFNumberCreate(NULL, kCFNumberIntType, &kTen); CFAutorelease(ten); CFTypeRef values[4] = { kSecClassGenericPassword, CFSTR("AYS"), ten, kCFBooleanTrue, }; CFDictionaryRef query = CFDictionaryCreate( NULL, keys, values, 4, &kCFTypeDictionaryKeyCallBacks, &kCFTypeDictionaryValueCallBacks ); Note This might seem rather extreme but I’ve literally seen code like this, and worse, while helping developers. Contrast this to the equivalent NSDictionary code: NSDictionary * query = @{ (__bridge NSString *) kSecClass: (__bridge NSString *) kSecClassGenericPassword, (__bridge NSString *) kSecAttrService: @"AYS", (__bridge NSString *) kSecMatchLimit: @10, (__bridge NSString *) kSecReturnAttributes: @YES, }; Wow, that’s so much better. Second, if you’re working in Swift, take advantage of its awesome ability to create NSDictionary values from Swift dictionary literals. Here’s the equivalent code in Swift: let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecMatchLimit: 10, kSecReturnAttributes: true, ] as NSDictionary Nice! Avoid Reusing Dictionaries I regularly see folks reuse dictionaries for different SecItem calls. For example, they might have code like this: var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let dict = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecReturnData: true, ] as NSMutableDictionary var err = SecItemCopyMatching(dict, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { dict[kSecValueData] = Data("opendoor".utf8) err = SecItemAdd(dict, nil) } This specific example will work, but it’s easy to spot the logic error. kSecReturnData is a return type property and it makes no sense to pass it to a SecItemAdd call whose second parameter is nil. I’m not sure why folks do this. I think it’s because they think that constructing dictionaries is expensive. Regardless, this pattern can lead to all sorts of weird problems. For example, it’s the leading cause of the issue described in the Queries and the Uniqueness Constraints section, above. My advice is that you use a new dictionary for each call. That prevents state from one call accidentally leaking into a subsequent call. For example, I’d rewrite the above as: var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let query = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecReturnData: true, ] as NSMutableDictionary var err = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { let add = [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", kSecValueData: Data("opendoor".utf8), ] as NSMutableDictionary err = SecItemAdd(add, nil) } It’s a bit longer, but it’s much easier to track the flow. And if you want to eliminate the repetition, use a helper function: func makeDict() -> NSMutableDictionary { [ kSecClass: kSecClassGenericPassword, kSecAttrService: "AYS", kSecAttrAccount: "mrgumby", ] as NSMutableDictionary } var copyResult: CFTypeRef? = nil let query = makeDict() query[kSecReturnData] = true var err = SecItemCopyMatching(query, &copyResult) if err == errSecItemNotFound { let add = makeDict() query[kSecValueData] = Data("opendoor".utf8) err = SecItemAdd(add, nil) } Think Before Wrapping A lot of folks look at the SecItem API and immediately reach for a wrapper library. A keychain wrapper library might seem like a good idea but there are some serious downsides: It adds another dependency to your project. Different subsystems within your project may use different wrappers. The wrapper can obscure the underlying API. Indeed, its entire raison d’être is to obscure the underlying API. This is problematic if things go wrong. I regularly talk to folks with hard-to-debug keychain problems and the conversation goes something like this: Quinn: What attributes do you use in the query dictionary? J R Developer: What’s a query dictionary? Quinn: OK, so what error are you getting back? J R Developer: It throws WrapperKeychainFailedError. That’s not helpful )-: If you do use a wrapper, make sure it has diagnostic support that includes the values passed to and from the SecItem API. Also make sure that, when it fails, it returns an error that includes the underlying keychain error code. These benefits will be particularly useful if you encounter a keychain problem that only shows up in the field. Wrappers must choose whether to be general or specific. A general wrapper may be harder to understand than the equivalent SecItem calls, and it’ll certainly contain a lot of complex code. On the other hand, a specific wrapper may have a model of the keychain that doesn’t align with your requirements. I recommend that you think twice before using a keychain wrapper. Personally I find the SecItem API relatively easy to call, assuming that: I use the techniques shown in Less Painful Dictionaries, above, to avoid having to deal with CFDictionary. I use my secCall(…) helpers to simplify error handling. For the code, see Calling Security Framework from Swift. If you’re not prepared to take the SecItem API neat, consider writing your own wrapper, one that’s tightly focused on the requirements of your project. For example, in my VPN apps I use the wrapper from this post, which does exactly what I need in about 100 lines of code. Prefer to Update Of the four SecItem functions, SecItemUpdate is the most neglected. Rather than calling SecItemUpdate I regularly see folks delete and then re-add the item. This is a shame because SecItemUpdate has some important benefits: It preserves persistent references. If you delete and then re-add the item, you get a new item with a new persistent reference. It’s well aligned with the fundamental database nature of the keychain. It forces you to think about which attributes uniquely identify your item and which items can be updated without changing the item’s identity. Understand These Key Attributes Key items have a number of attributes that are similarly named, and it’s important to keep them straight. I created a cheat sheet for this, namely, SecItem attributes for keys. You wouldn’t believe how often I consult this! Investigating Complex Attributes Some attributes have values where the format is not obvious. For example, the kSecAttrIssuer attributed is documented as: The corresponding value is of type CFData and contains the X.500 issuer name of a certificate. What exactly does that mean? If I want to search the keychain for all certificates issued by a specific certificate authority, what value should I supply? One way to figure this out is to add a certificate to the keychain, read the attributes back, and then dump the kSecAttrIssuer value. For example: let cert: SecCertificate = … let attrs = try secCall { SecItemAdd([ kSecValueRef: cert, kSecReturnAttributes: true, ] as NSDictionary, $0) } as! [String: Any] let issuer = attrs[kSecAttrIssuer as String] as! NSData print((issuer as NSData).debugDescription) // prints: <3110300e 06035504 030c074d 6f757365 4341310b 30090603 55040613 024742> Those bytes represent the contents of a X.509 Name ASN.1 structure with DER encoding. This is without the outer SEQUENCE element, so if you dump it as ASN.1 you’ll get a nice dump of the first SET and then a warning about extra stuff at the end of the file: % xxd issuer.asn1 00000000: 3110 300e 0603 5504 030c 074d 6f75 7365 1.0...U....Mouse 00000010: 4341 310b 3009 0603 5504 0613 0247 42 CA1.0...U....GB % dumpasn1 -p issuer.asn1 SET { SEQUENCE { OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) UTF8String 'MouseCA' } } Warning: Further data follows ASN.1 data at position 18. Note For details on the Name structure, see section 4.1.2.4 of RFC 5280. Amusingly, if you run the same test against the file-based keychain you’ll… crash. OK, that’s not amusing. It turns out that the code above doesn’t work when targeting the file-based keychain because SecItemAdd doesn’t return a dictionary but rather an array of dictionaries (r. 21111543). Once you get past that, however, you’ll see it print: <301f3110 300e0603 5504030c 074d6f75 73654341 310b3009 06035504 06130247 42> Which is different! Dumping it as ASN.1 shows that it’s the full Name structure, including the outer SEQUENCE element: % xxd issuer-file-based.asn1 00000000: 301f 3110 300e 0603 5504 030c 074d 6f75 0.1.0...U....Mou 00000010: 7365 4341 310b 3009 0603 5504 0613 0247 seCA1.0...U....G 00000020: 42 B % dumpasn1 -p issuer-file-based.asn1 SEQUENCE { SET { SEQUENCE { OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) UTF8String 'MouseCA' } } SET { SEQUENCE { OBJECT IDENTIFIER countryName (2 5 4 6) PrintableString 'GB' } } } This difference in behaviour between the data protection and file-based keychains is a known bug (r. 26391756) but in this case it’s handy because the file-based keychain behaviour makes it easier to understand the data protection keychain behaviour. App Groups on the Mac Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps explains that three entitlements determine your keychain access: keychain-access-groups application-identifier (com.apple.application-identifier on macOS) com.apple.security.application-groups In the discussion of com.apple.security.application-groups it says: Starting in iOS 8, the array of strings given by this entitlement also extends the list of keychain access groups. That’s true, but it’s also potentially misleading. This affordance only works on iOS and its child platforms. It doesn’t work on macOS. That’s because app groups work very differently on macOS than they do on iOS. For all the details, see App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight!. However, the take-home point is that, when you use the data protection keychain on macOS, your keychain access group list is built from keychain-access-groups and com.apple.application-identifier. Revision History 2024-04-11 Added the App Groups on the Mac section. 2023-10-25 Added the Lost Keychain Items and Lost Keychain Items, Redux sections. 2023-09-22 Made minor editorial changes. 2023-09-12 Fixed various bugs in the revision history. Added the Erroneous Attributes section. 2023-02-22 Fixed the link to the VPNKeychain post. Corrected the name of the Context Matters section. Added the Investigating Complex Attributes section. 2023-01-28 First posted.

I have an app that creates a private key in the secure enclave with a unique alias. It is created with the kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave flag. According to the docs, such private keys should never leave the enclave under any circumstances and definitely not restored on new devices. After migrating to a new iPhone 15 the app does not offer to create a new private key in the enclave, but rather it is able to find the unique alias of the private key in the new phone. i.e. as if it found the private key on the new phone's secure enclave I believe (/hope) that in practice the object I get in the new iPhone from SecItemCopyMatching is not usable. I assume this is a bug that should be fixed by apple? How can I detect that this SecItemCopyMatching result is stale so I can ignore it and prompt the user to create a new keypair on the secure enclave? Thanks

I added a PKCS12 file to the Certificates section of the mobileconfig using Apple Configurator. I've installed the profile on the device but I can't see how I can access this cert. I want to use it to response to a NSURLAuthenticationMethodClientCertificate challenge. Is it possible for an iOS app to get access to the cert this way?

We are using mach_absolute_time to determine the number of CPU cycles in our app, and from that, we are using it to seed a random number generator. From this random number generator, we are getting a series of random numbers and combining it with other random numbers from another generator not seeded via mach_abolute_time. This combined random number is being sent off device as a unique ID for authentication purposes. I've read through the required reasons for using this API, and I am not sure if it falls under the acceptable use cases. My gut-feeling is that it does not. The following reasons are what Apple lists as acceptable reasons for this API: 35F9.1 Declare this reason to access the system boot time in order to measure the amount of time that has elapsed between events that occurred within the app or to perform calculations to enable timers. Information accessed for this reason, or any derived information, may not be sent off-device. There is an exception for information about the amount of time that has elapsed between events that occurred within the app, which may be sent off-device. 8FFB.1 Declare this reason to access the system boot time to calculate absolute timestamps for events that occurred within your app, such as events related to the UIKit or AVFAudio frameworks. Absolute timestamps for events that occurred within your app may be sent off-device. System boot time accessed for this reason, or any other information derived from system boot time, may not be sent off-device. 3D61.1 Declare this reason to include system boot time information in an optional bug report that the person using the device chooses to submit. The system boot time information must be prominently displayed to the person as part of the report. Information accessed for this reason, or any derived information, may be sent off-device only after the user affirmatively chooses to submit the specific bug report including system boot time information, and only for the purpose of investigating or responding to the bug report. Would anybody be able to confirm that this usage is allowed or if we will need to change it to be in accordance with Apple's new policies regarding the usage of this API? Thanks

I'm developing an authorization plugin to provide 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) for macOS. When FileVault is enabled, macOS Recovery prompts the user for a password to unlock FileVault FDE (Full Disk Encryption) before macOS can startup. The FDE password entered during Recovery is saved somehow so that after macOS starts up it can be used to log the user in without prompting them to re-enter their password. This feature is configurable with setting 'DisableFDEAutoLogin'. We would like our authorization plugin to implement the same behavior. The first place I thought to look for the FDE password (from within our authorization mechanism) is in Context value kAuthorizationEnvironmentPassword but it's not there. Is it possible for an authorization plugin to obtain this password the same as the standard login mechanism and if so how?

I'm setting up unit tests for my application using Xcode. When I tried to access default keychain on MacOS using SecKeychainCopyDefault, I got error OSStatus -25307, which means "A default keychain could not be found." The tests worked locally, and the issue only happened with Github Actions. Would anyone have any insight on this issue, or point me to some reading I can refer to? Thanks in advance! Here is some more tests I've done here. I tried to run "security default-keychain" on GithubAction, and I got &gt; security default-keychain "/Users/runner/Library/Keychains/login.keychain-db" However, when I tried to start a shell to run the same security command in my unit test, I got SecKeychainCopyDefault: A default keychain could not be found. Here is my test calling security command from shell: static func run_shell(_ command: String) -&gt; String { let task = Process() let pipe = Pipe() task.standardOutput = pipe task.standardError = pipe task.arguments = ["-c", command] task.launchPath = "/bin/zsh" task.standardInput = nil task.launch() let data = pipe.fileHandleForReading.readDataToEndOfFile() let output = String(data: data, encoding: .utf8)! return output } func testSecurityDefaultKeychain() throws { print(TLSContextTests.run_shell("security default-keychain")); }

I'm having issue with keychain access for my SWIFT project. The keychain operations succeed while I run the test with Xcode.app (GUI), but failed when I run the test through command line tool xcodebuild. I assume I did something wrong with the environment. Is there any suggestion or instruction about how should I setup for the xcodebuild command line tool? Here is my unit test. static func run_shell(_ command: String) -> String { let task = Process() let pipe = Pipe() task.standardOutput = pipe task.standardError = pipe task.arguments = ["-c", command] task.launchPath = "/bin/zsh" task.standardInput = nil task.launch() let data = pipe.fileHandleForReading.readDataToEndOfFile() let output = String(data: data, encoding: .utf8)! return output } func testSecurityDefaultKeychain() throws { print(TLSContextTests.run_shell("security default-keychain")); } Other things I have tried: I got the same result if I use SecKeychainCopyDefault instead of the security command. If I directly run security command in my terminal, it worked fine. > security default-keychain "/Users/runner/Library/Keychains/login.keychain-db" I also tried with sudo xcodebuild & chmod a+x xcodebuild to make sure the tool has permission to access keychain, but it was not helpful. I had a post about the same issue a month ago. At that time I thought it was an issue for CI environment only. However, it turns out it was the xcodebuild. https://forums.developer.apple.com/forums/thread/747794

Is there an official way to verify that my app is not running on a rooted device?

Is there an API to query for SIP Protected Paths or someway that this information can be deciphered ? Intent is to mute those paths or a subset for an ES client ?

General: Apple Platform Security support document Security Overview Cryptography: DevForums tags: Security, Apple CryptoKit Security framework documentation Apple CryptoKit framework documentation Common Crypto man pages — For the full list of pages, run: % man -k 3cc For more information about man pages, see Reading UNIX Manual Pages. On Cryptographic Key Formats DevForums post SecItem attributes for keys DevForums post CryptoCompatibility sample code Keychain: DevForums tags: Security Security > Keychain Items documentation TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations SecItem Fundamentals DevForums post SecItem Pitfalls and Best Practices DevForums post Investigating hard-to-reproduce keychain problems DevForums post Smart cards and other secure tokens: DevForums tag: CryptoTokenKit CryptoTokenKit framework documentation Mac-specific frameworks: DevForums tags: Security Foundation, Security Interface Security Foundation framework documentation Security Interface framework documentation Related: Networking Resources — This covers high-level network security, including HTTPS and TLS. Network Extension Resources — This covers low-level network security, including VPN and content filters. Code Signing Resources Notarisation Resources Trusted Execution Resources — This includes Gatekeeper. App Sandbox Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

We generated key pair and imported associated cert into keychain. We stored value of kSecAttrPublicKeyHash and use it to find matching certificate and private key later. However we have some legacy code that requests to get SecIdentityRef. We can retrieve SecCertificateRef with matched value of kSecAttrPublicKeyHash and private key with kSecAttrApplicationLabel. But we don't know how to generate/query SecIdentityRef with SecCertificateRef and SecKeyRef. API SecIdentityCreateWithCertificate is only available on macOS. Is there any equivalent API on iOS? Thanks, Ying

My organization is using mutual TLS authentication for HTTPS, with PIV cards storing the certs. We observe that some OS X devices send only the leaf certs when establishing the mTLS connection, whereas others send the entire chain. We cannot validate the leaf cert without the intermediate cert, so those clients are rejected. What drives the decision whether to send the whole chain, vs the leaf cert only? For more details, and some things we observed. The PIV cards are US DoD CAC cards: https://www.cac.mil/common-access-card/ The client cert chain on the card looks like this: Leaf client cert, CN=LastName.Name Intermediate cert, CN=DOD ID CA-70 "Root" cert, CN=DoD Root CA 6 through 8.: Additional interoperability certs. Our system is set up to trust the "root" cert CN=DoD Root CA 6. Neither the leaf cert, nor other certs in the chain are trusted by Apple Keychain Trust Store by default. We find that most laptops will send the entire chain, 1 through 8, when establishing the mTLS connection with our servers. This allows us to validate them correctly. On a subset of OS X devices, Google Chrome will only send the leaf chain. This happens even when we use exact same PIV card, and exact same PIV reader as on working laptops. Safari will not send any cert at all. We found that if we explicitly add the CN=DoD Root CA 6 to the Apple Trust Store, Google Chrome and Safari will start sending a short chain, containing only certs 1 through 3. This allows the server to validate them. When we remove it from Trust Store, Chrome is back to sending only leaf, but Safari will not even send the leaf. Again, this only happens on some laptops; on most of the laptops, both Safari and Google Chrome will send the entire chain, regardless of whatever is set up in Trust Store. My suspicion is that for some reason, on those laptops, Safari will not send the client certs that OS X doesn't trust. This makes sense, but this is not the behavior we want. We want the same behavior on the working laptops, which is to send the whole chain. All of our laptops are on OS X 14.4

Hi, An existing app on AppStore have issue with SHA256 Hash only since iOS17.4. And only Pro and Pro Max seems affected by this issue. NSData is read from downloaded file. Hash is calculated with unsigned char *CC_SHA256(const void *data, CC_LONG len, unsigned char *md) And compared with original HASH It appears different only on iOS17.4 and only Pro and Pro Max. But i can't reproduce this issue. Do you have an idea ? Thank you

Transport Layer Security (TLS) is the most important security protocol on the Internet today. Most notably, TLS puts the S into HTTPS, adding security to the otherwise insecure HTTP protocol. IMPORTANT TLS is the successor to the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol. SSL is no longer considered secure and it’s now rarely used in practice, although many folks still say SSL when they mean TLS. TLS is a complex protocol. Much of that complexity is hidden from app developers but there are places where it’s important to understand specific details of the protocol in order to meet your requirements. This post explains the fundamentals of TLS, concentrating on the issues that most often confuse app developers. Note If you’re working on TLS in the local environment, for example, to talk to a Wi-Fi based accessory, see TLS For Accessory Developers. Server Certificates For standard TLS to work the server must have a digital identity, that is, the combination of a certificate and the private key matching the public key embedded in that certificate. TLS Crypto Magic™ ensures that: The client gets a copy of the server’s certificate. The client knows that the server holds the private key matching the public key in that certificate. In a typical TLS handshake the server passes the client a list of certificates, where item 0 is the server’s certificate (the leaf certificate), item N is (optionally) the certificate of the certificate authority that ultimately issued that certificate (the root certificate), and items 1 through N-1 are any intermediate certificates required to build a cryptographic chain of trust from 0 to N. Note The cryptographic chain of trust is established by means of digital signatures. Certificate X in the chain is issued by certificate X+1. The owner of certificate X+1 uses their private key to digitally sign certificate X. The client verifies this signature using the public key embedded in certificate X+1. Eventually this chain terminates in a trusted anchor, that is, a certificate that the client trusts by default. Typically this anchor is a self-signed root certificate from a certificate authority. Note Item N is optional for reasons I’ll explain below. Also, the list of intermediate certificates may be empty (in the case where the root certificate directly issued the leaf certificate) but that’s uncommon for servers in the real world. Once the client gets the server’s certificate, it evaluates trust on that certificate to confirm that it’s talking to the right server. There are three levels of trust evaluation here: Basic X.509 trust evaluation checks that there’s a cryptographic chain of trust from the leaf through the intermediates to a trusted root certificate. The client has a set of trusted root certificates built in (these are from well-known certificate authorities, or CAs), and a site admin can add more via a configuration profile. This step also checks that none of the certificates have expired, and various other more technical criteria (like the Basic Constraints extension). Note This explains why the server does not have to include the root certificate in the list of certificates it passes to the client; the client has to have the root certificate installed if trust evaluation is to succeed. In addition, TLS trust evaluation (per RFC 2818) checks that the DNS name that you connected to matches the DNS name in the certificate. Specifically, the DNS name must be listed in the Subject Alternative Name extension. Note The Subject Alternative Name extension can also contain IP addresses, although that’s a much less well-trodden path. Also, historically it was common to accept DNS names in the Common Name element of the Subject but that is no longer the case on Apple platforms. App Transport Security (ATS) adds its own security checks. Basic X.509 and TLS trust evaluation are done for all TLS connections. ATS is only done on TLS connections made by URLSession and things layered on top URLSession (like WKWebView). In many situations you can override trust evaluation; for details, see Technote 2232 HTTPS Server Trust Evaluation). Such overrides can either tighten or loosen security. For example: You might tighten security by checking that the server certificate was issued by a specific CA. That way, if someone manages to convince a poorly-managed CA to issue them a certificate for your server, you can detect that and fail. You might loosen security by adding your own CA’s root certificate as a trusted anchor. IMPORTANT If you rely on loosened security you have to disable ATS. If you leave ATS enabled, it requires that the default server trust evaluation succeeds regardless of any customisations you do. Mutual TLS The previous section discusses server trust evaluation, which is required for all standard TLS connections. That process describes how the client decides whether to trust the server. Mutual TLS (mTLS) is the opposite of that, that is, it’s the process by which the server decides whether to trust the client. Note mTLS is commonly called client certificate authentication. I avoid that term because of the ongoing confusion between certificates and digital identities. While it’s true that, in mTLS, the server authenticates the client certificate, to set this up on the client you need a digital identity, not a certificate. mTLS authentication is optional. The server must request a certificate from the client and the client may choose to supply one or not (although if the server requests a certificate and the client doesn’t supply one it’s likely that the server will then fail the connection). At the TLS protocol level this works much like it does with the server certificate. For the client to provide this certificate it must apply a digital identity, known as the client identity, to the connection. TLS Crypto Magic™ assures the server that, if it gets a certificate from the client, the client holds the private key associated with that certificate. Where things diverge is in trust evaluation. Trust evaluation of the client certificate is done on the server, and the server uses its own rules to decided whether to trust a specific client certificate. For example: Some servers do basic X.509 trust evaluation and then check that the chain of trust leads to one specific root certificate; that is, a client is trusted if it holds a digital identity whose certificate was issued by a specific CA. Some servers just check the certificate against a list of known trusted client certificates. When the client sends its certificate to the server it actually sends a list of certificates, much as I’ve described above for the server’s certificates. In many cases the client only needs to send item 0, that is, its leaf certificate. That’s because: The server already has the intermediate certificates required to build a chain of trust from that leaf to its root. There’s no point sending the root, as I discussed above in the context of server trust evaluation. However, there are no hard and fast rules here; the server does its client trust evaluation using its own internal logic, and it’s possible that this logic might require the client to present intermediates, or indeed present the root certificate even though it’s typically redundant. If you have problems with this, you’ll have to ask the folks running the server to explain its requirements. Note If you need to send additional certificates to the server, pass them to the certificates parameter of the method you use to create your URLCredential (typically init(identity:certificates:persistence:)). One thing that bears repeating is that trust evaluation of the client certificate is done on the server, not the client. The client doesn’t care whether the client certificate is trusted or not. Rather, it simply passes that certificate the server and it’s up to the server to make that decision. When a server requests a certificate from the client, it may supply a list of acceptable certificate authorities [1]. Safari uses this to filter the list of client identities it presents to the user. If you are building an HTTPS server and find that Safari doesn’t show the expected client identity, make sure you have this configured correctly. If you’re building an iOS app and want to implement a filter like Safari’s, get this list using: The distinguishedNames property, if you’re using URLSession The sec_protocol_metadata_access_distinguished_names routine, if you’re using Network framework [1] See the certificate_authorities field in Section 7.4.4 of RFC 5246, and equivalent features in other TLS versions. Self-Signed Certificates Self-signed certificates are an ongoing source of problems with TLS. There’s only one unequivocally correct place to use a self-signed certificate: the trusted anchor provided by a certificate authority. One place where a self-signed certificate might make sense is in a local environment, that is, securing a connection between peers without any centralised infrastructure. However, depending on the specific circumstances there may be a better option. TLS For Accessory Developers discusses this topic in detail. Finally, it’s common for folks to use self-signed certificates for testing. I’m not a fan of that approach. Rather, I recommend the approach described in QA1948 HTTPS and Test Servers. For advice on how to set that up using just your Mac, see TN2326 Creating Certificates for TLS Testing. TLS Standards RFC 6101 The Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Protocol Version 3.0 (historic) RFC 2246 The TLS Protocol Version 1.0 RFC 4346 The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1 RFC 5246 The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 RFC 8446 The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3 RFC 4347 Datagram Transport Layer Security RFC 6347 Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2 RFC 9147 The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3 Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Revision History: 2024-03-19 Adopted the term mutual TLS in preference to client certificate authentication throughout, because the latter feeds into the ongoing certificate versus digital identity confusion. Defined the term client identity. Added the Self-Signed Certificates section. Made other minor editorial changes. 2023-02-28 Added an explanation mTLS acceptable certificate authorities. 2022-12-02 Added links to the DTLS RFCs. 2022-08-24 Added links to the TLS RFCs. Made other minor editorial changes. 2022-06-03 Added a link to TLS For Accessory Developers. 2021-02-26 Fixed the formatting. Clarified that ATS only applies to URLSession. Minor editorial changes. 2020-04-17 Updated the discussion of Subject Alternative Name to account for changes in the 2019 OS releases. Minor editorial updates. 2018-10-29 Minor editorial updates. 2016-11-11 First posted.

ios app from app store some day，unable to read, write any file, included SecItemAdd What is the possible cause? thank you

Hi, I am trying to create a secKey from a .p8 file which I will then use to sign some data. I'm targeting an iOS application. I understand I cannot use the p8 key directly with iOS APIs and will have to unwrap the p8 file before I can feed it to SecKeyCreateWithData I'm unsure how to go about doing it though and any help will be appreciated. For context it is the APNS p8 file.