Hi Team, I'm currently using a system extension with NETransparentProxyProvider (with root privileges). I want to support custom DNS (specific to domains) with a search domain to accommodate a single-level domain support. For this, I'm creating a new entry inside /etc/resolver/, using below command. sudo sh -c 'echo "domain corp.test.com\nsearch corp.test.com\nnameserver 9.9.9.9\nnameserver 9.9.2.2" > /etc/resolver/corp.test.com' The above command works fine for me when I execute it via the terminal, creating a new file inside the resolver as described below. So, when I access a single-label domain like https://test, it appends 'corp.test.com,' resulting in hitting the domain as https://test.corp.test.com. Furthermore, it selects either the DNS server 9.9.9.9 or 9.9.2.2. File: /private/etc/resolver/corp.test.com domain corp.test.com search corp.test.com nameserver 9.9.9.9 nameserver 9.9.2.2 File permission total 8 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 80 Dec 5 18:20 corp.test.com scutil --dns resolver #8 domain : corp.test.com search domain[0] : corp.test.com nameserver[0] : 9.9.9.9 nameserver[1] : 9.9.2.2 flags : Request A records, Request AAAA records reach : 0x00000002 (Reachable) However, when I execute the same command within the extension using NSTask, it generates the new file but fails to work as per above. it creates below file File: /private/etc/resolver/corp.test.com domain corp.test.com search corp.test.com nameserver 9.9.9.9 nameserver 9.9.2.2 File permission total 8 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 80 Dec 5 18:25 corp.test.com scutil --dns resolver #8 domain : corp.test.com search domain[0] : corp.test.com nameserver[0] : 9.9.9.9 nameserver[1] : 9.9.2.2 flags : Request A records, Request AAAA records reach : 0x00000002 (Reachable) I don't notice any difference in file permissions and in scutil --dns entry. even we tried running sudo killall -HUP mDNSResponder to refresh its records. Could you please suggest what might be the reason?

Hi Team, I am utilizing the nw_parameters_create_secure_tcp in Objective-C to establish a TCP connection. However, I would like the connection to go through a specific utun interface. I attempted to use the following method for binding: nw_parameters_require_interface(nw_parameters_t parameters, _Nullable nw_interface_t interface); Unfortunately, I haven't found any API that can convert a utun interface name or index to an nw_interface_t object. Both nw_interface_create_with_index and nw_interface_create_with_name are private methods. I also tried using nw_path_monitor_set_update_handler and nw_path_enumerate_interfaces, but they did not return the utun interface. Could you please suggest how I can obtain the utun interface as an nw_interface_t?

Hi Team, Observed that when subclass NETransparentProxyProvider and setting NEDNSSettings(adding own dns server) in NETransparentProxyNetworkSettings, it ignores the DNSSetting. Whereas If I subclass the NEAppProxyProvider, then it takes the dnssetting and make it primary DNS server. validate using sctutil --dns. Is it possible to set DNSSetting for NETransparentProxyProvider? I need to set our own DNS servers. Any suggestion here?

Hi Team, Im using SystemExtension with NEPackettunnelProvider where Im getting the layer 3 packets. Below is my query. Just wanted to understand if some other app started transparent app proxy(Layer4) with same network rule which I configured for NEPackettunnelProvider, Will I get the packet in NEPackettunnelProvider(Layer3)? **As per the doc, ** if app proxy returns NO from handleNewFlow then it will handle by system and in my case it reaches to NEPackettunnelProvider but what happen if it returns false and packet is processed by the app proxy. As per my understanding packet should flow from Layer 4 to layer 3 but if app proxy implemented custom protocol then I believe it will not reach to NEPackettunnelProvider. Is my understanding correct?