What does this error in my log mean? - attempted pair verify without being paired first

i keep getting this error in my logs - this ip address is my apple ipad that in the past had the HA app but no longer does. it is not a homekit hub.

any idea the cause?

Logger: pyhap.hap_handler
Source: runner.py:190
First occurred: July 17, 2024 at 5:17:02 PM (664 occurrences)
Last logged: 2:37:03 PM

HASS Bridge: Client ('192.168.10.78', 50928) with uuid xxx attempted pair verify without being paired first (public_key=xxx paired clients={UUID('xxx'): 'xxx', UUID('xxx'): 'xxx'}).

Did you remove the mobile app from home assistant as well?

Settings β†’ Devices & Services β†’ Mobile App

Then when it gets discovered again just click the IGNORE button.

The ipad is not in the mobile app section of HA, plus it is not showing up as discovered.

Hmm. Ok. Do you have the Homekit bridge integration installed?

I do. and I have looked through all entities in my homekit bridge integration entries and cannot see anything about this ipad. plus this is making HA entities available to my homekit (which I use). not sure why my ipad would be tied to this. BTW, i power off my ipad and the error stops.

What about in the Homekit app itself?

Is your iPad listed in there anywhere?

It was previously possible to use an iPad as a HomeKit hub. Were you using this iPad as a hub before?

1 Like

cannot see my ipad anywhere in my homekit app.

i was never using this ipad as a hub, my hub is the appleTV. this is a pretty old ipad that is not on the latest ios rev - it is used to just read news.

I was reading some older posts (from 1-2 years ago) from people complaining about this same error. one post mentioned they continued to have this error on an older Ipad that could not be upgraded to IOS 16.1. My ipad is IOS ver 12.5.7. I wonder if this is tied to a problem in older versions of IOS that were designed around the now old homekit architecture. Don’t know, but for now will just mark this as not worth spending more time on and I moved my ipad to another VLAN that does not have access to HA.

That sounds very plausible.