Remote Debugging Port Behavior Change Between 126.0.4 and 126.1.2

Hello Figma Team,

I’ve noticed a behavior change after a recent update and wanted to check whether this is intentional or a regression.

Environment

• macOS (Apple Silicon / arm64)

• Figma Desktop

• 126.0.4 → Remote debugging works

• 126.1.2 → Remote debugging no longer works

What I’m Observing

When launching Figma 126.0.4 with: open -na "Figma" --args --remote-debugging-port=9222  the remote debugging endpoint binds successfully.

Verified with: lsof -nP -iTCP:9222 -sTCP:LISTEN

Example output (working case on 126.0.4):

COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME

Figma 60295 yusuf.yilmaz 35u IPv4 0x2ad77ac47c7d47b7 0t0 TCP 127.0.0.1:9222 (LISTEN)

However, after updating to 126.1.2, using the exact same launch command:

open -na "Figma" --args --remote-debugging-port=9222

the port no longer binds.

Running: lsof -nP -iTCP:9222 -sTCP:LISTEN

returns no listening process.

Downgrading back to 126.0.4 immediately restores the behavior.

Additional Context

• App is properly signed and notarized.

• No firewall or system-level restrictions.

• spctl --status shows assessments enabled.

• Behavior change appears specifically after the 126.1.x update.

And another information is:

When I install Figma using: brew install --cask figma  it installs a working version (e.g., 126.0.4) where the --remote-debugging-port=9222 flag functions correctly. However, shortly after launching the app, Figma’s internal auto-update mechanism automatically upgrades the app to version 126.1.2. After this update, the --remote-debugging-port flag no longer works and port 9222 is no longer exposed. As a result, even if I intentionally install a known working version via Homebrew, I cannot maintain a stable debugging setup because the in-app auto-update overrides it.

Question

We just wanted to confirm:

• Was --remote-debugging-port intentionally disabled or restricted in 126.1.x?

• If so, is there an officially supported alternative for local DevTools Protocol access?

• Or could this be an unintended regression?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.