I have an app that I signed and distribute between some internal testflight users. Potentially I want to invite some 'Public' beta testers which don't need to validate (_World have read rights in the public database) Question: Do I need to have a working public CloudKit , when users are invited through TestFlight, or are they going to test on the development container? I understand that when I invite beta-tester without authorization (external testers) they cannot access the developer container, so therefore I need to have the production CloudKit container up and running. I have tried to populate the public production container, but for whatever reason my upload app still goes to the development container. I have archived the app, and tried, but no luck. I let xcode manage my certificates/profiles. but what do I need to change to be able to use my upload file to upload the production container, instead of the development. I tried: init() { container = CKContainer(identifier: "iCloud.com.xxxx.xxxx") publicDB = container.publicCloudDatabase I got no error in the console, but data is always populated to the development database, instead the production. I tried to create a provisioning profile, but for some reason Xcode doesn't like it. Tried to create one a different provisioning profile manual through the developer portal, for the app. but xcode doesn't want to use that, and mentions that the requirement are already in place. What can I check/do to solve this.

I help a lot of developers with macOS trusted execution problems. For example, they might have an app being blocked by Gatekeeper, or an app that crashes on launch with a code signing error. If you encounter a problem that’s not explained here, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the Code Signing > General subtopic and tag it with relevant tags like Gatekeeper, Code Signing, and Notarization — so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Resolving Trusted Execution Problems macOS supports three software distribution channels: The user downloads an app from the App Store. The user gets a Developer ID-signed program directly from its developer. The user builds programs locally using Apple or third-party developer tools. The trusted execution system aims to protect users from malicious code. It’s comprised of a number of different subsystems. For example, Gatekeeper strives to ensure that only trusted software runs on a user’s Mac, while XProtect is the platform’s built-in anti-malware technology. Note To learn more about these technologies, see Apple Platform Security. If you’re developing software for macOS your goal is to avoid trusted execution entanglements. You want users to install and use your product without taking any special steps. If, for example, you ship an app that’s blocked by Gatekeeper, you’re likely to lose a lot of customers, and your users’ hard-won trust. Trusted execution problems are rare with Mac App Store apps because the Mac App Store validation process tends to catch things early. This post is primarily focused on Developer ID-signed programs. Developers who use Xcode encounter fewer trusted execution problems because Xcode takes care of many code signing and packaging chores. If you’re not using Xcode, consider making the switch. If you can’t, consult the following for information on how to structure, sign, and package your code: Placing content in a bundle Embedding nonstandard code structures in a bundle Embedding a command-line tool in a sandboxed app Creating distribution-signed code for macOS Packaging Mac software for distribution Gatekeeper Basics User-level apps on macOS implement a quarantine system for new downloads. For example, if Safari downloads a zip archive, it quarantines that archive. This involves setting the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute on the file. Note The com.apple.quarantine extended attribute is not documented as API. If you need to add, check, or remove quarantine from a file programmatically, use the quarantinePropertiesKey property. User-level unarchiving tools preserve quarantine. To continue the above example, if you double click the quarantined zip archive in the Finder, Archive Utility will unpack the archive and quarantine the resulting files. If you launch a quarantined app, the system invokes Gatekeeper. Gatekeeper checks the app for problems. If it finds no problems, it asks the user to confirm the launch, just to be sure. If it finds a problem, it displays an alert to the user and prevents them from launching it. The exact wording of this alert varies depending on the specific problem, and from release to release of macOS, but it generally looks like the ones shown in Apple > Support > Safely open apps on your Mac. The system may run Gatekeeper at other times as well. The exact circumstances under which it runs Gatekeeper is not documented and changes over time. However, running a quarantined app always invokes Gatekeeper. Unix-y networking tools, like curl and scp, don’t quarantine the files they download. Unix-y unarchiving tools, like tar and unzip, don’t propagate quarantine to the unarchived files. Confirm the Problem Trusted execution problems can be tricky to reproduce: You may encounter false negatives, that is, you have a trusted execution problem but you don’t see it during development. You may also encounter false positives, that is, things fail on one specific Mac but otherwise work. To avoid chasing your own tail, test your product on a fresh Mac, one that’s never seen your product before. The best way to do this is using a VM, restoring to a snapshot between runs. For a concrete example of this, see Testing a Notarised Product. The most common cause of problems is a Gatekeeper alert saying that it’s blocked your product from running. However, that’s not the only possibility. Before going further, confirm that Gatekeeper is the problem by running your product without quarantine. That is, repeat the steps in Testing a Notarised Product except, in step 2, download your product in a way that doesn’t set quarantine. Then try launching your app. If that launch fails then Gatekeeper is not the problem, or it’s not the only problem! Note The easiest way to download your app to your test environment without setting quarantine is curl or scp. Alternatively, use xattr to remove the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute from the download before you unpack it. For more information about the xattr tool, see the xattr man page. Trusted execution problems come in all shapes and sizes. Later sections of this post address the most common ones. But first, let’s see if there’s an easy answer. Run a System Policy Check macOS has a syspolicy_check tool that can diagnose many common trusted execution issues. To check an app, run the distribution subcommand against it: % syspolicy_check distribution MyApp.app App passed all pre-distribution checks and is ready for distribution. If there’s a problem, the tool prints information about that problem. For example, here’s what you’ll see if you run it against an app that’s notarised but not stapled: % syspolicy_check distribution MyApp.app App has failed one or more pre-distribution checks. --------------------------------------------------------------- Notary Ticket Missing File: MyApp.app Severity: Fatal Full Error: A Notarization ticket is not stapled to this application. Type: Distribution Error … Note In reality, stapling isn’t always required, so this error isn’t really Fatal (r. 151446728 ). For more about that, see The Pros and Cons of Stapling forums. And here’s what you’ll see if there’s a problem with the app’s code signature: % syspolicy_check distribution MyApp.app App has failed one or more pre-distribution checks. --------------------------------------------------------------- Codesign Error File: MyApp.app/Contents/Resources/added.txt Severity: Fatal Full Error: File added after outer app bundle was codesigned. Type: Notary Error … The syspolicy_check isn’t perfect. There are a few issues it can’t diagnose (r. 136954554, 151446550). However, it should always be your first step because, if it does work, it’ll save you a lot of time. Note syspolicy_check was introduced in macOS 14. If you’re seeing a problem on an older system, first check your app with syspolicy_check on macOS 14 or later. If you can’t run the syspolicy_check tool, or it doesn’t report anything actionable, continue your investigation using the instructions in the following sections. App Blocked by Gatekeeper If your product is an app and it works correctly when not quarantined but is blocked by Gatekeeper when it is, you have a Gatekeeper problem. For advice on how to investigate such issues, see Resolving Gatekeeper Problems. App Can’t Be Opened Not all failures to launch are Gatekeeper errors. In some cases the app is just broken. For example: The app’s executable might be missing the x bit set in its file permissions. The app’s executable might be subtly incompatible with the current system. A classic example of this is trying to run a third-party app that contains arm64e code on systems prior to macOS 26 beta. macOS 26 beta supports arm64e apps directly. Prior to that, third-party products (except kernel extensions) were limited to arm64, except for the purposes of testing. The app’s executable might claim restricted entitlements that aren’t authorised by a provisioning profile. Or the app might have some other code signing problem. Note For more information about provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. In such cases the system displays an alert saying: The application “NoExec” can’t be opened. [[OK]] Note In macOS 11 this alert was: You do not have permission to open the application “NoExec”. Contact your computer or network administrator for assistance. [[OK]] which was much more confusing. A good diagnostic here is to run the app’s executable from Terminal. For example, an app with a missing x bit will fail to run like so: % NoExec.app/Contents/MacOS/NoExec zsh: permission denied: NoExec.app/Contents/MacOS/NoExec And an app with unauthorised entitlements will be killed by the trusted execution system: % OverClaim.app/Contents/MacOS/OverClaim zsh: killed OverClaim.app/Contents/MacOS/OverClaim In some cases running the executable from Terminal will reveal useful diagnostics. For example, if the app references a library that’s not available, the dynamic linker will print a helpful diagnostic: % MissingLibrary.app/Contents/MacOS/MissingLibrary dyld[88394]: Library not loaded: @rpath/CoreWaffleVarnishing.framework/Versions/A/CoreWaffleVarnishing … zsh: abort MissingLibrary.app/Contents/MacOS/MissingLibrary Code Signing Crashes on Launch A code signing crash has the following exception information: Exception Type: EXC_CRASH (SIGKILL (Code Signature Invalid)) The most common such crash is a crash on launch. To confirm that, look at the thread backtraces: Backtrace not available For steps to debug this, see Resolving Code Signing Crashes on Launch. One common cause of this problem is running App Store distribution-signed code. Don’t do that! For details on why that’s a bad idea, see Don’t Run App Store Distribution-Signed Code. Code Signing Crashes After Launch If your program crashes due to a code signing problem after launch, you might have encountered the issue discussed in Updating Mac Software. Non-Code Signing Failures After Launch The hardened runtime enables a number of security checks within a process. Some coding techniques are incompatible with the hardened runtime. If you suspect that your code is incompatible with the hardened runtime, see Resolving Hardened Runtime Incompatibilities. App Sandbox Inheritance If you’re creating a product with the App Sandbox enabled and it crashes with a trap within _libsecinit_appsandbox, it’s likely that you’re having App Sandbox inheritance problems. For the details, see Resolving App Sandbox Inheritance Problems. Library Loading Problem Most library loading problems have an obvious cause. For example, the library might not be where you expect it, or it might be built with the wrong platform or architecture. However, some library loading problems are caused by the trusted execution system. For the details, see Resolving Library Loading Problems. Explore the System Log If none of the above resolves your issue, look in the system log for clues as to what’s gone wrong. Some good keywords to search for include: gk, for Gatekeeper xprotect syspolicy, per the syspolicyd man page cmd, for Mach-O load command oddities amfi, for Apple mobile file integrity, per the amfid man page taskgated, see its taskgated man page yara, discussed in Apple Platform Security ProvisioningProfiles You may be able to get more useful logging with this command: % sudo sysctl -w security.mac.amfi.verbose_logging=1 Here’s a log command that I often use when I’m investigating a trusted execution problem and I don’t know here to start: % log stream --predicate "sender == 'AppleMobileFileIntegrity' or sender == 'AppleSystemPolicy' or process == 'amfid' or process == 'taskgated-helper' or process == 'syspolicyd'" For general information the system log, see Your Friend the System Log. Revision History 2025-08-06 Added the Run a System Policy Check section, which talks about the syspolicy_check tool (finally!). Clarified the discussion of arm64e. Made other editorial changes. 2024-10-11 Added info about the security.mac.amfi.verbose_logging option. Updated some links to point to official documentation that replaces some older DevForums posts. 2024-01-12 Added a specific command to the Explore the System Log section. Change the syspolicy_check callout to reflect that macOS 14 is no longer in beta. Made minor editorial changes. 2023-06-14 Added a quick call-out to the new syspolicy_check tool. 2022-06-09 Added the Non-Code Signing Failures After Launch section. 2022-06-03 Added a link to Don’t Run App Store Distribution-Signed Code. Fixed the link to TN3125. 2022-05-20 First posted.

Hi everyone, I have a macOS application that uses Screen Recording permission. I build my app with an adhoc signature (not with a Developer ID certificate). For example, in version 1.0.0, I grant Screen Recording permission to the app. Later, I build a new version (1.1.0) and update by dragging the new app into the Applications folder to overwrite the previous one. However, when I launch the updated app, it asks for Screen Recording permission again, even though I have already granted it for the previous version. I don’t fully understand how TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control) determines when permissions need to be re-granted. Can anyone explain how TCC manages permissions for updated builds, especially with adhoc signatures? Is there any way to retain permissions between updates, or any best practices to avoid having users re-authorize permissions after every update?

There is no plus button ![](" https://developer.apple.com/kr/forums/content/attachment/4c286784-7329-4e31-a5b1-8dd0c9aaf9ad" "title=test.png;width=2330;height=982")

Note: This failure occurs even when running on the same machine that performed the build, signing, and notarization steps. We are developing a command-line Endpoint Security (ES) client for macOS, distributed to customers as part of an enterprise security suite. We have a valid Apple Developer Team ID (redacted for privacy) and have requested and received the Endpoint Security entitlement for our account. What We’ve Done Built a universal (x86_64/arm64) CLI ES client using Xcode on macOS Sonoma. Signed with a Developer ID Application certificate (matching our Team ID). Applied the entitlement: com.apple.developer.endpoint-security.client. Notarized the binary via notarytool after receiving Apple’s confirmation that the entitlement was “assigned to our account.” Distributed and unzipped the notarized ZIP (with com.apple.quarantine xattr intact). What Happens: When we run the binary (as root, via sudo) on any test Mac—including the original build/notarization machine—the process is killed immediately at launch. Kernel log (log stream --predicate 'eventMessage CONTAINS "AMFI"' --info) shows: AMFI: code signature validation failed. AMFI: bailing out because of restricted entitlements. AMFI: When validating /path/to/fidelisevents: Code has restricted entitlements, but the validation of its code signature failed. Unsatisfied Entitlements: What We’ve Verified: codesign -dvvv --entitlements :- ./fidelisevents shows the correct entitlement, team identifier, and certificate. xattr ./fidelisevents shows both com.apple.provenance and com.apple.quarantine. spctl -a -vv ./fidelisevents returns: rejected (the code is valid but does not seem to be an app) origin=Developer ID Application: [REDACTED] The process is killed even if run on the same Mac where build/sign/notarization occurred. Other Details The entitlement approval email from Apple simply says it is “assigned to your account” and does not mention “production” or “distribution.” We have rebuilt, re-signed, and re-notarized after receiving the email. This occurs on both Apple Silicon and Intel Macs, with recent macOS versions (Sonoma, Ventura). Question Is it possible that Apple only assigned the development Endpoint Security entitlement, and not the production entitlement required for distributing/running notarized ES clients outside of development? Is there any way to verify the level of entitlement (dev vs. production) associated with our Team ID? What additional steps, if any, are needed to enable the production entitlement so that our binaries can run on customer endpoints without being killed by AMFI? Any advice, experience, or official documentation about production ES entitlement rollout, approval, or troubleshooting would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

In some crashlog files, there are additional pieces of information related to codesigning. I can understand what most of themcorresponds to (ID, TeamID, Flags, Validation Category). But there is one I have some doubt about: Trust Level. As far as I can tell (or at least what Google and other search engines say), this is an unsigned 32 bit integer that defines the trust level with -1 being untrusted, 0, being basically an Apple executable and other potential bigger values corresponding to App Store binaries, Developer ID signature, etc. Yet, I'm not able to find a corresponding detailed documentation about this on Apple's developer website. I also had a look at the LightweightCodeRequirements "include" file and there does not seem to be such a field available. [Q] Is there any official documentation listing the different values for this trust level value and providing a clear description of what it corresponds to?

Hello, Trying to set this up so I can easily test on my mobile device through USB, I've got development mode setup, have my CSR (which i used for my dist profile and works perfectly). Logged into apple developer and have my organisation selected, when trying to create a dev certificate using the same CSR i used for dist, it seems like it just creates it under my name instead of my company, which would explain why, when i download and activate the dev cert, in xcode the dev certificate doesn't show, only the dist cert. If I create a dev profile using that cert it does load up in xcode, but when I select it I get this error: No signing certificate "iOS Development" found No "iOS Development" signing certificate matching team ID "{team_id}" with a private key was found. To me it seems like this is happening because the development certificate I created just decides to put itself not under my org, I thought this was just how it works for development certificates? Also when I do create the provisioning profile, I can select my company identifier and in the summary it does show my team id so really not sure what is going on. Would appreciate any guidance on this please.

Two months ago we got approval for using the Notification Filtering entitlement. We rushed out to implement it in our app, only to find out that the permission was set for the wrong bundle identifier. We expected to get the permission for the notification extension's bundle identifier, yet it is added for the main app's bundle identifier. Per the official docs, the entitlement permission should be in the notification service extension target: After you receive permission to use the entitlement, add com.apple.developer.usernotifications.filtering to the entitlements file in the Notification Service Extension target. However, this fails to get signed when compiling for non-simulator targets because of the bundle mismatch issue. Simulator perfectly filters notifications. Adding the entitlement to the main app does compile, but filtering does not work (as expected). We reached out to Apple twice (Case-ID: 14330583) but we have yet to receive any response. Could there be something else wrong instead of the identifier mismatch?

I encountered code signing issue with Apple Distribution certificate for both iOS and MacCatalyst. The app crashes with "Beta Profile". I followed this instruction to manually re-sign my ipa to confirm that I use the Apple Distribution and the correct Provisioning Profile. https://gist.github.com/WDUK/4239548f76bd77b2c4b0 When I double click on the Apple Distribution certificate in KeyChain Access, it shows "Extension: Apple Mac App Signing (Development)" and "Extension: Apple Developer Certificate (Submission)" I have been stuck in this issue for more than a month. I really need help because I do not know how to proceed further. Thank you.

Hello Engineers My app was rejected with the message below, BUT I don't have this entitlements in my project! I already removed all Xcode files under ${HOME}/Developer/Xcode, but the problem still alive! Guideline 2.4.5(i) - Performance In order to continue reviewing your app, we require additional information. Your app uses one or more entitlements which do not appear to have matching functionality within the app. Please reply to this message in App Store Connect and describe how and where the app uses the following entitlements. You will not need to upload a new binary to provide this information. Apps should have only the minimum set of entitlements necessary for the app to function properly. If there are entitlements that are not needed, please remove them and submit an updated binary. You will need to Developer Reject the app to upload an updated version. "com.apple.security.assets.pictures.read-write" "com.apple.security.assets.movies.read-write" "com.apple.security.assets.music.read-write" "com.apple.security.files.downloads.read-write" Here my entitlements: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>com.apple.security.app-sandbox</key> <true/> <key>com.apple.security.application-groups</key> <array> <string>group.org.eof.apps</string> </array> <key>com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write</key> <true/> </dict> </plist> code-block Who or where are these entitlements inserted? Which button should be clicked to deactivate them? Link to my project: DRFXBuilder Regards

I'm currently developing a Unity game for iPad and have run into a critical issue that's completely blocking me from building the project. The project uses the Mapbox SDK for Unity. Everything was working fine during today test build on the iPad. I made minor changes - just four scripts, then attempted another build. However, Xcode began showing the following error: The signature of “MapboxCommon.xcframework” cannot be validated and may have been compromised. Validation Error: The signing certificate has been revoked (CSSMERR_TP_CERT_REVOKED) This error now occurs consistently. I've tried building on a different MacBook and with a different Apple account, but the result is the same. I haven't made any changes to the Mapbox framework, nor have I updated it recently. I'm trying to determine the root cause: Is this something I've done on my end? Or is it an issue with the Mapbox framework or their signing certificate? Is there a temporary workaround that would allow me to proceed with development builds while I investigate a proper fix? Any insights or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Hi, I am using Xcode 16.4, and my test device is Iphone 16 pro max. Everything was working fine until today when I get an error that I cannot install the app on the device. The error I get is: Failed to verify code signature of /var/installd/Library/Caches/com.apple.mobile.installd.staging/temp.cRjyg7/extracted/[myapp].app : 0xe8008015 (A valid provisioning profile for this executable was not found.) Please ensure sure that your app is signed by a valid provisioning profile. Creating a new project and installing it to the mobile works fine. Please can someone from Apple or the community respond? there are many posts with this error but none were solved. Troubleshooting attempts included: Resetting all certificates. delete the app from the device unpairing device codesigning via cli reloading older git code commit Nothing is working. thanks

I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why codesigning was failing -- I had the pf block set up correctly, my keychains were unlocked, and then, eventually, it occurred to me, hey, maybe an IP address changed, so I disabled IPv6 except for link local, and then amazingly, it went back to working. I filed FB13706261 over a year ago. This is ridiculous.

I am having an issue with signing and provisioning a Vision OS app. I have an iOS app and a VisionOS app. Everything works fine on the iOS but having issues with the VisionOS. First, I am having issues with xcodebuild -exportArchive. When I run it on an archive of my VisionOS app I get ** EXPORT FAILED ** error: exportArchive No Accounts error: exportArchive No profiles for 'X' were found Where X is my bundle ID. Meanwhile the iOS app succeeds. This is on a CI machine but I confirmed the distribution provision profile for the vision OS app is installed on the machine. Even if I change the value of the -exportOptionsPlist to the one I used for the iOS project I get this error. Is the issue in the archive itself? The archives are generated from building in Unity and archiving the xcodeproject with xcodebuild archive Second, as a workaround I archived a debug ipa on my machine and uploaded this ipa to my CI machine which has the credentials to sign for distribution. I use this script as an example as how to resign the IPA: https://gist.github.com/lodalo/754a35b48d382ae99b25 I remove the CodeSignatures and codesign both .app and UnityFramework.framework. Using this resigned IPA I get this error when I try to upload to app store connect (via Transporter app and altool) errors: Validation failed (409) Missing or invalid signature. The bundle 'X' at bundle path 'Payload/Y.app' is not signed using an Apple submission certificate. To verify the signing I used codesign -dvvv --entitlements - On both the iOS and VisionOS app and they have the same values under all the Authority fields. Different profiles, of course. So the certificate I used is eligible to upload the iOS app successfully but doesn't work on the VisionOS ipa? Any help on solving any of these issues would be great so I can upload the vision OS app. Thank you!

Hi everyone, After I recently changed my Apple ID (iCloud) password, my Developer ID certificate stopped working for signing macOS apps. Symptoms: Signing fails with the Developer ID certificate that was previously working fine. I tried re-downloading the certificate from my Apple Developer account and importing it into the Keychain, but the issue persists. It seems that the Developer ID identity is no longer trusted or properly linked to my system since the password change. Attempts: Re-downloaded and installed the certificate from the developer portal. Verified that the private key is present and linked. Checked keychain access and code-signing identity — everything appears normal, but the signed apps are rejected or the signing process fails. Blocking issue: I am unable to delete or revoke the Developer ID certificate on my account (Apple Support says it's not possible). Also, I can't create a new one due to the certificate limit. Questions: Is it expected for a Developer ID certificate to become invalid after changing the Apple ID password? Is there a recommended way to refresh or restore the certificate trust on macOS? How can I invalidate the current certificate and generate a new one if I'm stuck? Any insights or official guidance would be really appreciated. Thanks in advance!

In xcode, the signing&amp;capabilities TAB for ios says: Automatic signing failed Xcode failed to provision this target. Please file a bug report at https://feedbackassistant.apple.com and include the Update Signing report from the Report navigator. Provisioning profile "iOS Team Provisioning Profile: com.kikk.morsecode" doesn't include the com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase entitlement. Even though I've already configured the corresponding Certificates, Identifiers &amp; Profiles in developer Does anyone have the same problem? My Version of xcode is Version 15.4 (15F31d), running on m2pro.

We recently had an external pentest for one of our company's macOS applications and they brought up the topic of library validation. Our app has hardened runtime enabled and passes notarization. The codesign verification output includes: flags=0x10000(runtime) The pentesters brought up that both validation and runtime should be present, so I discovered that you could also add library validation by augmenting our flags with: OTHER_CODE_SIGN_FLAGS = --timestamp -o library which changes the flags to: flags=0x12000(library-validation,runtime) The pentesters insist that both options are necessary, especially to avoid library injection when SIP is off, but Apple's docs say that hardened runtime already implies library validation (see here ) My question is: does explicitly specifying library validation provide something that hardened runtime does not already? Or is it correct that hardened runtime already imply library validation? For what it's worth, I did a quick scan of some of the apps on my system, interesting some of the Apple system apps have only library validation (e.g. Safari, Photos), some have both (e.g. Podcasts), some have only hardened runtime (e.g. Mail). So that didn't help answer the question. Thank you!

I came across your contact on the Apple Developer Forums. I'm encountering an unusual issue during the notarization process. The error message states: "Team is not yet configured for notarization. Please contact Developer Programs Support at developer.apple.com under the topic Development and Technical / Other Development or Technical Questions." Any guidance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Here are the error details for reference: json { "logFormatVersion": 1, "jobId": "b6023a7c-dc85-4fa5-91dd-fba92c9ed831", "status": "Rejected", "statusSummary": "Team is not yet configured for notarization. Please contact Developer Programs Support at developer.apple.com under the topic Development and Technical / Other Development or Technical Questions.", "statusCode": 7000, "archiveFilename": "Bytemonk.dmg", "uploadDate": "2025-07-02T07:07:07.945Z", "sha256": "b9494170cc040a76045ed263de22e6b89a5455142af16ce502530e1c1ee72ddf", "ticketContents": null, "issues": null }

After upgrading the virtual machines used for building and testing our macOS application, it seems that something new in Sequoia is preventing virtual machines from running anything signed with a Mac Development certificate. At first glance the issue seems very similar to this thread, but it could be unrelated. We are using the tart toolset to build and run our VMs. People seem to be having related issues there with Sequoia in particular. I have added the VM's hardware UUID to the Devices list of our account. I have included that device in the devices list of our Mac Development provisioning profile. I have re-downloaded the profile, ensured that it is properly getting built into the app, and ensured that the hardware UUID of the VM matches the embedded provisioning profile: Virtual-Machine App.app/Contents % system_profiler SPHardwareDataType | grep UUID Hardware UUID: 0CAE034E-C837-53E6-BA67-3B2CC7AD3719 Virtual-Machine App.app/Contents % grep 0CAE034E-C837-53E6-BA67-3B2CC7AD3719 ../../App.app/Contents/embedded.provisionprofile Binary file ../../App.app/Contents/embedded.provisionprofile matches However, when I try to run the application, it fails, and while I have searched the system logs to find a more informative error message, the only thing I can find is that the profile doesn't match the device somehow: Virtual-Machine App.app/Contents % open ../../App.app The application cannot be opened for an unexpected reason, error=Error Domain=RBSRequestErrorDomain Code=5 "Launch failed." UserInfo={NSLocalizedFailureReason=Launch failed., NSUnderlyingError=0x6000039440f0 {Error Domain=NSPOSIXErrorDomain Code=153 "Unknown error: 153" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Launchd job spawn failed}}} Virtual-Machine App.app/Contents % log show --info --debug --signpost --last 3m | grep -i embedded.provisionprofile 2025-01-21 16:33:32.369829+0000 0x65ba Error 0x0 2872 7 taskgated-helper: (ConfigurationProfiles) [com.apple.ManagedClient:ProvisioningProfiles] embedded provisioning profile not valid: file:///private/tmp/builds/app/.caches/Xcode/DerivedData/Build/Products/Debug/App.app/Contents/embedded.provisionprofile error: Error Domain=CPProfileManager Code=-212 "Provisioning profile does not allow this device." UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Provisioning profile does not allow this device.} I don't understand why the provisioning profile wouldn't allow the device if the hardware UUID matches. I have also attempted to add the Provisioning UDID in the devices list instead, but the form rejects that value because it's a different format (the form specifically requests a hardware UUID for macOS development, and a provisioning UDID for everything else). If there is any debugging tool that lets me check a provisioning profile against the running hardware and print a more verbose reason for why it's not allowed on the device, please let me know. Otherwise I'd have to conclude that, since I haven't experienced this issue before on an earlier OS, it has something to do with virtual machines running macOS Sequoia. (The same Mac Development-signed application runs just fine on my MacBook Pro running 15.2, as well as the VM host, which is also running 15.2.) I have also tried resetting the VM's hardware UUID and adding that one to the devices list, to no effect. This is obviously seriously impacting our CI/CD pipelines to allow for proper UI testing of our application. If anyone is aware of any workarounds, I would love to hear them!

Dear Apple Developer Technical Support, I am encountering an issue with notarizing and stapling both PKG and DMG installers for our Electron-based macOS application COSGrid. Despite receiving successful notarization submission responses via notarytool, the stapling process fails with Error 65. Environment: App Name: COSGrid Bundle Identifier: com.cosgrid.pkg.COSGrid Developer ID Team ID: YB8S2XZ98K macOS Version: macOS [15.1] Xcode Version: [16.0 (16A242d)] Workflow Summary: For PKG: Build via yarn build (Vite + Electron Builder) Package with pkgbuild Sign using productsign Submit for notarization: xcrun notarytool submit COSGridMZA-2.1.10-arm64.pkg --apple-id "..." --team-id YB8S2XZ98K --password "..." --wait Conducting pre-submission checks for COSGridMZA-2.1.10-arm64.pkg and initiating connection to the Apple notary service... Submission ID received id: a8ff8e09-1ab4-49ed-9f6b-4afb9f09e53a Upload progress: 100.00% (235 MB of 235 MB) Successfully uploaded file id: a8ff8e09-1ab4-49ed-9f6b-4afb9f09e53a path: /Users/murugavel/Documents/MZA/mza/release/2.1.10/COSGridMZA-2.1.10-arm64.pkg Waiting for processing to complete. Current status: Accepted..................... Processing complete id: a8ff8e09-1ab4-49ed-9f6b-4afb9f09e53a status: Accepted Receive notarization success Stapling fails: xcrun stapler staple COSGridMZA-2.1.10-arm64.pkg Could not validate ticket... The staple and validate action failed! Error 65. For DMG: Sign via codesign Submit to notarization — success Attempt to staple: xcrun stapler staple -v COSGrid-2.1.10-arm64.dmg Could not validate ticket... The staple and validate action failed! Error 65. Additional Verification: I verified the DMG’s code signature integrity: Command: codesign --verify --verbose=4 COSGrid-2.1.10-arm64.dmg Output: COSGrid-2.1.10-arm64.dmg: valid on disk COSGrid-2.1.10-arm64.dmg: satisfies its Designated Requirement Command: codesign -dvv COSGrid-2.1.10-arm64.dmg Output: Executable=/Users/murugavel/Documents/MZA/mza/release/2.1.10/COSGrid-2.1.10-arm64.dmg Identifier=COSGrid-2.1.10-arm64 Format=disk image CodeDirectory v=20200 size=308 flags=0x0(none) hashes=1+6 location=embedded Signature size=9013 Authority=Developer ID Application: COSGrid Systems Private Limited (YB8S2XZ98K) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=1 Jul 2025 at 11:34:05 AM Info.plist=not bound TeamIdentifier=YB8S2XZ98K Sealed Resources=none Internal requirements count=1 size=180 **Verified Signature for .pkg ** pkgutil --check-signature COSGridMZA-2.1.10-arm64.pkg Package "COSGridMZA-2.1.10-arm64.pkg": Status: signed by a developer certificate issued by Apple for distribution Signed with a trusted timestamp on: 2025-06-30 13:57:19 +0000 Certificate Chain: 1. Developer ID Installer: COSGrid Systems Private Limited (teamID) Expires: 2027-02-01 22:12:15 +0000 2. Developer ID Certification Authority Expires: 2027-02-01 22:12:15 +0000 3. Apple Root CA Expires: 2035-02-09 21:40:36 +0000 Diagnostic Logs Attached: Stapler verbose logs for both PKG and DMG codesign verification output for both PKG and DMG Notarytool submission logs Ticket JSON response from Apple API API request/response headers Effective electron-builder.yaml config Key Observations: codesign verification passes successfully for both artifacts Notarization submission reports success via notarytool Stapler fails with Error 65 for both PKG and DMG Ticket JSON fetched from CloudKit API appears valid No provisioning profile used (Developer ID distribution only) Request: Could you please help investigate: Why is the stapler unable to validate or attach the ticket even though notarization completes successfully? Are there any known issues, entitlements, or workflow adjustments recommended in this case? Is any special handling required for Electron apps’ PKG/DMG packages or Hardened Runtime configurations during stapling? I can provide the signed DMG/PKG and full notarization logs upon request. Thank you very much for your assistance — looking forward to your guidance. Best regards, Murugavel COSGrid Systems Private Limited