I'm trying to help out one of our vendors by building a skeleton PCI dext which they can flesh out. However, I can't seem to get the signing right. I can't sign it at all using no team or my personal team. "Signing for requires a development team", and "Personal development teams ... do not support the System Extension capability". I can't sign the driver because "DriverKit Team Provisioning Profile: doesn't match the entitlements file's value for the com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.pci entitlement. I think this problem occurs because our company has already been assigned a transport.pci entitlement, but for our own PCI vendor ID. But I want to build and test software that works with our vendor's PCI device. I tried generating a profile for the driver manually, it contained only our own company's PCI driver match: IOPCIPrimaryMatch = "0x0000MMMM&0x0000FFFF"; where MMMM is our own PCI vendor ID. Is there a better way to inspect the profile Xcode is using than the postage-stamped sized info popup which truncates the information? I would download the generated profile but it doesn't appear on the profile, but Xcode is accessing it from somewhere. When I look at the available capabilities I can add to an app identifier on the Developer portal, I see com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.usb, which is "development only". There's no "development only" capability for PCI. Does this mean it isn't possible to develop even a proof-of-concept PCI driver without being first granted the DriverKit PCI (Primary Match) entitlement? When adding capabilities to a driver, the list of available capabilities shown in Xcode has one "DriverKit PCI (Primary Match) entry", but if I double click it, two such entries appear in the Signing and Capabilities tab for my driver target. On the Developer portal, when I look at my driver's Identifier, there are two Capabilities labelled DriverKit PCI (Primary Match). Why?

I am facing an issue while codesigning the Content/MacOS executable. The executable name is exactly similar to the .app file, and the signing certificates have not expired yet. Steps followed to generate signed files: Executed codesign on files within the .app folder. Then executed codesign on the .app folder. Tried to notarize with the new notarization tool. Do we have to sign each individual file and folder? Observations: .DS_Store files were removed from the .app before signing. Another app with the same certificate is able to sign correctly. Content/MacOS contains multiple files, including the app executable. These files are signed except the main executable. same installed_app after copying at another location showing signed. Getting: App Sandbox-Not enabled Hardening-Enabled - Version 10.9.0 Notarization-Granted Gatekeeper-Can't evaluate Signed By- Can't verify signature

I'm developing this app that uses python (pythonkit) to access certain python tools. It works fine locally but I was trying to validate it in order to upload it for the final testing and submission but I'm getting this signing error: codesign command failed (/var/folders/w0/9xsxryw94ps9n139w7g9q3gh0000gp/T/XcodeDistPipeline.~~~jO0urX/Root/Applications/RubyEyes.app/Contents/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.13/lib/python3.13/config-3.13-darwin/python.o: operation inapplicable or not supported for this type of code ) can someone help me?

I tried building a macOS app with Electron, but I ran into problems during notarization. I used notarytool to upload my DMG and got status: Invalid. xcrun notarytool log output { "logFormatVersion": 1, "jobId": "680bf475-a5f4-4675-9083-aa755d492b18", "status": "Invalid", "statusSummary": "Archive contains critical validation errors", "statusCode": 4000, "archiveFilename": "BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app.zip", "uploadDate": "2025-09-25T02:50:41.523Z", "sha256": "e61074b9bba6d03696f2d8b0b13870daafc283960e61ab5002d688e4e82ef6f6", "ticketContents": null, "issues": [ { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app.zip/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Resources/plugin/XMagic/mac/libpag.framework/libpag", "message": "The signature of the binary is invalid.", "docUrl": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues#3087735", "architecture": "x86_64" }, { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app.zip/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Resources/plugin/XMagic/mac/libpag.framework/libpag", "message": "The signature does not include a secure timestamp.", "docUrl": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues#3087733", "architecture": "x86_64" }, { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app.zip/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Resources/plugin/XMagic/mac/libpag.framework/libpag", "message": "The signature of the binary is invalid.", "docUrl": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues#3087735", "architecture": "arm64" }, { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app.zip/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Resources/plugin/XMagic/mac/libpag.framework/libpag", "message": "The signature does not include a secure timestamp.", "docUrl": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues#3087733", "architecture": "arm64" } ] } I checked the signature of my .app file: codesign -v -vvv --deep --strict /Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/MacOS/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac --prepared:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac Helper (GPU).app --validated:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac Helper (GPU).app --prepared:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac Helper (Plugin).app --validated:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac Helper (Plugin).app --prepared:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/TXFFmpeg.framework/Versions/Current/. --validated:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/TXFFmpeg.framework/Versions/Current/. --prepared:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/Electron Framework.framework/Versions/Current/. --prepared:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/Electron Framework.framework/Versions/Current/Helpers/chrome_crashpad_handler --validated:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/Electron Framework.framework/Versions/Current/Helpers/chrome_crashpad_handler --validated:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/Electron Framework.framework/Versions/Current/. --prepared:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/TXSoundTouch.framework/Versions/Current/. --validated:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/TXSoundTouch.framework/Versions/Current/. --prepared:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac Helper.app --validated:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac Helper.app --prepared:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac Helper (Renderer).app --validated:/Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/Frameworks/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac Helper (Renderer).app /Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/MacOS/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac: valid on disk /Users/zhangheng/Desktop/development/coach-app/dist_electron/mac-universal/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac.app/Contents/MacOS/BODYPARK-v3.6.0-mac: satisfies its Designated Requirement It looks like local signing succeeded, but notarization is failing. I’m a beginner with macOS signing/notarization. Could you please help me figure out what I’m doing wrong and how to fix this? I’d really appreciate any guidance.

I have two certificates in my Accounts>Manage Certificates section. One is active, the other is greyed out with a status of "Not in Keychain". I only have ONE certificate in the developer account online. Timeline: Had an issue with fastlane codesigning and was trying to resolve that. In that attempt I deleted my related Certificates from my keychain Xcode showed them as disabled (greyed out) and not in Keychain. Look up how to resolve, need to revoke certificates in Developer account online. I go and revoke those certificates. Nothing changes I create new certificate and try to add it to xcode>account>certificate managment>"Apple Development". Get an error saying I can't add a new can't do that because a certificate is already pending. I waited a day because I assumed like somethings with apple, updates are not immediate. I come back the next day and am able to add a new certificate. However, the previous one that is greyed out and reads "Not in Keychain" under Status, is still there. How do I remove that "Not in Keychain" certificate? I emailed developer support and they directed me here.

Does anyone know how to solve this? Suddenly X-code stopped allowing me to build on my iPhone. Works fine in simulato. Failed to install embedded profile for[…] (This provisioning profile does not have a valid signature (or it has a valid, but untrusted signature).) Domain: IXUserPresentableErrorDomain Code: 14 Failure Reason: This app cannot be installed because its integrity could not be verified. Domain: MIInstallerErrorDomain Code: 13 User Info: { FunctionName = "-[MIInstallableBundle _installEmbeddedProfilesWithError:]"; LegacyErrorString = ApplicationVerificationFailed; LibMISErrorNumber = "-402620390"; SourceFileLine = 322;

I am a developer working on iOS apps. I would like to report an issue occurring in iOS 26 beta 2. Our company has Enterprise account, and we are developing apps. When we distribute these apps, and install them on a device running iOS 26 beta2, apps install successfully, but apps crashed immediately after being launched. MDM Install Application When I install the app via Xcode and trust it, apps will run. Launchd job spawn failed This issue does not occur on versions prior to iOS 26. I would like to know if this is a problem that will be resolved in future updates, or if it is a policy change.

Hey! I am developing a macOS application with the help of an external vendor, who is supplying me with a closed-source XCFramework. In Xcode, when I import their XCFramework bundle, when running the app, or opening a SwiftUI preview, or interacting with the app in any form, I get the familiar dialog: "[SDK name].framework" Not Opened - Apple could not verify "[SDK name].framework" is free from malware that may harm your Mac or compromise privacy. (Regardless, the application can run on my machine.) But indeed, their cross-platform iOS/macOS XCFramework is not notarized at all (using spctl -a -t install), plus the macOS binary embedded is not code signed correctly (using codesign -d). The XCFramework itself is production code signed with a Developer ID certificate, however I believed the above issues to be valid. Now, I asked the vendor to provide a correctly distributed (so code signed and notarized) framework, however they pointed out that "when I embed and sign the product in my app, it will be re-signed anyways". I understand this is true, but I believe this to be an important security boundary. If I were to re-sign under my name a closed source binary - previously unchecked for malware by Apple Notary Service -, I would put myself up for embedding potentially malicious code in my app, which could only be traced back to me - which would in turn mean a security issue would hinder my reputation here. Am I being over-protective here, or is this a valid concern? I have no way to see the source code, so I strongly believe this XCFramework should be notarized correctly. I understand that an in-house XCFramework is fine unnotarized, given that I know its origin, but this seems like a unique case where notarization should be enforced from my side on the vendor.

My post-build script takes the "developeridexport" archive export, zips it up and uses notarytool to notarize it. I then add the .zip to a .dmg disk image. The next step is to codesign the disk image before notarizing that too. The issue is my Developer ID Application certificate is not accessible to the build host. (When I was doing this in Microsoft AppCenter (now defunct), it had a copy of my Developer ID Application certificate.) What steps do I need to take to get the disk image signed for notarization? Thanks! Lance

I am trying to set up code signing for my macOS/Tauri app and I’m running into a problem with my Developer ID Application certificate in Keychain Access. Steps I followed: Generated a CSR on my Mac using Keychain Access → Certificate Assistant → Request a Certificate From a Certificate Authority. Uploaded the CSR to the Apple Developer portal. Downloaded the resulting .cer file and installed it in my login Keychain. The certificate appears under All Items, but it does not show under My Certificates, and there is no private key attached. What I expected: The certificate should pair with the private key created during CSR generation and show under My Certificates, allowing me to export a .p12 file. What I’ve tried so far: Verified that the WWDR Intermediate Certificate is installed. Ensured I’m on the same Mac and same login Keychain where I created the CSR. Revoked and regenerated the certificate multiple times. Tried importing into both login and system Keychains. Problem: The certificate never links with the private key and therefore cannot be used for signing. Has anyone experienced this issue or knows why the certificate would fail to pair with the private key in Keychain Access? Any workaround or fix would be greatly appreciated.

Hi all, I’ve built an Electron application that uses two child processes: An Express.js server A Python executable (packaged .exe/binary) During the development phase, everything works fine — the Electron app launches, both child processes start, and the app functions as expected. But when I create a production build for macOS, the child processes don’t run. Here’s a simplified snippet from my electron.mjs: import { app, BrowserWindow } from "electron"; import { spawn } from "child_process"; import path from "path"; let mainWindow; const createWindow = () => { mainWindow = new BrowserWindow({ width: 1200, height: 800, webPreferences: { nodeIntegration: true, }, }); mainWindow.loadFile("index.html"); // Start Express server const serverPath = path.join(process.resourcesPath, "app.asar.unpacked", "server", "index.js"); const serverProcess = spawn(process.execPath, [serverPath], { stdio: "inherit", }); // Start Python process const pythonPath = path.join(process.resourcesPath, "app.asar.unpacked", "python", "myapp"); const pythonProcess = spawn(pythonPath, [], { stdio: "inherit", }); serverProcess.on("error", (err) => console.error("Server process error:", err)); pythonProcess.on("error", (err) => console.error("Python process error:", err)); }; app.whenReady().then(createWindow); I’ve already done the following: Configured package.json with the right build settings Set up extraResources / asarUnpack to include the server and Python files Verified both child processes work standalone Questions: What’s the correct way to package and spawn these child processes for macOS production builds? Do I need to move them into a specific location (like Contents/Resources/app.asar.unpacked) and reference them differently? Is there a more reliable pattern for handling Express + Python child processes inside an Electron app bundle? Any insights or working examples would be really appreciated!

I am experiencing a persistent issue when trying to sign my application, PhotoKiosk.app, using codesign. The process consistently fails with the error errSecInternalComponent, and my troubleshooting indicates the problem is with how the system accesses or validates my certificate's trust chain, rather than the certificate itself. Error Details and Configuration: codesign command executed: codesign --force --verbose --options=runtime --entitlements /Users/sergiomordente/Documents/ProjetosPhotocolor/PhotoKiosk-4M/entitlements.plist --sign "Developer ID Application: Sérgio Mordente (G75SJ6S9NC)" /Users/sergiomordente/Documents/ProjetosPhotocolor/PhotoKiosk-4M/dist/PhotoKiosk.app Error message received: Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "(null)" /Users/sergiomordente/Documents/ProjetosPhotocolor/PhotoKiosk-4M/dist/PhotoKiosk.app: errSecInternalComponent Diagnostic Tests and Verifications Performed: Code Signing Identity Validation: I ran the command security find-identity -v -p codesigning, which successfully confirmed the presence and validity of my certificate in the Keychain. The command output correctly lists my identity: D8FB11D4C14FEC9BF17E699E833B23980AF7E64F "Developer ID Application: Sérgio Mordente (G75SJ6S9NC)" This suggests that the certificate and its associated private key are present and functional for the system. Keychain Certificate Verification: The "Apple Root CA - G3 Root" certificate is present in the System Roots keychain. The "Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority (G6)" certificate is present and shown as valid. The trust setting for my "Developer ID Application" certificate is set to "Use System Defaults". Attempted Certificate Export via security: To further diagnose the problem, I attempted to export the certificate using the security find-certificate command with the exact name of my identity. Command executed (using double quotes): security find-certificate -c -p "Developer ID Application: Sérgio Mordente (G75SJ6S9NC)" > mycert.pem Error message: security: SecKeychainSearchCopyNext: The specified item could not be found in the keychain. The same error occurred when I tried with single quotes. This result is contradictory to the output of find-identity, which successfully located the certificate. This suggests an internal inconsistency in the Keychain database, where the certificate is recognized as a valid signing identity but cannot be located via a simple certificate search. Additional Troubleshooting Attempts: I have already recreated the "Developer ID Application" certificate 4 times (I am at the limit of 5), and the issue persists with all of them. The application has been rebuilt, and the codesign command was run on a clean binary. Conclusion: The problem appears to be an internal macOS failure to build the trust chain for the certificate, as indicated by the errSecInternalComponent error. Although the certificate is present and recognized as a valid signing identity by find-identity, the codesign tool cannot complete the signature. The failure to find the certificate with find-certificate further supports the suspicion of an inconsistency within the keychain system that goes beyond a simple certificate configuration issue. I would appreciate any guidance on how to resolve this, especially given that I am at my developer certificate limit and cannot simply generate a new one.

Hi, I need to bundle an additional binary along my yet published application. It is a Audio Unit test application. My yet published application implemented Audio Unit plugin support. But upload is always rejected: Validation failed (409) Invalid Provisioning Profile. The provisioning profile included in the bundle com.gsequencer.GSequencer [com.gsequencer.GSequencer.pkg/Payload/com.gsequencer.GSequencer.app] is invalid. [Missing code-signing certificate.] For more information, visit the macOS Developer Portal. (ID: ****) I have followed the instructions here: Embedding a helper tool in a sandboxed app but no luck. Does anyone know whats going on? I use Transporter to upload the application, the embedded.provisioningprofile is copied from Xcode build and code signing is done manually.

I’m trying to archive my app in Xcode but keep running into issues. When I attempt to archive, I see two errors: “Communication with Apple failed. Your team has no device from which to generate a provisioning profile. Connect a device to use or manually add a device ID in the certificate.” “No profiles were found” — Xcode can’t locate a matching iOS development provisioning profile. I’ve already added the device ID manually, set up my bundle identifier in Apple Connect (which was detected), and signed in with my Apple ID in Xcode. What steps should I take to resolve this? If there’s a thread, article, or anything that explains the fix, I will appreciate if you can share it as well. Also, is it common that I created the project, but my role shows as Admin instead of Account Holder? I tried to find a way to change my role from Admin to Account Holder, but I couldn’t find any resources. Thank you in advance for your help!

Hello Apple Developer Support Community, I am encountering a persistent issue while trying to code sign my macOS application (PromptVault.app) using a valid Developer ID Application certificate. The signing process fails with the following warning and error for every native .so file inside the app bundle: `Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "(null)" <file-path>: errSecInternalComponent` What I have tried so far: Verified that my Developer ID Application certificate and the associated private key exist correctly in the login keychain. Confirmed that the intermediate certificate "Apple Worldwide Developer Relations - G6" is installed and valid in the System keychain. Added Terminal to Full Disk Access in Security & Privacy to ensure signing tools have required permissions. Executed security set-key-partition-list to explicitly allow code signing tools to access the private key. Reinstalled both developer and Apple intermediate certificates. Used codesign to individually sign .so files and then sign the entire bundle. Ensured macOS and Xcode Command Line Tools are up to date. Created a clean Python virtual environment and rebuilt all dependencies. Tested code signing in multiple ways and with verbose logging. Current status: Despite all these efforts, the same warning and error persist during the signing process of every .so file. This prevents successful code signing and notarization, blocking distribution. Request for assistance: Could anyone confirm if my certificate and keychain setup sounds correct? Are there known issues or extra steps necessary to properly build the trust chain for Developer ID certificates on macOS 15.6.1 (Sequoia)? Any suggestions for resolving the errSecInternalComponent during signing native libraries? Guidance on ensuring the entire certificates chain is trusted and usable by codesign tools? I can provide debug logs, screenshots of my keychain and security settings, or any other diagnostic information if needed. Thanks in advance for your help!

We're trying out using a 3rd party java applet as part of our suite, but we're getting inconsistent results that seem to be related to signing. "Fortunately," I can trivially reproduce it! It pops up a dialogue saying "Apple could not verify “java” is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy"; if I click through the dialogue and the system settings, it then does the same for each of the dylib files. The file seems to be signed, so is this a matter of it not being notarized? Will we have to sign and notarize them all on our own?

Hi all - I used to run a development studio, but shut down around ~8 years ago. Since then, I've kept a personal $99/year Individual developer account to access documentation, apps, etc, as I still work in the mobile iOS development space, just for corporate projects. I have a friend who has an app that was built years back, but was removed from the store ~2-3 years ago due to just letting account lapse. He's asked me to help him get it back on the App Store, with some updates, etc. His account is an Individuals or sole proprietors/single-person businesses account as well. He granted me Admin access on his account, but I can't see or select his team in Xcode when handling automatic code signing in order to upload to App Store Connect. He's not a developer, and he lives several states/hours away. We worked remotely and I was able to get a development certificate and provisioning profile that I walked through setting up with him, that he exported and sent over to me. However, when I compile a build this way, Xcode won't allow upload because I am not logged in to his developer account. Outside of him giving me his personal account password, which isn't advisable and I would be reluctant to ask him for, is there a way I can submit this app for him up to App Store Connect?

I have a mac app which has a launch agent. I signed it with my account, but it always shows as my personal 'XX XXX" in the login items of mac settings. Actually this is the reason I switched my personal account to a company account. But now it is still shown as 'XX XXX' in the login items after I signed up again with this company account. Do you know how I can change this? The identity I also tried to create a new one with the team, but it does not allow me to create a new one. Chatgpt recommends revoking the current one, but this will affect our old release.

I regularly see folks confused by the difference in behaviour of app groups between macOS and iOS. There have been substantial changes in this space recently. While much of this is now covered in the official docs (r. 92322409), I’ve updated this post to go into all the gory details. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the App & System Services > Core OS topic area and tag it with Code Signing and Entitlements. Oh, and if your question is about app group containers, also include Files and Storage. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony There are two styles of app group ID: iOS-style app group IDs start with group., for example, group.eskimo1.test. macOS-style app group IDs start with your Team ID, for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. This difference has been the source of numerous weird problems over the years. Starting in Feb 2025, iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on macOS for all product types [1]. If you’re writing new code that uses app groups, use an iOS-style app group ID. If you have existing code that uses a macOS-style app group ID, consider how you might transition to the iOS style. IMPORTANT The Feb 2025 changes aren’t tied to an OS release but rather to a Developer website update. For more on this, see Feb 2025 Changes, below. [1] If your product is a standalone executable, like a daemon or agent, wrap it in an app-like structure, as explained in Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement. iOS-Style App Group IDs An iOS-style app group ID has the following features: It starts with the group. prefix, for example, group.eskimo1.test. You allocate it on the Developer website. This assigns the app group ID to your team. You then claim access to it by listing it in the App Groups entitlement (com.apple.security.application-groups) entitlement. That claim must be authorised by a provisioning profile [1]. The Developer website will only let you include your team’s app group IDs in your profile. For more background on provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. iOS-style app group IDs originated on iOS with iOS 3.0. They’ve always been supported on iOS’s child platforms (iPadOS, tvOS, visionOS, and watchOS). On the Mac: They’ve been supported by Mac Catalyst since that technology was introduced. Likewise for iOS Apps on Mac. Starting in Feb 2025, they’re supported for other Mac products. [1] Strictly speaking macOS does not require that, but if your claim is not authorised by a profile then you might run into other problems. See Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. macOS-Style App Group IDs A macOS-style app group ID has the following features: It should start with your Team ID [1], for example, SKMME9E2Y8.eskimo1.test. It can’t be explicitly allocated on the Developer website. Code that isn’t sandboxed doesn’t need to claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. [2] To use an app group, claim the app group ID in the App Groups entitlement. The App Groups entitlement is not restricted on macOS, meaning that this claim doesn’t need to be authorised by a provisioning profile [3]. However, if you claim an app group ID that’s not authorised in some way, you might run into problems. More on that later in this post. If you submit an app to the Mac App Store, the submission process checks that your app group IDs make sense, that is, they either start with your Team ID (macOS style) or are assigned to your team (iOS style). [1] This is “should” because, historically, macOS has not actually required it. However, that’s now changing, with things like app group container protection. [2] This was true prior to macOS 15. It may still technically be true in macOS 15 and later, but the most important thing, access to the app group container, requires the entitlement because of app group container protection. [3] Technically it’s a validation-required entitlement, something that we’ll come back to in the Entitlements-Validated Flag section. Feb 2025 Changes On 21 Feb 2025 we rolled out a change to the Developer website that completes the support for iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Specifically, it’s now possible to create a Mac provisioning profile that authorises the use of an iOS-style app group ID. Note This change doesn’t affect Mac Catalyst or iOS Apps on Mac, which have always been able to use iOS-style app group IDs on the Mac. Prior to this change it was possible to use an iOS-style app group ID on the Mac but that might result in some weird behaviour. Later sections of this post describe some of those problems. Of course, that information is now only of historical interest because, if you’re using an iOS-style app group, you can and should authorise that use with a provisioning profile. We also started seeding Xcode 16.3, which has since been release. This is aware of the Developer website change, and its Signing & Capabilities editor actively encourages you to use iOS-style app groups IDs in all products. Note This Xcode behaviour is the only option for iOS and its child platforms. With Xcode 16.3, it’s now the default for macOS as well. If you have existing project, enable this behaviour using the Register App Groups build setting. Finally, we updated a number of app group documentation pages, including App Groups entitlement and Configuring app groups. Crossing the Streams In some circumstances you might need to have a single app that accesses both an iOS- and a macOS-style app group. For example: You have a macOS app. You want to migrate to an iOS-style app group ID, perhaps because you want to share an app group container with a Mac Catalyst app. But you also need to access existing content in a container identified by a macOS-style app group ID. Historically this caused problems (FB16664827) but, as of Jun 2025, this is fully supported (r. 148552377). When the Developer website generates a Mac provisioning profile for an App ID with the App Groups capability, it automatically adds TEAM_ID.* to the list of app group IDs authorised by that profile (where TEAM_ID is your Team ID). This allows the app to claim access to every iOS-style app group ID associated with the App ID and any macOS-style app group IDs for that team. This helps in two circumstances: It avoids any Mac App Store Connect submission problems, because App Store Connect can see that the app’s profile authorises its use of all the it app group IDs it claims access to. Outside of App Store — for example, when you directly distribute an app using Developer ID signing — you no longer have to rely on macOS granting implicit access to macOS-style app group IDs. Rather, such access is explicitly authorised by your profile. That ensures that your entitlements remain validated, as discussed in the Entitlements-Validated Flag, below. A Historical Interlude These different styles of app group IDs have historical roots: On iOS, third-party apps have always used provisioning profiles, and thus the App Groups entitlement is restricted just like any other entitlement. On macOS, support for app groups was introduced before macOS had general support for provisioning profiles [1], and thus the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted. The unrestricted nature of this entitlement poses two problems. The first is accidental collisions. How do you prevent folks from accidentally using an app group ID that’s in use by some other developer? On iOS this is easy: The Developer website assigns each app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. macOS achieved a similar result by using the Team ID as a prefix. The second problem is malicious reuse. How do you prevent a Mac app from accessing the app group containers of some other team? Again, this isn’t an issue on iOS because the App Groups entitlement is restricted. On macOS the solution was for the Mac App Store to prevent you from publishing an app that used an app group ID that’s used by another team. However, this only works for Mac App Store apps. Directly distributed apps were free to access app group containers of any other app. That was considered acceptable back when the Mac App Store was first introduced. That’s no longer the case, which is why macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. See App Group Container Protection, below. [1] I’m specifically talking about provisioning profiles for directly distributed apps, that is, apps using Developer ID signing. Entitlements-Validated Flag The fact that the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted on macOS is, when you think about it, a little odd. The purpose of entitlements is to gate access to functionality. If an entitlement isn’t restricted, it’s not much of a gate! For most unrestricted entitlements that’s not a problem. Specifically, for both the App Sandbox and Hardened Runtime entitlements, those are things you opt in to, so macOS is happy to accept the entitlement at face value. After all, if you want to cheat you can just not opt in [1]. However, this isn’t the case for the App Groups entitlement, which actually gates access to functionality. Dealing with this requires macOS to walk a fine line between security and compatibility. Part of that solution is the entitlements-validated flag. When a process runs an executable, macOS checks its entitlements. There are two categories: Restricted entitlements must be authorised by a provisioning profile. If your process runs an executable that claims a restricted entitlement that’s not authorised by a profile, the system traps. Unrestricted entitlements don’t have to be authorised by a provisioning profile; they can be used by any code at any time. However, the App Groups entitlement is a special type of unrestricted entitlement called a validation-required entitlement. If a process runs an executable that claims a validation-required entitlement and that claim is not authorised by a profile, the system allows the process to continue running but clears its entitlements-validated flag. Some subsystems gate functionality on the entitlements-validated flag. For example, the data protection keychain uses entitlements as part of its access control model, but refuses to honour those entitlements if the entitlement-validated flag has been cleared. Note If you’re curious about this flag, use the procinfo subcommand of launchctl to view it. For example: % sudo launchctl procinfo `pgrep Test20230126` … code signing info = valid … entitlements validated … If the flag has been cleared, this line will be missing from the code signing info section. Historically this was a serious problem because it prevented you from creating an app that uses both app groups and the data protection keychain [2] (r. 104859788). Fortunately that’s no longer an issue because the Developer website now lets you include the App Groups entitlement in macOS provisioning profiles. [1] From the perspective of macOS checking entitlements at runtime. There are other checks: The App Sandbox is mandatory for Mac App Store apps, but that’s checked when you upload the app to App Store Connect. Directly distributed apps must be notarised to pass Gatekeeper, and the notary service requires that all executables enable the hardened runtime. [2] See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. App Groups and the Keychain The differences described above explain a historical oddity associated with keychain access. The Sharing access to keychain items among a collection of apps article says: Application groups When you collect related apps into an application group using the App Groups entitlement, they share access to a group container, and gain the ability to message each other in certain ways. You can use app group names as keychain access group names, without adding them to the Keychain Access Groups entitlement. On iOS this makes a lot of sense: The App Groups entitlement is a restricted entitlement on iOS. The Developer website assigns each iOS-style app group ID to a specific team, which guarantees uniqueness. The required group. prefix means that these keychain access groups can’t collide with other keychain access groups, which all start with an App ID prefix (there’s also Apple-only keychain access groups that start with other prefixes, like apple). However, this didn’t work on macOS [1] because the App Groups entitlement is unrestricted there. However, with the Feb 2025 changes it should now be possible to use an iOS-style app group ID as a keychain access group on macOS. Note I say “should” because I’ve not actually tried it (-: Keep in mind that standard keychain access groups are protected the same way on all platforms, using the restricted Keychain Access Groups entitlement (keychain-access-groups). [1] Except for Mac Catalyst apps and iOS Apps on Mac. Not Entirely Unsatisfied When you launch a Mac app that uses app groups you might see this log entry: type: error time: 10:41:35.858009+0000 process: taskgated-helper subsystem: com.apple.ManagedClient category: ProvisioningProfiles message: com.example.apple-samplecode.Test92322409: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups Note The exact format of that log entry, and the circumstances under which it’s generated, varies by platform. On macOS 13.0.1 I was able to generate it by running a sandboxed app that claims a macOS-style app group ID in the App Groups entitlement and also claims some other restricted entitlement. This looks kinda worrying and can be the source of problems. It means that the App Groups entitlement claims an entitlement that’s not authorised by a provisioning profile. On iOS this would trap, but on macOS the system allows the process to continue running. It does, however, clear the entitlements-validate flag. See Entitlements-Validated Flag for an in-depth discussion of this. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to authorise your app group ID claims with a provisioning profile. If there’s some reason you can’t do that, watch out for potential problems with: The data protection keychain — See the discussion of that in the Entitlements-Validated Flag and App Groups and the Keychain sections, both above. App group container protection — See App Group Container Protection, below. App Group Container Protection macOS 15 introduced app group container protection. To access an app group container without user intervention: Claim access to the app group by listing its ID in the App Groups entitlement. Locate the container by calling the containerURL(forSecurityApplicationGroupIdentifier:) method. Ensure that at least one of the following criteria are met: Your app is deployed via the Mac App Store (A). Or via TestFlight when running on macOS 15.1 or later (B). Or the app group ID starts with your app’s Team ID (C). Or your app’s claim to the app group is authorised by a provisioning profile embedded in the app (D) [1]. If your app doesn’t follow these rules, the system prompts the user to approve its access to the container. If granted, that consent applies only for the duration of that app instance. For more on this, see: The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15 Release Notes The System Integrity Protection section of the macOS Sequoia 15.1 Release Notes WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy, starting at 12:23 The above criteria mean that you rarely run into the app group authorisation prompt. If you encounter a case where that happens, feel free to start a thread here on DevForums. See the top of this post for info on the topic and tags to use. Note Prior to the Feb 2025 change, things generally worked out fine when you app was deployed but you might’ve run into problems during development. That’s no longer the case. [1] This is what allows Mac Catalyst and iOS Apps on Mac to work. Revision History 2025-08-12 Added a reference to the Register App Groups build setting. 2025-07-28 Updated the Crossing the Streams section for the Jun 2025 change. Made other minor editorial changes. 2025-04-16 Rewrote the document now that iOS-style app group IDs are fully supported on the Mac. Changed the title from App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Fight! to App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony 2025-02-25 Fixed the Xcode version number mentioned in yesterday’s update. 2025-02-24 Added a quick update about the iOS-style app group IDs on macOS issue. 2024-11-05 Further clarified app group container protection. Reworked some other sections to account for this new reality. 2024-10-29 Clarified the points in App Group Container Protection. 2024-10-23 Fleshed out the discussion of app group container protection on macOS 15. 2024-09-04 Added information about app group container protection on macOS 15. 2023-01-31 Renamed the Not Entirely Unsatisfactory section to Not Entirely Unsatisfied. Updated it to describe the real impact of that log message. 2022-12-12 First posted.

I'm currently befuddled by the entire signing and certificate process. I don't understand what I need, what the team admin needs to do, or how to go about doing it so that I can build the project. We've managed to have this working in the past but I guess the system has changed somewhat. Here's what we have going: A Unity project which hasn't changed from a few years ago. I build the project in unity, open the Xcode project and this: There's an issue with the Signing and Capabilities. If I choose automatic setup it shows an error saying that it requires a development team. I had the account admin add my Apple ID to the team so I'm not sure why that's an issue still. Do I need to pay the 99$ to be able to building Xcode? If I try to do it manually I select the provisioning profile that the account admin sent me and it auto selects the team associated with the provisioning profile I guess but then there's no singing certificate. The error says: There is no signing certificate "iOS Development" found. No "iOS Development" signing certificate matching team ID "V7D5YBZRMV" with a private key was found. So, if someone could explain to me like I'm 5 the entire signing and certificate process is and let me know what we're doing wrong with the team/provisioning profile/certificate setup I would be very much appreciative.