General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums subtopics: Code Signing > General, Code Signing > Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles, Code Signing > Notarization, Code Signing > Entitlements Forums tags: Code Signing, Signing Certificates, Provisioning Profiles, Entitlements Developer Account Help — This document is good in general but, in particular, the Reference section is chock-full of useful information, including the names and purposes of all certificate types issued by Apple Developer web site, tables of which capabilities are supported by which distribution models on iOS and macOS, and information on how to use managed capabilities. Developer > Support > Certificates covers some important policy issues Bundle Resources > Entitlements documentation TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles — This includes links to the other technotes in the Inside Code Signing series. WWDC 2021 Session 10204 Distribute apps in Xcode with cloud signing Certificate Signing Requests Explained forums post --deep Considered Harmful forums post Don’t Run App Store Distribution-Signed Code forums post Resolving errSecInternalComponent errors during code signing forums post Finding a Capability’s Distribution Restrictions forums post Signing code with a hardware-based code-signing identity forums post New Capabilities Request Tab in Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles forums post Isolating Code Signing Problems from Build Problems forums post Investigating Third-Party IDE Code-Signing Problems forums post Determining if an entitlement is real forums post Code Signing Identifiers Explained forums post Mac code signing: Forums tag: Developer ID Creating distribution-signed code for macOS documentation Packaging Mac software for distribution documentation Placing Content in a Bundle documentation Embedding nonstandard code structures in a bundle documentation Embedding a command-line tool in a sandboxed app documentation Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement documentation Defining launch environment and library constraints documentation WWDC 2023 Session 10266 Protect your Mac app with environment constraints TN2206 macOS Code Signing In Depth archived technote — This doc has mostly been replaced by the other resources linked to here but it still contains a few unique tidbits and it’s a great historical reference. Manual Code Signing Example forums post The Care and Feeding of Developer ID forums post TestFlight, Provisioning Profiles, and the Mac App Store forums post For problems with notarisation, see Notarisation Resources. For problems with the trusted execution system, including Gatekeeper, see Trusted Execution Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

IMPORTANT The underlying issue here (FB8830007) was fixed in macOS 11.3, so the advice in this post is irrelevant if you’re building on that release or later. Note This content is a repost of info from another thread because that thread is not world readable (it’s tied to the DTK programme). A number of folks have reported problems where: They have a product that supports older versions of macOS (anything prior to 10.11). If they build their product on Intel, everything works. If they build their product on Apple Silicon, it fails on those older versions of macOS. A developer filed a bug about this (FB8830007) and, based on the diagnosis of that bug, I have some info to share as to what’s going wrong and how you can prevent it. Let’s start with some background. macOS’s code signing architecture supports two different hash formats: sha1, the original hash format, which is now deprecated sha256, the new format, support for which was added in macOS 10.11 codesign should choose the signing format based on the deployment target: If your deployment target is 10.11 or later, you get sha256. If your deployment target is earlier, you get both sha1 and sha256. This problem crops up because, when building for both Intel and Apple Silicon, your deployment targets are different. You might set the deployment target to 10.9 but, on Apple Silicon, that’s raised to the minimum Apple Silicon system, 11.0. So, which deployment target does it choose? Well, the full answer to that is complex but the executive summary is that it chooses the deployment target of the current architecture, that is, Intel if you’re building on Intel and Apple Silicon if you’re building on Apple Silicon. For example: intel% codesign -d --arch x86_64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha1,sha256 … intel% codesign -d --arch arm64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha1,sha256 … arm% codesign -d --arch x86_64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha256 … arm% codesign -d --arch arm64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha256 … The upshot is that you have problems if your deployment target is less than 10.11 and you sign on Apple Silicon. When you run on, say, macOS 10.10, the system looks for a sha1 hash, doesn’t find it, and complains. The workaround is to supply the --digest-algorithm=sha1,sha256, which overrides the hash choice logic in codesign and causes it to include both hashes: arm% codesign -s - --digest-algorithm=sha1,sha256 Test664892.app arm% codesign -d --arch x86_64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha1,sha256 … % codesign -d --arch arm64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha1,sha256 … Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Is there a way to check your app signature to verify if any one has tampered with the ipa file. I want to know specifically how to determine and handle this type of situation. How can i do a check for this in code(swift).

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.

This post is a ‘child’ of Resolving errSecInternalComponent errors during code signing. If you found your way here directly, I recommend that you start at the top. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Fixing an untrusted code-signing certificate If your code-signing identity is set up correctly, selecting its certificate in Keychain Access should display a green checkmark with the text “This certificate is valid”. If it does not, you need to fix that before trying to sign code. There are three common causes of an untrusted certificate: Expired Missing issuer Trust settings overrides Check for an expired certificate If your code-signing identity’s certificate has expired, Keychain Access shows a red cross with the text “… certificate is expired”. If you try to sign with it, codesign will fail like so: % codesign -s "Apple Development" -f "MyTrue" error: The specified item could not be found in the keychain. If you use security to list your code-signing identities, it will show the CSSMERR_TP_CERT_EXPIRED status: % security find-identity -p codesigning Policy: Code Signing Matching identities 1) 4E587951B705280CBB8086325CD134D4CDA04977 "Apple Development: …" (CSSMERR_TP_CERT_EXPIRED) 1 identities found Valid identities only 0 valid identities found The most likely cause of this problem is that… yep… your certificate has expired. To confirm that, select the certificate in Keychain Access and look at the Expires field. Or double click the certificate, expand the Details section, and look at the Not Valid Before and Not Valid After fields. If your code-signing identity’s certificate has expired, you’ll need to renew it. For information on how to do that, see Developer Account Help. If your certificate hasn’t expired, check that your Mac’s clock is set correctly. Check for a missing issuer In the X.509 public key infrastructure (PKI), every certificate has an issuer, who signed the certificate with their private key. These issuers form a chain of trust from the certificate to a trusted anchor. In most cases the trusted anchor is a root certificate, a certificate that’s self signed. Certificates between the leaf and the root are known as intermediate certificates, or intermediates for short. Your code-signing identity’s certificate is issued by Apple. The exact chain of trust depends on the type of certificate and the date that it was issued. For example, in 2022 Apple Development certificates are issued by the Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority — G3 intermediate, which in turn was issued by the Apple Root CA certificate authority. If there’s a missing issuer in the chain of trust between your code-signing identity’s certificate and a trusted anchor, Keychain Access shows a red cross with the text “… certificate is not trusted”. If you try to sign with it, codesign will fail like so: % codesign -s "Apple Development" -f "MyTrue" MyTrue: replacing existing signature Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "Apple Development: …" MyTrue: errSecInternalComponent The message unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer is key. If you use security to list your identities, it will not show up in the Valid identities only list but there’s no explanation as to why: % security find-identity -p codesigning Policy: Code Signing Matching identities 1) 4E587951B705280CBB8086325CD134D4CDA04977 "Apple Development: …" 1 identities found Valid identities only 0 valid identities found IMPORTANT These symptoms can have multiple potential causes. The most common cause is a missing issuer, as discussed in this section. Another potential cause is a trust settings override, as discussed in the next section. There are steps you can take to investigate this further but, because this problem is most commonly caused by a missing intermediate, try taking a shortcut by assuming that’s the problem. If that fixes things, you’re all set. If not, you have at least ruled out this problem. Apple publishes its intermediates on the Apple PKI page. The simplest way to resolve this problem is to download all of the certificates in the Apple Intermediate Certificates list and use Keychain Access to add them to your keychain. Having extra intermediates installed is generally not a problem. If you want to apply a more targeted fix: In Keychain Access, find your code-signing identity’s certificate and double click it. If the Details section is collapsed, expand it. Look at the Issuer Name section. Note the value in the Common Name field and, if present, the Organizational Unit field. For example, for an Apple Development certificate that’s likely to be Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority and G3, respectively. Go to the Apple PKI and download the corresponding intermediate. To continue the above example, the right intermediate is labelled Worldwide Developer Relations - G3. Use Keychain Access to add the intermediate to your keychain. Sometimes it’s not obvious which intermediate to choose in step 4. If you’re uncertain, download all the intermediates and preview each one using Quick Look in the Finder. Look in the Subject Name section for a certificate whose Common Name and Organizational Unit field matches the values from step 3. Finally, double check the chain of trust: In Keychain Access, select your code-signing identity’s certificate and choose Keychain Access > Certificate Assistant > Evaluate. In the resulting Certificate Assistant window, make sure that Generic (certificate chain validation only) is selected and click Continue. It might seem like selecting Code Signing here would make more sense. If you do that, however, things don’t work as you might expect. Specifically, in this case Certificate Assistant is smart enough to temporarily download a missing intermediate certificate in order to resolve the chain of trust, and that’ll prevent you from seeing any problems with your chain of trust. The resulting UI shows a list of certificates that form the chain of trust. The first item is your code-signing identity’s certificate and the last is an Apple root certificate. Double click the first item. Keychain Access presents the standard the certificate trust sheet, showing the chain of trust from the root to the leaf. You should expect to see three items in that list: An Apple root certificate An Apple intermediate Your code-signing identity’s certificate If so, that’s your chain of trust built correctly. Select each certificate in that list. The UI should show a green checkmark with the text “This certificate is valid”. If you see anything else, check your trust settings as described in the next section. Check for a trust settings override macOS allows you to customise trust settings. For example, you might tell the system to trust a particular certificate when verifying a signed email but not when connecting to a TLS server. The code-signing certificates issued by Apple are trusted by default. They don’t require you to customise any trust settings. Moreover, customising trust settings might cause problems. If code signing fails with the message unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer, first determine the chain of trust per the previous section then make sure that none of these certificates have customised trust settings. Specifically, for each certificate in the chain: Find the certificate in Keychain Access. Note that there may be multiple instances of the certificate in different keychains. If that’s the case, follow these steps for each copy of the certificate. Double click the certificate to open it in a window. If the Trust section is collapsed, expand it. Ensure that all the popups are set to their default values (Use System Defaults for the first, “no value specified” for the rest). If they are, move on to the next certificate. If not, set the popups to the default values and close the window. Closing the window may require authentication to save the trust settings. Another way to explore trust settings is with the dump-trust-settings subcommand of the security tool. On a stock macOS system you should see this: % security dump-trust-settings SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. % security dump-trust-settings -d SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. That is, there are no user or admin trust settings overrides. If you run these commands and see custom trust settings, investigate their origins. IMPORTANT If you’re working in a managed environment, you might see custom trust settings associated with that environment. For example, on my personal Mac I see this: % security dump-trust-settings -d Number of trusted certs = 1 Cert 2: QuinnNetCA Number of trust settings : 10 … because my home network infrastructure uses a custom certificate authority and I’ve configured my Mac to trust its root certificate (QuinnNetCA). Critically, this custom trust settings are nothing to do with code signing. If you dump trust settings and see an override you can’t explain, and specifically one related to code-signing certificate, use Keychain Access to remove it. Revision History 2025-09-29 Added information about the dump-trust-settings command to Check for a trust settings override. Made other minor editorial changes. 2022-08-10 First posted.

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 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 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.

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!

I'm getting this error when uploading a build of my macOS app to App Store Connect. It has always worked before, and nothing changed about my use of app groups, and the iOS build uploaded without any problems. Cleaning the build folder and derived data folder doesn't help. I'm using automatically managed signing in Xcode. Invalid code signing entitlements. Your application bundle’s signature contains code signing entitlements that aren’t supported on macOS. Specifically, the “[group.]” value for the com.apple.security.application-groups key in “.pkg/Payload/.app/Contents/MacOS/” isn’t supported. This value should be a string or an array of strings, where each string is the “group” value or your Team ID, followed by a dot (“.”), followed by the group name. If you're using the “group” prefix, verify that the provisioning profile used to sign the app contains the com.apple.security.application-groups entitlement and its associated value(s).

I can't upload my macOS app to app store connect. Each time i try to upload, i see this message: Provisioning profile failed qualification Profile doesn't support App Groups. An empty app without an app group uploads fine, but if i add an app group to it, it does not upload.

In xcode, the signing&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 & Profiles in developer Does anyone have the same problem? My Version of xcode is Version 15.4 (15F31d), running on m2pro.

Is it possible to directly distribute a macOS app with a Developer ID Certificate that belongs to a different team? I am trying to resolve issues that arise when distributing a macOS app with a Network Extension (Packet Tunnel) outside the App Store using a Developer ID Certificate from a different team than the app’s provisioning profiles and entitlements. I started by attempting Direct Distribution in Xcode with automatic signing. However, it fails with the following message: Provisioning profile "Mac Team Direct Provisioning Profile: ” failed qualification checks: Profile doesn't match the entitlements file's value for the com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension entitlement. I suspect the issue is that the provisioning profile allows "packet-tunnel-provider-systemextension", whereas the entitlements generated by Xcode contain "packet-tunnel-provider". When I manually modify the .entitlements file to include the -systemextension suffix, the project fails to build because Xcode does not recognize the modified entitlement. If there is a workaround for this issue, please let me know. Due to these issues, I resorted to manually creating a signed and notarized app. My process is as follows: Export the .app from the Xcode archive. Since the exported .app does not contain the necessary entitlements or provisioning profile for direct distribution, I replace Contents/embedded.provisioningprofile in both the .app and the .appex network extension. Sign the app and its components in the following order: codesign --force --options runtime --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <name>" <app>.app/Contents/Frameworks/<fw>.framework/ codesign --force --options runtime --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <name>"<app>.app/Contents/PlugIns/<netext>.appex/Contents/Frameworks/<fw>.framework/Versions/A/<fw> codesign --force --options runtime --entitlements dist-vpn.entitlements --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <name>" <app>.app/Contents/PlugIns/<netext>.appex/ codesign --force --options runtime --entitlements dist.entitlements --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <name>" <app>.app Verify the code signature: codesign --verify --deep --strict --verbose=4 <app>.app - <app>.app: valid on disk - <app>.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement Create a ZIP archive using: ditto -c -k --sequesterRsrc --keepParent <app>.app <app>.zip Notarize the app with notarytool and staple it. The notarization completes successfully with errors: nil. Package the notarized app into a DMG, notarize, and staple the DMG. The app runs successfully on the development machine. However, when moved to another machine and placed in /Applications, it fails to open. Inspecting Console.app reveals Gatekeeper is blocking the launch:
 taskgated-helper <bundleid>: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension, com.apple.developer.team-identifier taskgated-helper entitlements: { "com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension" = ("packet-tunnel-provider-systemextension"); "com.apple.developer.team-identifier" = <teamid>; } As mentioned earlier, the Developer ID Certificate used for signing belongs to a different team. We are a third-party developer and do not have access to the Developer ID Certificate of the team assigned as the team-identifier. When I changed the bundle identifier (app ID), team, entitlements, and provisioning profiles to match the team associated with the Developer ID Certificate, the app worked. My question is:
 Is this failure caused by using a Developer ID Certificate from a different team, or should it still work if the provisioning profiles and entitlements are correctly set? Could there be an issue elsewhere in the provisioning profiles or entitlements for the original app ID?

There seems to be a problem to a specific Apple Developer Account regarding Xcode Cloud Distribution (Signing). The Xcode Cloud Error Invalid Signature. Code failed to satisfy specified code requirement(s). The file at path “XcodeCloudTest.app/XcodeCloudTest” is not properly signed. Make sure you have signed your application with a distribution certificate, not an ad hoc certificate or a development certificate. Verify that the code signing settings in Xcode are correct at the target level (which override any values at the project level). Additionally, make sure the bundle you are uploading was built using a Release target in Xcode, not a Simulator target. If you are certain your code signing settings are correct, choose “Clean All” in Xcode, delete the “build” directory in the Finder, and rebuild your release target. For more information, please consult https://developer.apple.com/support/code-signing. Investigation Apple Developer Forums This issue seems to be known: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/746210 Debugging by ourselves We setup an example Xcode project from a default iOS Xcode app template to rule out any project issues. This example project failed with the same error as stated above. In the next step we tried the same example project with a different Apple Developer Account and it successfully distributed the example App through Xcode Cloud. Conclusion It seems like there is no setup issue on developer-side, because our example project works out-of-the-box on a different Apple Developer Account. Our only hope is that Apple will have a look on our Developer Account. Maybe there is some internal setting.

I have developed a sample app following the example found Updating your app package installer to use the new Service Management API and referring this discussion on XPC Security. The app is working fine, I have used Swift NSXPCConnection in favour of xpc_connection_create_mach_service used in the example. (I am running app directly from Xcode) I am trying to set up security requirements for the client connection using setCodeSigningRequirement on the connection instance. But it fails for even basic requirement connection.setCodeSigningRequirement("anchor apple"). Error is as follows. cannot open file at line 46986 of [554764a6e7] os_unix.c:46986: (0) open(/private/var/db/DetachedSignatures) - Undefined error: 0 xpc_support_check_token: anchor apple error: Error Domain=NSOSStatusErrorDomain Code=-67050 "(null)" status: -67050 I have used codesign -d --verbose=4 /path/to/executable to check the attributes I do get them in the terminal. Other way round, I have tried XPC service provider sending back process id (pid) with each request, and I am probing this id to get attributes using this code which gives all the details. func inspectCodeSignature(ofPIDString pidString: String) { guard let pid = pid_t(pidString) else { print("Invalid PID string: \(pidString)") return } let attributes = [kSecGuestAttributePid: pid] as CFDictionary var codeRef: SecCode? let status = SecCodeCopyGuestWithAttributes(nil, attributes, [], &codeRef) guard status == errSecSuccess, let code = codeRef else { print("Failed to get SecCode for PID \(pid) (status: \(status))") return } var staticCode: SecStaticCode? let staticStatus = SecCodeCopyStaticCode(code, [], &staticCode) guard staticStatus == errSecSuccess, let staticCodeRef = staticCode else { print("Failed to get SecStaticCode (status: \(staticStatus))") return } var infoDict: CFDictionary? if SecCodeCopySigningInformation(staticCodeRef, SecCSFlags(rawValue: kSecCSSigningInformation), &infoDict) == errSecSuccess, let info = infoDict as? [String: Any] { print("🔍 Code Signing Info for PID \(pid):") print("• Identifier: \(info["identifier"] ?? "N/A")") print("• Team ID: \(info["teamid"] ?? "N/A")") if let entitlements = info["entitlements-dict"] as? [String: Any] { print("• Entitlements:") for (key, value) in entitlements { print(" - \(key): \(value)") } } } else { print("Failed to retrieve signing information.") } var requirement: SecRequirement? if SecRequirementCreateWithString("anchor apple" as CFString, [], &requirement) == errSecSuccess, let req = requirement { let result = SecStaticCodeCheckValidity(staticCodeRef, [], req) if result == errSecSuccess { print("Signature is trusted (anchor apple)") } else { print("Signature is NOT trusted by Apple (failed anchor check)") } } var infoDict1: CFDictionary? let signingStatus = SecCodeCopySigningInformation(staticCodeRef, SecCSFlags(rawValue: kSecCSSigningInformation), &infoDict1) guard signingStatus == errSecSuccess, let info = infoDict1 as? [String: Any] else { print("Failed to retrieve signing information.") return } print("🔍 Signing Info for PID \(pid):") for (key, value) in info.sorted(by: { $0.key < $1.key }) { print("• \(key): \(value)") } } If connection.setCodeSigningRequirement does not works I plan to use above logic as backup. Q: Please advise is there some setting required to be enabled or I have to sign code with some flags enabled. Note: My app is not running in a Sandbox or Hardened Runtime, which I want.

Hey there, I'm experiencing an issue with notarization of my macOS application, which is blocking a release. We have signing/notarization hooked up to our CI process, both for prior releases as well as development builds (at the trunk tip). The notarization process has typically taken anywhere from a few minutes to a few tens of minutes, but for our most recent release, it's taking an unreasonably long time. I've compiled the submission info for each build (+ reattempted notarizations) below. What's interesting is that the oldest one was accepted- however, it timed out our CI process, so we never actually released it. Subsequent builds are more or less identical in terms of their content, however, they've been stewing in the notarization process for over 13 hours in some cases. % xcrun notarytool info 67413dae-64f5-4372-972d-e0ac158e18e3 Successfully received submission info createdDate: 2025-04-02T16:28:25.999Z id: 67413dae-64f5-4372-972d-e0ac158e18e3 name: Warp Vault.app.zip status: In Progress % xcrun notarytool info 0c72b243-4a8d-4976-a97b-75689d7e2497 Successfully received submission info createdDate: 2025-04-02T05:49:05.861Z id: 0c72b243-4a8d-4976-a97b-75689d7e2497 name: Warp Vault.app.zip status: In Progress % xcrun notarytool info 8e2edfc2-58bc-4b33-bc8e-078155759a81 Successfully received submission info createdDate: 2025-04-02T05:23:28.870Z id: 8e2edfc2-58bc-4b33-bc8e-078155759a81 name: Warp Vault.app.zip status: In Progress % xcrun notarytool info 8fb17b0c-ace4-4b6f-bef8-68d22696814d Successfully received submission info createdDate: 2025-04-02T05:07:48.187Z id: 8fb17b0c-ace4-4b6f-bef8-68d22696814d name: Warp Vault.app.zip status: Accepted At the time of checking, the UTC date was: % TZ="UTC" date Wed Apr 2 18:42:14 UTC 2025 It's interesting to me that the notarization process is taking this long. We've notarized many development builds (with debugging flags enabled) in the time between our last public release and our attempt to notarize this one. What's more, the original build for this release was notarized within the span of about 15 minutes, but subsequent submissions of the same build have hung for tens of hours. My two questions are: How can I get our pending notarizations "unstuck"?, and To prevent these types of hangs in the future, should I also routinely build/sign/notarize non-debug builds of my application during the development process? Best regards and many thanks, Charlton

I work for Brave, a browser with ~80M users. We want to introduce a new system for automatic updates called Omaha 4 (O4). It's the same system that powers automatic updates in Chrome. O4 runs as a separate application on users' systems. For Chrome, this works as follows: An app called GoogleUpdater.app regularly checks for updates in the background. When a new version is found, then GoogleUpdater.app installs it into Chrome's installation directory /Applications/Google Chrome.app. But consider what this means: A separate application, GoogleUpdater.app, is able to modify Google Chrome.app. This is especially surprising because, for example, the built-in Terminal.app is not able to modify Google Chrome.app. Here's how you can check this for yourself: (Re-)install Chrome with its DMG installer. Run the following command in Terminal: mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test. This works. Undo the command: rm -rf /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test Start Chrome and close it again. mkdir /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/test now fails with "Operation not permitted". (These steps assume that Terminal does not have Full Disk Access and System Integrity Protection is enabled.) In other words, once Chrome was started at least once, another application (Terminal in this case) is no longer allowed to modify it. But at the same time, GoogleUpdater.app is able to modify Chrome. It regularly applies updates to the browser. For each update, this process begins with an mkdir call similarly to the one shown above. How is this possible? What is it in macOS that lets GoogleUpdater.app modify Chrome, but not another app such as Terminal? Note that Terminal is not sandboxed. I've checked that it's not related to codesigning or notarization issues. In our case, the main application (Brave) and the updater (BraveUpdater) are signed and notarized with the same certificate and have equivalent requirements, entitlements and provisioning profiles as Chrome and GoogleUpdater. The error that shows up in the Console for the disallowed mkdir call is: kernel (Sandbox) System Policy: mkdir(8917) deny(1) file-write-create /Applications/Google Chrome.app/foo (It's a similar error when BraveUpdater tries to install a new version into /Applications/Brave Browser.app.) The error goes away when I disable System Integrity Protection. But of course, we cannot ask users to do that. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I paid for an Apple Developer membership, but can only sign 3 apps and restricted to 7 day certificates. I don't even seem to have a way to verify if I am in fact enrolled in the developer program despite being charged for it

Hi there, When I deploy my app to the iPhone for testing, I get the following error: Failed to verify code signature of /var/installd/Library/Caches/com.apple.mobile.installd.staging/temp.4gpZFc/extracted/c_mll.app : 0xe8008018 (The identity used to sign the Please ensure that the certificates used to sign your app have not expired. If this issue persists, please attach an IPA of your app when sending a report to Apple. executable is no longer valid.) My account was mistakenly deactivated by Apple last month. After appealing, Apple restored it at the end of last month. Currently, my Apple Developer account seems to be working fine. Today, I recreated the developer certificate and identifier, added the account in XCode, everything seemed fine, and I clicked the XCode button (Start the active scheme). The build was successful, but I got the error: Failed to verify code signature of /var/installd/Library/Caches/com.apple.mobile.installd.staging/temp.4gpZFc/extracted/c_mll.app : 0xe8008018 (The identity used to sign the executable is no longer valid.) Both my certificate and identifier were created just a few hours ago and show no issues. Before my account was deactivated, everything was working fine. I used a regular non-Apple developer account in XCode and performed the same steps, and it worked fine. I looked at relevant posts on the forum and tried the suggestions, but none of them solved my problem.

I've been using /usr/bin/shortcuts for various tasks (eg. Quicksilver uses it to list and run shortcuts), and after updating from 14.7.4 to 14.7.5 the tool gets killed on startup. Eg. here is what it looks like in my shell: ❯ shortcuts list zsh: killed shortcuts list (And this is regardless of whether I have "full disk access" or "developer tools" toggled on or off for iTerm.) Looking at system logs it seems like the binary is missing an entitlement, which causes MACF / Gatekeeper to throw a fit: 2025-04-12 18:38:48.847576 kernel: mac_vnode_check_signature: /usr/bin/shortcuts: code signature validation failed fatally: When validating /usr/bin/shortcuts: in-kernel: com.apple.shortcuts.ShortcutsCommandLine disallowed without com.apple.private.security.restricted-application-groups 2025-04-12 18:38:48.847582 kernel: validation of code signature failed through MACF policy: 1 2025-04-12 18:38:48.847583 kernel: check_signature[pid: 2475]: error = 1 2025-04-12 18:38:48.847587 kernel: proc 95761: load code signature error 4 for file "shortcuts" 2025-04-12 18:38:48.847613 kernel: exec_mach_imgact: not running binary "shortcuts" built against preview arm64e ABI 2025-04-12 18:38:48.855481 syspolicyd: (Security) SecTrustEvaluateIfNecessary 2025-04-12 18:38:48.857970 syspolicyd: [com.apple.syspolicy.exec:default] GK evaluateScanResult: 2, PST: (path: /usr/bin/shortcuts), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null)), 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0evaluateScanResult: 2, PST: (path: /usr/bin/shortcuts), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null)), 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0 I used Time Machine to compare the binary's entitlements between 14.7.4 and 14.7.5, and looks like in 14.7.5 /usr/bin/shortcuts indeed is missing the com.apple.private.security.restricted-application-groups entitlement that 14.7.4 had. The old binary had these two entitlements that the new one doesn't: [Key] com.apple.private.security.restricted-application-groups [Value] [Array] [String] group.com.apple.shortcuts [String] group.is.workflow.my.app [String] group.is.workflow.shortcuts [Key] com.apple.security.application-groups [Value] [Array] [String] group.com.apple.shortcuts [String] group.is.workflow.my.app [String] group.is.workflow.shortcuts Is there a sensible workaround for this (and by "sensible" I mean something that'd allow me to keep using the tool)? (I already asked this on the support forums but I figured I might as well ask here too)