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your Mac app with environment constraints TN2206 macOS Code Signing In Depth archived technote — This doc has mostly been replaced by the other resources linked to here but it still contains a few unique tidbits and it’s a great historical reference.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"

You can now easily request access to managed capabilities for your App IDs directly from the new Capability Requests tab in Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles > Identifiers. With this update, view available capabilities in one convenient location, check the status of your requested capabilities, and see any notes from Apple related to your requests. Learn more about capability requests.

A sandboxed Mac app with correct CloudKit entitlements fails to connect to com.apple.cloudd (the CloudKit daemon) when distributed via TestFlight (Mac Team Store Provisioning Profile). The identical binary works correctly when launched from Xcode (Mac Team Provisioning Profile also present). All entitlements are correctly embedded and the App ID is properly configured in Apple Developer Portal. Environment macOS 26.5.1 (25F80) Xcode 26.5 (17F42) SwiftData with NSPersistentCloudKitContainer / ModelConfiguration(cloudKitDatabase: .private(...)) Steps to Reproduce Create a sandboxed Mac app using SwiftData with CloudKit sync Enable iCloud + CloudKit in Signing & Capabilities Archive and distribute to TestFlight (Mac Team Store Provisioning Profile) Install via TestFlight on macOS 26 and launch Check Console for kernel sandbox messages Expected Result CloudKit connects to com.apple.cloudd and syncs data, matching behavior of the iOS version using the same container. Actual Result Console shows repeated kernel sandbox denials followed by CloudKit setup failure: kernel Sandbox: CheatSheet Mac(82347) deny(1) mach-lookup com.apple.cloudd kernel Sandbox: CheatSheet Mac(82347) deny(1) mach-lookup com.apple.duetactivityscheduler CheatSheet Mac CoreData+CloudKit: Failed to set up CloudKit integration for store Error Domain=CKErrorDomain Code=6 "Error connecting to CloudKit daemon." Key Diagnostic Finding When launched from Xcode, taskgated-helper validates both the Mac Team Store Provisioning Profile AND the Mac Team Provisioning Profile, and CloudKit succeeds: cloudd: TCC approved access for container containerID=iCloud.com.michaelendres.CheatSheet:Production When launched from TestFlight, only the Mac Team Store Provisioning Profile is present, and the sandbox denies com.apple.cloudd despite identical entitlements in the binary: codesign -d --entitlements shows: com.apple.developer.icloud-services: [CloudKit] com.apple.developer.icloud-container-identifiers: [iCloud.com.michaelendres.CheatSheet] com.apple.developer.icloud-container-environment: Production com.apple.security.app-sandbox: true Conclusion The Mac Team Store Provisioning Profile on macOS 26 does not appear to grant the sandbox exception for mach-lookup com.apple.cloudd, while the Mac Team Provisioning Profile (development) does. This prevents any Mac App Store / TestFlight app using CloudKit from syncing on macOS 26.

Hi team, Earlier, Apple’s documentation clearly mentioned that we needed to submit a request to Apple to obtain the Location Push Service Extension (com.apple.developer.location.push) entitlement. However, when I checked the Apple Developer Portal now, I don’t see an option to request this entitlement for my App ID. Could you please confirm whether this entitlement is still required to be requested from Apple, or if the process has changed and the request is no longer required? Thanks

When attempting to build an Apple Vision Pro application written in Swift in Xcode, we get the following status errors: "Provisioning profile [Profile Name] doesn't include the Main Camera Access capability.” and "Provisioning profile [Profile Name] doesn't include the com.apple.developer.arkit.main-camera-access.allow entitlement.” The provisioning profile we are attempting to use DOES have the Main Camera Access capability enabled through the Apple Developer portal. We have tried deleting and remaking the profile multiple times, as well as creating new profiles with the same settings, but completely different names and bundle identifiers, but keep getting the same errors. We DO have the "com.apple.developer.arkit.main-camera-access.allow” added to the entitlements file of the Xcode project, and we DO have the “NSMainCameraUsageDescription” key added to the info.plist file, along with the needed string describing the camera usage. Our organization has a valid and active Enterprise account, through which we have requested and been granted access to the “Main Camera Access” capability. We have built this applications multiple times before in the past year with no issues, these errors began after one of our provisioning profiles expired and we re-made it. We have tried clearing the Provisioning Profile Cache on our machine, clearing the Derived Data in the Xcode settings, and clearing the Xcode build cache. We are experiencing these errors on multiple machines, with different versions of our app, and with completely different apps that use the Main Camera Access entitlement. We experience these errors when the profile is downloaded directly in Xcode, and when it is downloaded from a browser and imported into Xcode. When we use “Automatically manage signing” our app properly builds and deploys to the Vision Pro, but when we use the app and attempt to access the main camera, the app crashes with the exception: "Exception: This app failed to request an authorization.” We have searched online forums and found several instances of others that have experienced this problem, but have not found a solution that works. Software Versions: Xcode Version: 26.6 macOS Version: Tahoe 26.5.1 VisionOS Version: 26.5

In transitioning an existing privileged helper tool from SMJobBless to the new-ish SMAppService APIs, I ran into a problem. Registration via [SMAppService daemonServiceWithPlistName:...]; works and I get the green light via SMAppServiceStatusEnabled. Presumably that means my app’s bundle structure is correct, except that when my app creates a connection to the named mach service advertised by the helper tool, the helper tool process no longer launches on-demand. The client side (main app) uses: xpc_connection_create_mach_service("com.fxfactory.FxFactory.helper", queue, XPC_CONNECTION_MACH_SERVICE_PRIVILEGED); The listener / helper tool uses: xpc_connection_create_mach_service("com.fxfactory.FxFactory.helper", dispatch_get_main_queue(), XPC_CONNECTION_MACH_SERVICE_LISTENER); When installed via SMJobBless, the privileged helper tool would automatically launch when a connection attempt is made by the app. This no longer works. The app sits indefinitely, never receiving a reply on its otherwise "live" xpc_connection. The only useful hints on the Console seemed to be the following: taskgated-helper Checking profile: FxFactory Provisioning Profile 2026-1-15 taskgated-helper com.fxfactory.FxFactory.helper: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.developer.service-management.managed-by-main-app taskgated-helper Disallowing: com.fxfactory.FxFactory.helper ...and: /Applications/FxFactory.app/Contents/MacOS/com.fxfactory.FxFactory.helper not valid: Error Domain=AppleMobileFileIntegrityError Code=-413 "No matching profile found" UserInfo={NSURL=file:///Applications/FxFactory.app/Contents/MacOS/com.fxfactory.FxFactory.helper, unsatisfiedEntitlements=<CFArray 0x7b94c33a40 [0x200d1aab0]>{type = immutable, count = 1, values = ( 0 : <CFString 0x7b950305a0 [0x200d1aab0]>{contents = "com.apple.developer.service-management.managed-by-main-app"} )}, NSLocalizedDescription=No matching profile found} I'm testing this on macOS 27 Beta, not sure if that would/should make a difference. LLMs give a ton of contradicting advice on this topic. I would be great to clear some things out: In addition to having the launchd plist that describes the helper tool copied to /Contents/Library/LaunchDaemons, should the same plist also be embedded by the helper tool binary via -sectcreate __TEXT __launchd_plist? Is it true that XPC_CONNECTION_MACH_SERVICE_PRIVILEGED should be omitted from the client, when using the new SMAppService API? (the LLM surely insisted on this point, but passing 0 didn't fix anything.) What are the unsatisfied requirements of the com.apple.developer.service-management.managed-by-main-app that taskgated is referring to? Again LLMs insist that there are no additional requirements beyond code-signing by the same team, but this must be false. Could it be that helper tool needs to use the same provisioning profile as the main app? Could it be that it needs its own, tied to its own bundle ID? Here are the entitlements on the helper tool sitting in the /Contents/MacOS/ directory of the app bundle, presumably the result of the build process injecting them into their own __TEXT section, similarly to how one would inject __launchd_plist: [Dict] [Key] com.apple.developer.service-management.managed-by-main-app [Value] [Bool] true [Key] com.apple.security.app-sandbox [Value] [Bool] false [Key] com.apple.security.get-task-allow [Value] [Bool] true Assuming that my privileged helper tool is not launching simply because my bundle is violating the requirements for the com.apple.developer.service-management.managed-by-main-app entitlement, what exactly are these requirements? As a side question: if one needs these LaunchDaemons to perform some actions with root privileges, what exactly would enabling the App Sandbox (com.apple.security.app-sandbox = true) on the privileged helper tool accomplish? Is there any point in confining a process with root privileges inside a container? Thank you!

I have requested an entitlement for my DriverKit based driver, but the status is still in "Submitted" phase. I have also tried contacting Apple Support by phone/mail but to no avail [Case ID: 20000143721904]. Below are the details of my request. Is there any way to know the turnaround time or to expedite the process as this entitlement is necessary for the distribution of our app? Also, what is the preferrable way to follow up in such cases? Entitlement: com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.pci - DriverKit PCI (PrimaryMatch) Team: 8S33FS7Q5Q Request Id - NZYWRD96U3 Requested At - August 13, 2026 Type - Team Status - Submitted Thank you, Abishek.

I'm posting this here after reading Quinn's post here: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/799000 The above entitlement is mentioned in IOUSBHostControllerInterface.h. It isn't an entitlement one can add using the + button on the Capabilities panel in Xcode. If I try to add it by hand, Xcode complains that it isn't in my profile. Is this a managed entitlement? We'd like to create a local USB "device" to represent a real device reachable over a network.

We ship an iPadOS app with an embedded USBDriverKit extension that drives Citizen/DNP dye-sub photo printers. It works: on a development-provisioned iPad the dext registers, matches, opens its user client and prints, verified on two units in hand (DNP DS-RX1 0x1343:0x0005, DNP QW410 0x1452:0x9201). The extension declares twelve IOKitPersonalities, each pinned to one exact idVendor/idProduct pair plus bConfigurationValue and bInterfaceNumber. Those twelve span two vendor IDs — 4931 (0x1343, Citizen Systems) and 5202 (0x1452, Dai Nippon Printing) — because the same printer families ship Citizen-badged on one and DNP-badged on the other. We have one USB Transport – VendorID request per vendor ID, both currently Submitted. Thread 842748 already answered the scope question for us, so I'm not asking that one: at twelve devices we read vendor-level as the right ask rather than twelve VendorID+ProductID requests, and we've kept the personalities narrow so the entitlement is a ceiling rather than what actually matches. Please correct me if that's the wrong reading for two vendor IDs rather than one. My actual question is about a mistake in one of the submissions. The older request also asked for UserClient Access, which we now understand is macOS-only (com.apple.developer.driverkit.userclient-access lists DRIVER_KIT and MAC_OS, not IOS). We don't need it — on iPadOS the app opens the dext's user client with com.apple.developer.driverkit.communicates-with-drivers, which needs no approval. Does an inapplicable entitlement on a submitted request need to be formally withdrawn, or is it simply ignored during review? I'd rather not leave a macOS-only entitlement sitting on an iPadOS request if that's something a reviewer has to resolve. If it does need correcting, what's the mechanism? Re-filing would create a third request, and I'd rather not muddy the queue. (Developer Support told me request handling is outside their scope, which is what brings me here.) Is there any way to indicate that two requests belong to one driver extension and are only useful together? Happy to post the Info.plist personalities or the dext's entitlements if useful. Thank you.

We completed an App Store app transfer and the Notification Service Extension Filtering Entitlement (com.apple.developer.usernotifications.filtering) did not transfer with the app. App Apple ID: 6760007376 NSE Bundle ID: io.nolink.ios.nse New Team ID: M85WA8W78C Previous Team ID: V2E3A94DC9 The app, bundle IDs, and App Store presence all moved normally, but the entitlement is not available on the new team, so we cannot sign the NSE with the configuration the app previously shipped with. Our app is an encrypted messenger and this breaks incoming call handling for live users. Two questions: Is there an official process for re-associating a previously approved entitlement with the receiving team after a transfer, or does the new team always have to submit a fresh request? Could entitlements tied to a specific App ID move with the app during a transfer, the same way bundle IDs do? We have an open support case, but wanted to raise the general question here too.

We are developing UTipping, a digital tipping application, and are seeking technical guidance before implementation. Our intended experience is: The recipient opens the app and activates “Receive Tip”. The sender selects a tip amount and “Send Tip”. Both authenticated apps are unlocked, online, and in the foreground. The two iPhones are brought into very close physical proximity. The proximity interaction exchanges or resolves only a short-lived, opaque session identifier. No funds, card credentials, cryptograms, or payment-authorization data are exchanged through NFC. The sender confirms the resolved recipient and amount. Payment is processed separately through the backend and licensed payment infrastructure. Standard Core NFC appears to provide reader functionality for supported tags/protocols, but not a general application-controlled iPhone-to-iPhone peer/tag-emulation channel. We would appreciate guidance on: whether this interaction can be implemented using Core NFC; whether NFC & SE Platform or HCE / CardSession could provide the presenter role; whether one third-party iPhone can present a temporary application-controlled identifier to another third-party iPhone; whether both apps must remain foreground; and whether Nearby Interaction with BLE / Multipeer Connectivity is the recommended alternative for very-close-proximity recipient identification. The NFC/proximity interaction would only identify the intended recipient. The financial transaction is completely separate. Apple Developer Support previously referred us to engineering under case 102948761329. We have also submitted the detailed technical architecture through Feedback Assistant: FB24517831 Any guidance from Apple framework engineers regarding the supported architecture and entitlement path would be greatly appreciated.

Hello, Apple Developer Technical Support directed me to the Developer Forums for clarification on the following Family Controls use case. DTS reference: Case-ID 21723677 I am evaluating an iOS app called “Zone” before beginning full development. I would like to determine whether the proposed architecture is considered permitted individual device management for focus and productivity, or prohibited use “in organizational settings” under Section 3.3.3(P) of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. Proposed architecture: Zone is offered to companies as a workplace focus and productivity service. The app is installed on an adult employee’s personally owned iPhone. Participation and each Focus Session are voluntary. The employee independently requests Family Controls authorization using individual authorization. Only the employee can select the apps and websites to restrict. Only the employee can start or stop a Focus Session. During the session, Zone applies restrictions locally on that employee’s iPhone using Family Controls and Managed Settings. The employer cannot authorize or revoke Family Controls access. The employer cannot select restricted apps or websites. The employer cannot remotely start, stop, or schedule a Focus Session. The employer cannot remotely manage or control the employee’s device. Zone would not provide the employer with: Screen Time or Device Activity data App or website tokens App usage history Website browsing history Information about attempts to open restricted apps Location, messages, photos, or other personal device information However, Zone would include a company web dashboard. The dashboard would show only an app-generated boolean status for each participating employee: Zone ON: the employee has voluntarily started a Focus Session Zone OFF: the employee has not started a Focus Session This status is generated by the Zone app itself. It is not derived from Screen Time usage data and does not indicate whether the employee actually attempted to use any restricted app or website. My questions are: Would this architecture be considered permitted individual device management for focus and productivity, even though the service is offered through an employer and the employer can see the Zone ON/OFF status? Or would the employer relationship and company dashboard make this prohibited use of Family Controls “in organizational settings”? If sharing the app-generated ON/OFF status with the employer is incompatible with the Family Controls terms, would the use be permitted if Family Controls operated entirely on-device and no Focus Session status or device information were sent to the employer? Is there another Apple-supported framework or architecture recommended for this use case? I understand that final entitlement approval and App Review decisions may depend on the submitted application. I am seeking architectural guidance before investing in implementation. Thank you.

Hello, I am building an multiplatform app for iOS and macOS that uses CloudKit. I want give prerelease versions of my app to testers in my team. I want those builds to use the CloudKit development environment, as some of the schema is still experimental and subject to breaking changes. However, when I distribute my app via TestFlight, the iCloud container environment is automatically set to production, even though in my entitlements file I've set the iCloud container environment to development. I also tried the 'Release Testing' distribution method, but also with this option the container environment is overridden and set to production. Does anyone know how I can distribute a release build for internal testing that uses the CloudKit development environment?

How can a local AI agent use MLX/Metal unattended while remaining confined to an authorized workspace? I am developing an AI-driven local media-processing workflow on an Apple-silicon Mac and am trying to understand the correct architecture for allowing it to run unattended without giving the AI agent unrestricted access to my primary personal computer. I am not a software engineer, so I may be missing an established macOS mechanism or using the wrong terminology. I would appreciate guidance from people familiar with MLX, Metal, sandboxing, and macOS security. What I am building I use OpenAI Codex as the local execution/software-development agent. The working system currently: ingests and verifies original video and still media while preserving immutable originals; performs visual semantic analysis and divides video into meaningful time-coded segments; separately analyzes spoken language rather than assuming audio and video are semantically equivalent; uses MLX Whisper locally on Apple silicon for time-coded speech transcription; stores visual and language semantics in a relational SQLite media catalog. These five stages are working. My current test corpus contains 148 original media files, 126 visual semantic segments, and 765 speech segments. The next stages are AI editorial construction from the semantic database and generation of instructions/scripts for a DaVinci Resolve rough cut. The security architecture I want Codex to operate autonomously within a deliberately bounded development environment. I do not want to solve this simply by granting an autonomous agent Full Disk Access to my primary personal Mac. The concern is ordinary fault containment. Codex generates and executes scripts, invokes applications and command-line tools, and manipulates files. A mistaken path or defective generated script should not have unrestricted consequences for the rest of my computer. I therefore separated AI execution from ordinary personal files. Codex is configured for Workspace Write access with explicitly authorized project roots. Canonical media resides on a separately authorized external SSD, and temporary AI working artifacts are kept separately. Ordinary Python and FFmpeg operations now run autonomously within these authorized areas. The problem The difficulty appears when the workflow invokes capabilities that cannot operate inside the ordinary Codex sandbox. The clearest example is MLX Whisper. I am using: MLX Whisper 0.4.3 mlx-community/whisper-small-mlx Apple silicon local transcription MLX Whisper works successfully and its transcription quality is sufficient for my semantic-retrieval application. However, MLX could not access Apple Metal/GPU execution from inside the ordinary Codex sandbox. Codex therefore requested permission to execute the transcription operation outside the sandbox. Once approved, MLX/Metal worked and the entire corpus was successfully transcribed. The processing therefore works, but the workflow cannot run genuinely unattended. A future operation should be able to run: new media → integrity verification → visual semantic analysis → MLX Whisper transcription → language semantic analysis → SQLite update → QA But if execution stops midway waiting for a human to click Allow, the pipeline is not operationally autonomous. What I have already tried I initially encountered permission problems even with ordinary file operations. I therefore: separated Codex work from ordinary personal documents; created dedicated project/work areas; explicitly authorized the required working roots; configured Workspace Write; separately authorized the external media repository; tested shell/Python and FFmpeg operations within those boundaries. Those changes worked. Routine Python and FFmpeg operations now run without approval prompts. The remaining issue occurs with MLX/Metal and some other application/runtime operations that require sandbox escalation. My question Is there a supported architecture for allowing a local AI agent to invoke MLX/Metal and other deliberately authorized development tools unattended, while still confining the agent to defined project/workspace boundaries rather than granting unrestricted access to the entire Mac? For example, should I be investigating: App Sandbox entitlements; a signed helper tool or XPC service; security-scoped resources; a dedicated executable with appropriate entitlements; a different method of launching MLX/Metal; or another macOS mechanism? In particular, can Metal/GPU access coexist with persistent bounded filesystem access without requiring interactive approval each time the AI invokes it? I am also unsure which security layer is actually responsible here: the Codex sandbox, macOS App Sandbox, TCC, executable/code-signing rules, Metal restrictions, or some interaction among them. If this kind of bounded unattended execution is intentionally not supported, that would also be useful to know. My alternative would be a dedicated Apple-silicon Mac containing only the AI-development environment and replaceable project data, where broader permissions would have a much smaller failure domain. I can provide the Codex configuration, exact successful and failing commands, directory/root configuration, macOS/hardware information, and sandbox diagnostics. I would particularly appreciate guidance on which security layer is causing the MLX/Metal escalation and what the supported architecture would be for this use case. Thank you.

I'm building a native macOS app (deployment target macOS 14.0) that uses HealthKit. The App ID (com.ryanegli.Vantage, team RWGMA3VG99) has HealthKit enabled and saved under Capabilities. However, no provisioning profile generated for this App ID — automatic (Xcode-managed) or manually created/regenerated via the Developer Portal — ever includes the com.apple.developer.healthkit entitlement. The profile's "Review Provisioning Profile" page on the portal consistently lists only "In-App Purchase" under Enabled Capabilities, never HealthKit, even immediately after editing and regenerating the profile. Environment: Xcode 26.6, macOS 26.5 SDK Deployment target: macOS 14.0 Account role: Account Holder (sole owner of team) Steps to reproduce: Create a macOS app target with com.apple.developer.healthkit and com.apple.developer.healthkit.access in its entitlements file, App Sandbox enabled. Enable HealthKit on the App ID via developer.apple.com → Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles → Identifiers → [App ID] → Capabilities → HealthKit → Save (confirmed saved: Save button greys out afterward). Build with Xcode automatic signing, or manually create/download a "macOS App Development" provisioning profile for this App ID via the portal. Inspect the resulting profile (security cms -D -i profile.provisionprofile, or the portal's "Review Provisioning Profile" page). Expected: Profile includes com.apple.developer.healthkit. Actual: Entitlement is absent from every profile generated, across multiple regeneration attempts over several hours. Additional notes: Xcode's "+ Capability" picker in Signing & Capabilities does not list HealthKit at all for macOS targets (only appears for iOS/watchOS/etc.), suggesting Xcode's own capability catalog may not yet be updated for HealthKit-on-macOS. The App ID's "App Services" and "Capability Requests" tabs show no separate HealthKit-related entry that might explain a gating requirement (only clinical-records-specific sub-capabilities like "HealthKit Access (Verifiable Health Records)" appear there, which we don't need). Any suggestions, help, or input would be welcome. Thanks!

I’m trying to request an NFC PassKit Certificate through https://developer.apple.com/contact/passkit/. After clicking Send, the completed form is POSTed successfully and receives 200 OK, but the server returns the original form instead of a confirmation page. The page’s passkit.js then clears all fields, and Developer Support confirmed that my earlier submission was never received. Has anyone else encountered this behavior or found another way to submit the NFC PassKit Certificate request?

Game Center matchmaking fails for all non-default users on Apple TV — no IDS registration for secondary users (FB24156316) On a multi-user Apple TV (tvOS 26.5, Apple TV 4K 3rd gen), Game Center real-time matchmaking fails for every user except the default user, in every app I've tested — including Apple Arcade titles. Filed as FB24156316 with full logs and sysdiagnose; posting here for visibility and in case anyone has shipped multi-user GC multiplayer on tvOS successfully. My game adopts com.apple.developer.user-management (runs-as-current-user-with-user-independent-keychain). The entitlement itself works: on a secondary user's profile the app runs under that user's persona and GKLocalPlayer authenticates as them — the welcome banner shows the right account. But any GKMatchmakerViewController quickmatch hard-fails within ~9 seconds ("Failed to find players"), and accepting an invite fails with GKError 35 ("not signed in to iCloud") even though Settings shows that user's iCloud as signed in. Unified logs show the root cause. When matchmaking starts, gamed can't provision the player's pseudonym because the current user has no identity-services registration: gamed No URI found on any account -- returning nil gamed Failed to fetch pseudonym for local player. Error: GameDaemonCore.PseudonymManagerError.failedToProvision( internalError: Error Domain=com.apple.ids.IDSPseudonymErrorDomain Code=400 "Invalid URI") For the default user, the identical flow succeeds (identityservicesd … resultCode: 0). Across a full day of log capture — profile adds, a remove/re-add, multiple user switches — identityservicesd never once references the secondary users' accounts: registration for them is never attempted, not attempted-and-failed. Meanwhile gamed advertises the nearby-matchmaking Bonjour service with the default user's identity while the foreground app runs as the secondary user. Reproduction matrix: two apps (my shipping game Extreme Violence and Apple Arcade's Crossy Road Castle, which also runs under the correct persona), both sandbox and production Game Center, two unrelated secondary accounts (both healthy elsewhere). Persists across reboot and profile remove/re-add. Default user unaffected. The documentation says the entitlement is all that's needed ("each person who uses your app will have access to… their own Game Center… you don't have to make any code changes" — WWDC20 session 10645). As far as I can tell that promise is currently unfulfillable for online play: there is no API or Settings path that creates the missing IDS registration. Has anyone seen non-default-user matchmaking work on tvOS, on any version? Is there anything an app can do here, or is this purely an OS-side fix? (Related: thread 782163 — a different tvOS matchmaking failure that DTS confirmed as a bug.)

I submitted an Endpoint Security entitlement request today (request ID NWFPYC286F, Team type). The request shows up in my Request History with status "Submitted," but I never received an ACK email or follow-up number. I've checked spam/junk folders and the email associated with our team account. Nothing from Apple. Two questions: Is the request actually in the review queue if I have a request ID in the portal but no email confirmation? Is there any way to check status or get a timeline estimate? This entitlement is critical for our product development. We're building agent identity infrastructure that needs ES for process-level attestation on macOS. Appreciate any help, especially from anyone who's been through this recently.

Hi, I was trying to run a macOS VM under a launchd daemon as part of a requirement. The parent daemon spawns a macOS VM under root user. Sometimes this is fine, but sometimes I'm getting a security error from VZ library : Unable to access security information. The virtual machine encountered a security error. In system logs, I was able to see this : ctkd: unable to generate key: error e00002e2 for com.apple.Virtualization.VirtualMachine with SepKey ACL I think this indicates Virtualization.framework asked CryptoTokenKit/Secure Enclave to create a key, and the security subsystem rejected it in the current execution context. Is it possible to run VM this way ? If yes, what am I missing ?

Hi Apple DTS and community, My developer account's app has been granted the Default Mail App managed capability (com.apple.developer.mail-client). The capability works for Development and App Store Connect distribution, but it is not enabled for Ad Hoc distribution. This prevents us from using our Xcode Cloud “Archive & TestFlight” workflow: The archive succeeds. Development and App Store Connect exports succeed. Xcode Cloud then automatically attempts an Ad Hoc export. The Ad Hoc export fails, causing the entire archive action to fail and the TestFlight post-action to be skipped. The export log reports: Entitlement com.apple.developer.mail-client not found and could not be included in profile. This likely is not a valid entitlement and should be removed from your entitlements file. We have reproduced this in two consecutive Xcode Cloud runs. We also confirmed that: The App ID has the Default Mail App capability enabled. The entitlement is present and correctly spelled in the app’s entitlements file. The App ID’s provisioning support lists Development and App Store Connect, but not Ad Hoc. Our Xcode Cloud workflow does not expose an option to disable the automatically attempted Ad Hoc export. This appears to match these previous reports: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/774506 — a DTS engineer enabled Ad Hoc support for the entitlement, after which the developer confirmed the issue was resolved. https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/800072 — DTS confirmed that the Ad Hoc distribution option must be enabled for the Default Mail App managed capability. We also opened an Apple Developer Support case (102945477410). Developer Support directed us to the forums and indicated that this issue would need to be handled by DTS engineers. I can provide our Team ID, Developer Support case number, Xcode Cloud run identifiers, and any other account details privately if needed. Thank you!