General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums subtopic: Code Signing > Notarization Forums tag: Notarization WWDC 2018 Session 702 Your Apps and the Future of macOS Security WWDC 2019 Session 703 All About Notarization WWDC 2021 Session 10261 Faster and simpler notarization for Mac apps WWDC 2022 Session 10109 What’s new in notarization for Mac apps — Amongst other things, this introduced the Notary REST API Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution documentation Customizing the Notarization Workflow documentation Resolving Common Notarization Issues documentation Notary REST API documentation TN3147 Migrating to the latest notarization tool technote Fetching the Notary Log forums post Q&A with the Mac notary service team Developer > News post Apple notary service update Developer > News post Notarisation and the macOS 10.9 SDK forums post Testing a Notarised Product forums post Notarisation Fundamentals forums post The Pros and Cons of Stapling forums post Resolving Error 65 When Stapling forums post Many notarisation issues are actually code signing or trusted execution issue. For more on those topics, see Code Signing Resources and Trusted Execution Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

We've been creating iOS apps for a few years now, but when I tried last month, I got an error in my XCode that says: No profiles for 'com.os.hub.mth2' were found Xcode couldn't find any iOS App Development provisioning profiles matching '***.***.***.***'. I'm not sure if it's the cause or not, but when I look at the signing certificates, the Developer ID Application Certificate says: Missing Private Key The weird part of that is that I see a private key with this name in my Keychain access, so I'm not sure what's wrong. There has been a significant time gap between now and the last time we created a mobile app, so I'm not sure if something changed in XCode/MacOS to cause this issue, or if something expired. I'd appreciate any advice.

I have a Qt desktop app that I was shipping to users as a dmg on macOS. But now I'll need to kind of rebrand the app to different users, that rebranding involves changing the name and the icon of the app I'm not sure how feasible that is on macOS but here's what I'm thinking: First I'll include all apps for all brands inside the app resources, and instead of shipping the app directly, I will ship and installer (either .pkg or a custom made installer app) that will be responsible for downloading the main app and also setting some environmental variables somewhere so that I can choose the icon from the resources based on the env var values. And then either change the app icon and name from the installer itself, or implement something inside the app that makes it change the icon and name on launch (both icon in finder and in dock) but maybe one of those methods (or both) will break the codesign/notarization of the app so I want to avoid that too I'm not sure if someone has done this before or how feasible such scenario is. Is what I'm thinking valid? or is there a whole other way possibly easier than this to go about implementing such feature? The purpose of this is that I don't want to have to create multiple releases for multiple brands when they're all the same application with different icons/names, and also when releasing an update it will be just one update for all brands Thank you in advance and feel free to ask any further questions for clarification

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

Submissions stuck for ovwe 2 hours: 812e835c-6215-44ef-b052-030f8a4ef1cd 1bae8357-7b2e-450d-bde8-87e48a02c1a1 680d3c51-3316-43b3-a50d-ec0b444f183a Is there a service issue? Normal processing time exceeded.

Whilst waiting for the company developer account I successfully notarised an app/pkg On switching to the company account the app/pkg has been stuck in progress for over 2 days (see below) The initial submission was via Xcode and later via command line. The last one was when I updated bundle ids etc and built with Github Actions. The initial submission did coincide with a service outage, however that is marked as resolved. I would like to cancel all of them now that I have switched the signing account and the bundle ID but there seems no way to do this? Thoughts and comments welcome. Thanks Paul -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-08-14T11:03:24.837Z id: edf215d0-4d15-4075-aa6f-4755a35b3d45 name: ZenityEndpointAgent.pkg status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-08-12T21:36:36.345Z id: 9c98de09-d3aa-449b-ad47-7e721b0342c5 name: AIEdgeDeviceAgent.pkg status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-08-12T16:58:50.891Z id: 9206f9be-0fc4-4c6c-aa66-8fcbe3332155 name: AIEdgeDeviceAgent.pkg status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-08-12T10:37:35.624Z id: b20d1dd0-084e-441c-87a6-641fb088819e name: AIEdge Device Agent.zip status: In Progress

I am building an electron app bundled with python. My code signing was fast, but when it came to notarization, it has already taken over 6+ hours. How can I speed things up?

Hello, I'm currently trying to upload a new version of an existing application. But each time I try to validate the archive of the application, I got the following error in Xcode (v16.2) : Invalid code signing entitlements. Your application bundle’s signature contains code signing entitlements that aren’t supported on macOS. Specifically, the “37CG5MY799.com.example.app” value for the com.apple.application-identifier key in “com.example.app.pkg/Payload/app.app/Contents/MacOS/app” isn’t supported. This value should be a string that starts with your Team ID, followed by a dot (“.”), followed by the bundle ID. I suspect that there is a problem with the App ID Prefix (that is 37CG5MY799 for the app) when our team ID is E4R7RJ7LA3 but I cannot find a solution. I asked the Apple Developer Support for help and I have read the documentation they sent but it couldn't solve this problem so they redirected me to the forums. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/qa/qa1879/_index.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/technotes/tn2318/_index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40013777-CH1-OVERVIEW https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/technotes/tn2318/_index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40013777-CH1-TNTAG33 There isn't any obvious App ID Prefix mismatch in the entitlement between the Application's signature entitlement and the Embedded provisioning profile entitlement . Application's signature entitlement : <dict> <key>com.apple.application-identifier</key> <string>37CG5MY799.com.example.app</string> <key>com.apple.developer.team-identifier</key> <string>E4R7RJ7LA3</string> <key>com.apple.security.app-sandbox</key> <true/> <key>com.apple.security.application-groups</key> <array> <string>group.com.example.app</string> </array> <key>com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-only</key> <true/> </dict> Embedded provisioning profile entitlement : <dict> <key>com.apple.security.application-groups</key> <array> <string>group.com.example.app</string> <string>E4R7RJ7LA3.*</string> </array> <key>com.apple.application-identifier</key> <string>37CG5MY799.com.example.app</string> <key>keychain-access-groups</key> <array> <string>37CG5MY799.*</string> </array> <key>com.apple.developer.team-identifier</key> <string>E4R7RJ7LA3</string> </dict> The app also have a browser extension that correctly use the Team ID. How to solve this problem ? Thanks for your time, Qeg

We distribute our macOS products as a PKG downloaded from our website. To simplify configuration for our customers, we create a PKG for each customer that contains identifying data for that customer. We are currently doing this by notarizing the PKG for each customer and uploading the result. Since we sometimes exceed the notarization limit of 75/day, we began investigating other ways of including the identifying data. One avenue seemed to be the extended attribute com.apple.application-instance, but after experimentation it appears that this attribute does not persist through downloads. There are very few resources describing this attribute (TN2206) but a close reading seems to confirm that the attribute has to be set on the user’s machine. Can you confirm that this is the case? Is there any other way for customizing an installer PKG that won’t run afoul of notarization limits?

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.

Hello Apple Support, While attempting to staple a notarization ticket for our signed installer package, the stapler command fails with Error 65. Upon investigation, we found that connections to oscdn.apple.com present an SSL certificate issued to a248.e.akamai.net, which does not include oscdn.apple.com in its Subject Alternative Name (SAN). This mismatch prevents our macOS environment from validating tickets and completing the stapling process. Steps tried: Verified notarization status (Accepted). DNS flushed, tried different DNS (8.8.8.8, 1.1.1.1). curl to oscdn.apple.com consistently fails with SSL error 60. Please advise on resolving this certificate mismatch. also when I try to run the stapler command with my pkg "xcrun stapler staple/Users/mactest/Desktop/IPMPlus_Macos_Installer.signed.pkg" getting the output like :- Processing: /Users/mactest/Desktop/IPMPlus_Macos_Installer.signed.pkg Could not validate ticket for /Users/mac-test/Desktop/IPMPlus_Macos_Installer.signed.pkg The staple and validate action failed! Error 65. please help Thank you.

Its just stuck in progress. $ xcrun notarytool history --keychain-profile X Successfully received submission history. history -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-07-21T16:46:13.233Z id: X name: X.dmg status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-07-20T18:44:35.683Z id: X name: X.dmg status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-07-20T11:24:20.319Z id: X name: X.dmg status: In Progress Its a go app; not simple but not very complicated. It is my first time notarising but even then should it take this long?? 3 days is ridiculous!

I’m facing an issue with my macOS app after code signing and notarization. The app is signed with my Developer ID and notarized using xcrun notarytool. Everything works fine on the machine where the signing was done — Gatekeeper accepts it, no warning appears, and codesign/spctl checks pass. However, when running the same .app on other Macs, users receive a Gatekeeper warning saying the app is "malicious software and cannot be opened". The signature is valid and the notarization log shows status: Accepted. What I've tried: Verified signature with codesign --verify --deep --strict --verbose=2 Checked notarization status via xcrun notarytool log Assessed Gatekeeper trust with spctl --assess --type execute Everything passes successfully on the development machine. Why would the app be treated as malicious on other systems even after notarization? I'm happy to share logs and technical details if needed.

Hi guys, New to publishing apps on Apple Store. I encounter some notarization error before and resolved it in this post. By solving the previous issue, I updated the Trust setting from "Always Trust" to "Use System Defaults" for Apple certificates. The codesign and notarization no longer give me any problem. But now, I encountered another issue. When I ran the .app on my local Macbook, it now gives me "zsh: trace trap" error. Dive a little further and check the crash report, I found the some details as following. Process: my_app [30652] Path: /Users/USER/my_app_path Identifier: my_app Version: 0.0.0 (???) Code Type: ARM-64 (Native) Parent Process: launchd [1] User ID: 501 Date/Time: 2025-07-15 14:57:58.9874 -0400 OS Version: macOS 15.5 (24F74) Report Version: 12 Anonymous UUID: 2335F0B6-A26E-6446-6074-0FCE620C4B6A Time Awake Since Boot: 6000 seconds System Integrity Protection: enabled Crashed Thread: 0 Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread Exception Type: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (SIGKILL (Code Signature Invalid)) Exception Codes: UNKNOWN_0x32 at 0x00000001064b4000 Exception Codes: 0x0000000000000032, 0x00000001064b4000 Termination Reason: Namespace CODESIGNING, Code 2 Invalid Page VM Region Info: 0x1064b4000 is in 0x1064b4000-0x1064b8000; bytes after start: 0 bytes before end: 16383 REGION TYPE START - END [ VSIZE] PRT/MAX SHRMOD REGION DETAIL mapped file 1064ac000-1064b4000 [ 32K] r-x/rwx SM=COW Object_id=d2a02fbf ---> VM_ALLOCATE 1064b4000-1064b8000 [ 16K] r-x/rwx SM=PRV __TEXT 1064b8000-1068a4000 [ 4016K] r-x/rwx SM=COW my_app.app/Contents/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.12/Python I can tell it's about codesign and signature invalid. I have tried to rebuild, re-codesign and re-notarize. But the error still persists. Could someone help me? Thanks!

We're interested in adopting App Sandbox in an app distributed outside of the Mac App Store. However, we're hitting a bit of a roadblock and it doesn't seem like either of the techniques described in that post can be used in a reasonable way. For background, this is a third-party launcher for a cross-platform Java game that, among other things, makes it easier for users to mod the game. Users generally download mods as .jar files and place them in a certain directory. In some cases, these mods contain native dynamic libraries (e.g. a .dylib) as part of their code. In general, the .dylib is extracted from the contents of the .jar to some temporary location, loaded, and then deleted once the game closes (the exact details, like the actual temporary location, depends on the mod). App Sandbox greatly interests us in this case because it can limit the damage that a compromised mod could do, and in my testing the functionality of most mods still works with it enabled. However, sandboxed apps quarantine every file they write to by default. Unfortunately, most mods are created by individual developers who don't notarize their libraries (their mods are generally cross-platform, and they're likely just using third-party code that they bundle with the mod but don't sign or notarize). [1] This means that a mod that loads a dynamic library as described above triggers Gatekeeper as described in the documentation if the app is sandboxed, but does not if the sandbox is disabled. Even worse, a user often can't bypass the warning even if they trust the mod because the extracted library is usually a temporary file, and generally is deleted after the failure (which usually causes the game to crash and thus close). By the time they try to approve the code in System Settings, the file is gone (and even if they could approve it, this approval wouldn't stick next time they launch the game). In theory it would work to use an unsandboxed XPC service to remove the quarantine and let the libraries through. However, this is easier said than done. We don't control the mods' code or how they go about loading whatever code they need, which limits what we can do. [1] And in some cases, people like to play old versions of the game with old mods, and the versions they're using might've been released before notarization was even a thing. The closest thing I can think of to a solution is injecting code into the Java process that runs code to call out to the XPC service to remove the quarantine before a library loads (e.g. before any calls to dlopen using dyld interposition). A prototype I have... works... but this seems really flimsy, I've read that interposition isn't meant to be used in non-dev tools, and if there's a better solution I'd certainly prefer that over this. Other things we've tried have significant downsides: com.apple.security.files.user-selected.executable requires user selection in a file picker, and seems to be more blunt than just allowing libraries/plugins which might lead to a sandbox escape [2] Adding the app to the "Developer Tools" section in System Settings > Privacy & Security allows the libraries to load automatically, but requires users to add the app manually and also sounds like it would make a sandbox escape very easy [2] Oh, and I also submitted an enhancement request for an entitlement/similar that would allow these libraries to load (FB13795828) but it was returned as "no plans to address" (which honestly wasn't that surprising). [2] My understanding is that if a sandboxed process loads libraries, the library code would still be confined by the sandbox because it's still running in the sandboxed process. But if a sandboxed process can write and open a non-quarantined app, that app would not be within the confines of the sandbox. So basically we want to somehow allow the libraries to load but not allow standalone executables to run outside the sandbox. In general the game and almost all popular mods I've tested work with App Sandbox enabled, except for this Gatekeeper snag. It would be a shame to completely abandon App Sandbox for this reason if everything else can be made to work. This situation seems not super common, but documentation does say When your sandboxed app launches for the first time, macOS creates a sandbox container on the file system (in ~/Library/Containers) and associates it with your app. Your app has full read and write access to its sandbox container, and can run programs located there as well. which leaves me wondering whether the Gatekeeper prompt is even intended behavior since the libraries are in the sandbox container and written by the app. (By the way, my testing of the claim that apps can run programs in their sandbox container didn't seem to confirm what the documentation said, even without quarantine - FB15963761). Though, given the other documentation page I linked above which more directly references Gatekeeper and quarantined plug-ins, I doubt this is a bug. I suppose the final question is, is this just a situation where App Sandbox won't work (at least in any supported way)? Or is there perhaps some technique we're missing?

SMAppService Error 108 "Unable to read plist" on macOS 15 Sequoia - Comprehensive Test Case Summary We have a fully notarized SMAppService implementation that consistently fails with Error 108 "Unable to read plist" on macOS 15 Sequoia, despite meeting all documented requirements. After systematic testing including AI-assisted analysis, we've eliminated all common causes and created a comprehensive test case. Error: SMAppServiceErrorDomain Code=108 "Unable to read plist: com.keypath.helperpoc.helper" 📋 Complete Repository: https://github.com/malpern/privileged_helper_help What We've Systematically Verified ✅ Perfect bundle structure: Helper at Contents/MacOS/, plist at Contents/Library/LaunchDaemons/ Correct SMAuthorizedClients: Embedded in helper binary via CREATE_INFOPLIST_SECTION_IN_BINARY=YES Aligned identifiers: Main app, helper, and plist all use consistent naming Production signing: Developer ID certificates with full Apple notarization and stapling BundleProgram paths: Tested both Contents/MacOS/helperpoc-helper and simplified helperpoc-helper Entitlements: Tested with and without com.apple.developer.service-management.managed-by-main-app What Makes This Different Systematic methodology: Not a "help me debug" post - we've done comprehensive testing Expert validation: AI analysis helped eliminate logical hypotheses Reproduction case: Minimal project that demonstrates the issue consistently Complete documentation: All testing steps, configurations, and results documented Use Case Context We're building a keyboard remapper that integrates with https://github.com/jtroo/kanata and needs privileged daemon registration for system-wide keyboard event interception. Key Questions Does anyone have a working SMAppService implementation on macOS 15 Sequoia? Are there undocumented macOS 15 requirements we're missing? Is Error 108 a known issue with specific workarounds? Our hypothesis: This appears to be a macOS 15 system-level issue rather than configuration error, since our implementation meets all documented Apple requirements but fails consistently. Has anyone encountered similar SMAppService issues on macOS 15, or can confirm a working implementation?

Hi guys, I am new to publishing apps on Apple Store. I used python, pyside6, torch, pyinstaller to build an app for Apple Store. For codesigning, I used the correct "Developer ID Application" to sign the code. When I validate the .app file (codesign -vv --strict ), I got the following my_app.app: valid on disk my_app.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement Next, I used ditto to "ditto -c -k --sequesterRsrc --keepParent my_app.app my_app.zip" to zip it. Then, I submitted this my_app.zip file for notarization with "xcrun notarytool submit ..." and got the following "accepted" message. Received new status: Accepted Current status: Accepted............... [20:08:54.530Z] Info [API] Submission in terminal status: Accepted Processing complete After that, I want to staple it with "xcrun stapler staple my_app.app", but I got the following Could not validate ticket for my_app.app The staple and validate action failed! Error 65. To further investigate it, I ran "spctl -a -vvv my_app.app" and got my_app.app: rejected source=Unnotarized Developer ID origin=Developer ID Application... I don't know why this would happen after notarization accepted. Could someone help me understand this issue? Thanks!

I submitted a mac app for Notarization. For the first few tries the Notarization failed with an error "Team is not yet configured for Notarization" but few days after my account started to show "ENROLL" option again even though my membership was set to expire on 2026. I am doubting my account has been suspended. I have not received any emails from apple regarding the suspension. I have contacted support but no help yet ! This was the second year, i was paying for the membership. Could you please help me to - Help me get the account unsuspended (if it is, as there is no notification or information regarding this) If the account is suspended due to my app being submitted for Notarization then help me identify the reason so that i can fix them. Mac App is Time Tracking application that runs in background and capture periodic screenshot backlsh.com (NOTE - I am doing this after taking user consent)

I submitted a mac app for Notarization. For the first few tries the Notarization failed with an error "Team is not yet configured for Notarization" but few days after my account started to show "ENROLL" option again even though my membership was set to expire on 2026. I am doubting my account has been suspended. I have not received any emails from apple regarding the suspension. I have contacted support but no help yet ! This was the second year, i was paying for the membership. Could you please help me to - Help me get the account unsuspended (if it is, as there is no notification or information regarding this) If the account is suspended due to my app being submitted for Notarization then help me identify the reason so that i can fix them. Mac App is Time Tracking application that runs in background and capture periodic screenshot(NOTE - I am doing this after taking user consent)

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