We have a rather complex network of dependencies for our application stack and, from it, we create multiple unique executables that are placed into the Contents/MacOS directory of our bundle. MyApp.app `- Contents/ `- Frameworks/... `- MacOS/ `- exec_a `- exec_b `- Resources/... Both executables require the same dependencies (and use the same shared .dylib files built as targets in the same project) so it makes sense for them to be in the same place rather than in their own .app folder as I understand it. Qt Libs -> core_lib.dylib -> gui_lib.dylib -> exec_a `-> exec_b etc. We've confirmed build artifacts are correct and the rpath/dependencies are all clean. When in development, all executables run as expected and we can command exec_a (the executable we're listing in the primary Info.plist) to launch exec_b at any time. Once the bundle is signed, however, we cannot get exec_b to launch in any capacity. Even lldb dies right away because it can't attach to anything. We assume this is something in the gatekeeper area of blocking these additional executables. We get the following when trying to run those additional exes in any way: Trace/BPT trap: 5 We're using macdeployqt to finalize the bundle and bring in the correct packages - perhaps something it's doing is causing the additional executables to fail or we're missing an entitlement. We've submitted the app to TestFlights successfully even with these invalid executables to see if there was something the processing of the app would find but so far nothing. We've seen other example of applications with multiple executables in the same MacOS directory and are wondering what the difference is. Any hints or guidance would be great. Thank you!

Hi support, Currently we are in a process of migrating our Qt application for MAC OS - ventura -v13.4. There is a specific feature in our application in which client tries to communicate with server (Socket communication) using Qt's QsslSocket Apis . To achieve this we are using self signed Ca certificate (.pem ) generated by using openSSl commands which uses IP address of the server. We are manually installing the certificate inside MAC OS - keychain and trusting it manually as well after installing . This is working fine in XCode environment in debug mode in MAC OS and client -server handshake is happening successfully. How ever after creating .dmg file (installer) the same handshake is not happening and we are getting error -Connection time out. Upon investigating this online, we got to know there has to be codesigning (both app bundle and the dmg file )along with notarization of the .dmg file in order to access keychain of MAC OS at runtime to access the self signed certificate installed. Now we have 2 queries here. Is code signing mandatory if we want to verify our app through keychain with .dmg file ? If yes, whats the best way to achieve this ? We have tried 2 options without any luck. option1 - Trying to build our specific target among 'ALL_BUILD' with signing key settings inside xcode where we are providing developer provisional certificate with apple team ID . After that we are trying to archive to generate dmg file which is code signed. We are failing here as the signed dmg is not getting installed due to other app related dependencies are missing . option 2- Code signing the dmg and the app bundle manually outside the environment of xcode with developer certificate and team ID. We are failing here as notarization needs to be done it seems to access keychain for certificate verification If Code signing is not mandatory then whats the best possible way to achieve this considering manually installation of certificate inside keychain with adding trust option is not working at the moment. Please specify the best solution if possible.

There is something wrong with my keychain. Can someone point me in the right direction? codesign --force --sign "Developer ID Application: Denis Putnam (2368694WQF)" --options runtime "/Users/denisputnam/git/expense_tracker/dist/ExpenseTracker.app" /Users/denisputnam/git/expense_tracker/dist/ExpenseTracker.app: replacing existing signature Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "Developer ID Application: Denis Putnam (2368694WQF)" /Users/denisputnam/git/expense_tracker/dist/ExpenseTracker.app: errSecInternalComponent Deniss-MacBook-Pro:expense_tracker denisputnam$ security find-certificate -c "Developer ID Certification Authority" -p /Library/Keychains/System.keychain | openssl x509 -noout -dates notBefore=Sep 22 18:55:10 2021 GMT notAfter=Sep 17 00:00:00 2031 GMT Deniss-MacBook-Pro:expense_tracker denisputnam$

Hello. I have an enterprise application that requires specific privileges to execute correctly on MacOS. One of these privileges is SystemPolicyAllFiles (aka Full Disk Access), as we use the endpoint security framework. When we distribute our application, we generate: A signed, notarized pkg consisting of our application binaries. An MDM-compatible .mobileconfig, which contains the SystemPolicyAllFiles setting. We expect our users to install both to get the application to function correctly. However, we have three environments we deploy to: Internal (local development on a developer's workstation), "development" (where features are integrated prior to release) and "production" (what our customers get). For local, our developers create an Apple account and use a Mac Development certificate for signing. They also generate their own embedded.provisionprofile and drop that into their local installation config. For development/production, we use our Developer ID certificate and Developer Installer certificate, with an endpoint security embedded.provisionprofile bound to those. However, when we generate a .mobileconfig, we need to include a CodeRequirement (CR) for SystemPolicyAllFiles. I've been retrieving this using codesign -dr - ... (i.e., the designated requirement aka DR). However, the designated requirement is very specific to the certificate, which is problematic specifically for local development, where each developer has their own Mac Development certificate. Here's what the relevant section of our generated mobileconfig looks like right now: <dict> <key>SystemPolicyAllFiles</key> <array> <dict> <key>Allowed</key> <true/> <key>CodeRequirement</key> <string>identifier "com.example.app and anchor apple generic and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = <TEAMID></string> <key>Comment</key> <string>app</string> <key>Identifier</key> <string>com.exmple.app</string> <key>IdentifierType</key> <string>bundleID</string> <key>StaticCode</key> <false/> </dict> </array> </dict> That's in a format that works for our Developer ID cert, but the DR for the Mac Development certificate looks like: identifier "com.example.app" and anchor apple generic and certificate leaf[subject.CN] = "Mac Developer: John Doe (12ABC34567)" and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.1] /* exists */ Question: Is it possible to relax the code requirement so that it is generic enough to cover all Mac Developer certificates and Developer ID certificates we use? If not, is there a way to have one code requirement for our Mac Developer certificates and a separate CR for our Developer ID certificate? My use case is deploying a static "local" .mobileconfig using our internal company MDM (Apple Business Essentials) to all developer workstations so we don't have to have each developer manually configure their system for the software to run. Thanks! D

Xcode is prompting I enter a codesign login password when I am archiving my project. My password seems incorrect since there is no action after I enter my password and tap allow. what could be the problem?

I’ve been having problems with MacOS builds. I’m making a release Appstore build and uploading it to Testflight. However when running it instantly crashes, and report screen shows the following: Current flow: I sign all files in PlugIns/ (we have a number of .bundle), and I’ve tried combinations of signing with/without --entitlements, as well as with/without --deep. After this I sign Frameworks/GameAssembly.dylib and Frameworks/UnityPlayer.dylib. Again, I’ve tried combinations of with/without --entitlements and --deep, also not signing them at all. After signing PlugIns and frameworks, I sign the .app, also tried this with/without --deep (always with --entitlements). Finally I make a .pkg and upload to Testflight. It’s not the game, as I can make an enterprise version that runs fine. We have some restricted entitlements, such as Apple Arcade. Building from an M1 mac, and architecture is Universal (Intel + ARM). Unity documentation says to use --deep, but Apple documentation highly recommend against it. So basically, my question is, how and in what order should I sign the files? Much obliged!

Hello, our app is non-sandboxed app, but we do want to support widget extension and safari extension. Those extensions require sandboxing. Is it possible to do this without sandboxing our app? Thank you!

Hey all, I'm experiencing an error, when trying to upload my app to the App Store using Transporter. I build my app with fvm flutter build ipa --release. When I try to upload this, I get the following error: I have already done a rebuild and checked my Provision Profile and certificate

We are using an app distributed via an iOS enterprise certificate. There is an exceptional user who could normally use the app signed with this certificate before upgrading to iOS 18. However, after updating to iOS 18 (currently on version 18.3), the app crashes immediately upon launch. Real-time logs indicate that the application fails to start. This issue is unique to this user, as other users on the same iOS 18.3 system do not experience the problem. console log

After upgrading the iOS system to 18.3.1, the APP crashed continuously when it was launched. The following log was seen in the device log： Bootstrapping failed for <FBApplicationProcess: 0x72ad16b80; app<com.xxxx.yyyy>:> with error: <NSError: 0x300cd4d80; domain: RBSRequestErrorDomain; code: 5; "Launch failed."> { NSUnderlyingError = <NSError: 0x300cd4ab0; domain: NSPOSIXErrorDomain; code: 85> { NSLocalizedDescription = Launchd job spawn failed; }; } Our APP is in-house distribution What are the possible causes? How can I solve it?

I am developing a macOS app that requires the Associated Domains entitlement. The app will be distributed as a custom app. The app needs to be signed using Team A’s Developer ID Application certificate and packaged under Team A’s Team ID. Team A has a secure signing and packaging setup, but they do not provide access to their Developer ID Application Identity (cert) or their provisioning profile. I am part of Team B and have access to Team B’s Developer ID Application identity and provisioning profiles. I am thinking of doing the following: I create a provisioning profile under Team B that authorizes the Associated Domains entitlement. I sign the app using Team B’s Developer ID Application identity, ensuring the required entitlements are included. Then, I re-sign the app using Team A’s Developer ID Application identity, since Team A has also set up the same bundle ID with the Associated Domains entitlement and corresponding provisioning profile. Questions: Is this approach correct & does it have any drawback? Will the double signing process work without issues, given that Team A has the required provisioning profile for the same bundle ID? Are there better ways to handle this situation where signing must be done under Team A but access is limited? Thanks!

Hello, I have this simulator made in Unity that I want to distribute as Standalone. It consists of launcher which, when users download it, downloads the game. I've built the launcher, got Developer ID Application certificate, added entitlements from: https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/macoscodesigning.html#signing-identity I've signed the .app of the launcher and 2 dlls chatgpt recommended to sign, zipped it, notarized .zip successfully, stapled to .app and put it on Google Drive to test. I got my other MacBook Pro, downloaded the zip, tried to open it. It did open, but there is a black loading screen saying "0% progress, 0B/0B" indicating that it isn't downloading anything - no network calling. When checked using command xattr -l path/to/file.app I get the following output: com.apple.macl: @?????I???|???? com.apple.quarantine: 0083;67bf1a22;Safari;69764595-CA94-44D2-B679-A69DC4669382 There are some specifics I think are also important to mention. I tried to code-sign it, notarize it and staple it using only Terminal and I'd like to keep it that way because I am very unfamiliar with Mac so I've avoided using Xcode as much as possible I really want to avoid putting the simulator up on the App Store, so I must have Standalone solution and Standalone solution only I believe that there might be problem with needing right entitlements, but I don't know how to check which one's are needed for users to avoid using "xattr" command in terminal to allow the launcher to run because of GateKeeper I've been banging my head against the wall with this problem for over a month and I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I am trying to get a PKG installer through the Apple codesign and notarytool process. When I submit the PKG installer I get a status message of "Invalid" and when I review the log file it has 2 errors. For "status summary" it says: "Archive contains critical validation errors", and for "message" it says" "The binary is not signed". The installer contains a flat file that is installed in the "Users/Shared" folder via the PKG installer. Here are the steps I've taken to get the installer through the codesign and notarytool process. codesign the file that's placed in the "Users/Shared" folder: codesign --options=runtime --sign 'Developer ID Application: XYZ' -v /Users/.../Documents/folder/"flat file" which I get a message saying "signed generic". Create the PKG installer with the signed "flat file". Sign the PKG installer containing the signed "flat file": codesign --options=runtime --sign 'Developer ID Application: XYZ' -v /Users/.../Documents/folder/"flat file" which I get a message saying "signed generic". Submit the PKG file with notarytool: xcrun notarytool submit /Users/.../Documents/folder/"flat file" --verbose --apple-id username --password password --team-id ID# --progress It completes and provides the submission ID. I check the status and get the error message that it's invalid. When I check the full details via the log I get the error messages mentioned above. What am I missing or failing to do?

Background I've repeatedly run into codesigning (and missing provisioning profile) issues for my Ruby/Glimmer app and am looking for ways to troubleshoot this outside of Xcode. The app structure is as follows: PATHmanager.app └── Contents ├── Info.plist ├── MacOS │   └── PATHmanager ├── PkgInfo ├── Resources │   └── AppIcon.icns ├── _CodeSignature │   └── CodeResources └── embedded.provisionprofile Architecture I have a Mac mini Apple M2 Pro with macOS Ventura 13.4. Xcode is not used directly, but the underlying command line tools (e.g., codesign, productbuild, pkgutil, xcrun) are run from a custom Ruby script. xcodebuild -version Xcode 14.3.1 Build version 14E300c Questions Is the .app directory and file structure/naming sufficient? If not, can you point me in the direction of a minimal example that does not use Xcode? Info.plist is an XML text document (not binary), which I believe is in an acceptable format, but how do I lint this file and determine if it contains all of the necessary key/value pairs? <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>CFBundleDevelopmentRegion</key> <string>en</string> <key>CFBundleDisplayName</key> <string>PATH manager</string> <key>CFBundleExecutable</key> <string>PATHmanager</string> <key>CFBundleIconFile</key> <string>AppIcon.icns</string> <key>CFBundleIdentifier</key> <string>com.chipcastle.pathmanager</string> <key>CFBundleInfoDictionaryVersion</key> <string>6.0</string> <key>CFBundleName</key> <string>PATHmanager</string> <key>CFBundlePackageType</key> <string>APPL</string> <key>CFBundleShortVersionString</key> <string>1.15</string> <key>CFBundleSupportedPlatforms</key> <array> <string>MacOSX</string> </array> <key>CFBundleVersion</key> <string>1.15</string> <key>ITSAppUsesNonExemptEncryption</key> <false/> <key>LSApplicationCategoryType</key> <string>public.app-category.developer-tools</string> <key>LSMinimumSystemVersion</key> <string>12.0</string> <key>LSUIElement</key> <false/> <key>NSAppTransportSecurity</key> <dict> <key>NSAllowsArbitraryLoads</key> <true/> </dict> <key>NSHumanReadableCopyright</key> <string>© 2025 Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc.</string> <key>NSMainNibFile</key> <string>MainMenu</string> <key>NSPrincipalClass</key> <string>NSApplication</string> </dict> </plist> PATHmanager is a Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64 file created by using Tebako. Does this executable need to be codesigned, or is codesigning the .app folder sufficient? Does the .app directory need an entitlements file? Here's how I codesign it: codesign --deep --force --verify --verbose=4 --options runtime --timestamp --sign 'Apple Distribution: Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc. (BXN9N7MNU3)' '/Users/chip/Desktop/distribution/PATHmanager.app' Does the PATHmanager binary need an entitlements file? Here's how I codesign it: codesign --deep --force --verify --verbose=4 --options runtime --timestamp --entitlements '/Users/chip/Desktop/PATHmanager.entitlements' --sign 'Apple Distribution: Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc. (BXN9N7MNU3)' '/Users/chip/Desktop/distribution/PATHmanager.app/Contents/MacOS/PATHmanager' How can I verify what entitlements, if any, are required for codesigning the binary? The PATHmanager.entitlements file is an XML text file containing only the following: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>com.apple.security.app-sandbox</key> <true/> </dict> </plist> Is the embedded.provisionprofile necessary, and if so, how do I know determine if it matches the certificate or entitlements that I'm using? Additionally, is it named and located properly? I submitted this to the AppStore several weeks ago and the reviewer reported that the executable would not load on their machine (even though it worked on mine.) Is it better for me to release via TestFlight for testing, and if so, do I need to following a separate process for codesigning (i.e., using different entitlements, profiles, certs, etc) when doing so? I've been playing whack-a-mole with this for too long to mention and am hoping to nail down a better deployment flow, so any suggestions for improvement will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Can you please revoke my developer id application and installer certs? So i may recreate. I deleted the private key by mistake before realizing i cannot recreate everything using the developer website portal. I dont have macos backup or did i backup my certs with attached pkey. I just did not realize this was important until now. Please help as Im now blocked. I opened a case too but i have not yet got a response. its been 3 days now. case id: 20000093632858

Can someone please describe what is necessary to perform signing using codesign in a system that runs as LaunchDaemon. All workarounds like placing the codesigning cert + private key a custom keychain and unlock it in the session of the LaunchDaemon doesn't work anymore on Sequoia. Or are there alternatives for signing MachO binaries without codesign?

Hi, I'm doing Java 22 experiments with open source package "wgpu-macos-aarch64-release" on my Mac M3. This library contains a .dylib file and a .a file. In Java you can load native dynamic libraries using JNI. I used that in the past. Now in MacOS 15 this stopped working. Currently, I compile my Java file and run the binary file on the command line, including the library directory. The application would load the library from that directory. This should normally works but the library is not loaded. After some investigation it seems the .dylib is rejected by MacOS. Calling spctl --assess --verbose=4 libwgpu_native.dylib gives libwgpu_native.dylib: rejected without any extra reason message. Using sudo xattr -rd com.apple.quarantine libwgpu_native.dylib doesn't solve the problem. I also can't "accept" it in "Privacy & Security" because it's run as a command line call. I know that code signing should be done for "complete" applications. But these are just experiments and working with single dynamic libraries. How should this be done, to be able to load those libraries in a Java command line program? Or in general, how can you load an unsigned dylib in an application (apart from using Java as a tool). Kr, J

Hi everyone. Sorry if this is not an appropriate forum section for this question. I'm making a game engine and it doesn't launch on my colleague's MacBook, although it does launch on mine. There's an application file, let's say, Sample.app. And along with it in the same folder there's Engine.dylib. If we look at the app-file structure, the executable file's path is Contents/MacOS/Sample. So for the executable file the library is located at the path ../../../Engine.dylib. But when my colleague runs the Sample.app file, he gets an error "Library not loaded: @executable_path/../../../Engine.dylib". Although the path is correct and on my MacBook it works. Are there any ideas how to fix it?

Hello! I've just recently discovered LaunchCodeRequirement API and I'm exploring how it works compared to existing alternatives available for macOS versions below 14.4. Some questions I have with regards to safety of older and newer APIs examining the given example: func runProcess(executableURL: URL) throws { let process = Process() process.executableURL = executableURL if #available(macOS 14.4, *) { process.launchRequirement = try LaunchCodeRequirement.allOf { ValidationCategory(.developerID) SigningIdentifier("some-signing-identifier") TeamIdentifier("some-team-identifier") } } else { try secStaticCodeCheckValidity(executableURL) // Point #1 } do { try process.run() // Point #2 if #available(macOS 14.4, *) { // process.launchRequirement should take care of the process // and kill it if launchRequirement constraint is not satisfied } else { try secCodeCheckValidity(process.processIdentifier) // Point #3 } process.waitUntilExit() } catch { process.terminate() throw error } // Point #4 guard process.terminationReason == .exit else { throw SomeError() } } let requirement = """ anchor apple generic and identifier = "some-signing-identifier" and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] and certificate leaf [subject.OU] = "some-team-identifier" """ func secStaticCodeCheckValidity(_ executableURL: URL) throws { // Init SecStaticCode from `executableURL` // Init SecRequirement from `requirement` let flags = SecCSFlags(rawValue: kSecCSBasicValidateOnly) guard SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors(code, flags, secRequirement, nil) == errSecSuccess else { throw CodeSignError() } } func secCodeCheckValidity(_ processIdentifier: Int32) { // Init SecCode from `processIdentifier` // Init SecRequirement from `requirement` guard SecCodeCheckValidityWithErrors(code, [], secRequirement, nil) == errSecSuccess else { throw CodeSignError() } } Before macOS 14.4+ flow There's still a small chance that between checking executable binary codesign requirement (Point #1) and launched process' one (Point #3) the binary could be replaced with something malicious and even get some CPU between Points #2 and #3 so technically it can't be 100% safe. Is that a correct statement? Any advices on making it safer? macOS 14.4+ flow Now let's see how launchRequirement is better. I guess initialized launchRequirement gets evaluated on running the process (Point #2). What does it exactly check? Executable at URL before launching the process (as OnDiskConstraint) or launched process (as ProcessConstraint)? Is there any chance the process gets some CPU before it's killed in case of failed codesign check? Any way to distinguish between codesign requirement termination and other reasons at point #4? It returns SIGKILL (9) as terminationStatus but it's not precise enough to be sure it was killed due to failed requirement check. I guess newer SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithOnDiskRequirement & SecCodeCheckValidityWithProcessRequirement are the same as SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors & SecCodeCheckValidityWithErrors but a little simpler and can't be used as a 'more secure' way of validating codesign requirement. Thanks, Pavel

I have a .NET 6 application that runs in the background. The installer is a .pkg file built using a third-party tool called "Packages". All .dylib and executable files are codesigned before packaging. The resulting .pkg file is notarized. The app uses these entitlements: com.apple.security.cs.allow-jit com.apple.security.cs.allow-unsigned-executable-memory com.apple.security.cs.allow-dyld-environment-variables com.apple.security.cs.disable-library-validation The app is built on a macbook Air 2015 running macOS 12.6 and it works without issues on that machine. On a macbook Pro M3 running macOS 14.6.1 the app fails to run even though the installation itself is successful. The only logs that I was able to find are related to syspolicyd (4 warnings): Unable to apply protection to app: 45, PST: (vuid: A78FF6C2-08D5-4DCC-B946-8836251AA0E7), (objid: 1873967), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null)) Failed to register app bundle for protection: 45, PST: (vuid: A78FF6C2-08D5-4DCC-B946-8836251AA0E7), (objid: 1873967), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null)) scan failed, finishing evaluation : PST: (vuid: A78FF6C2-08D5-4DCC-B946-8836251AA0E7), (objid: 1873967), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null)) Terminating process due to Gatekeeper rejection: 95158, Unfortunately, verification commands such as sudo codesign --verify --deep --strict -vvv MyApplication.App spctl -a -vvv -t install MyApplicationInstaller.pkg do not indicate any issues. Are there any additional steps that need to be performed in order for my app to work properly on newer machines?