Our app .dmg file was successfully code signed. We then revised the app and created a new .dmg. Running codesign gave an "app is already signed" message. Then running codesign -dv said "code object is not signed at all" Older solutions said to use -f to force signing, but that is no longer an option.

I am responsible for the mobile app and thus also of the apple developer and app store connect accounts of a company. An external freelancer developed a software package for us which we aim to offer for installation and use on macOS systems of our customers; distributed exclusively outside of the Apple App Store. The software package has nothing to do with the mobile app. MacOS' Gatekeeper currently warns or even prevents our customers regarding the installation of the package on their device; pretty much as described here: https://developer.apple.com/developer-id/. According to a previous talk with Apple's Support, the software package (.app) the Freelancer developed must be signed with one of our own certificates. As we cannot grant selective app store connect access to third persons (only for the concerned certificates), we prefer to not provide access to our entire apple developer account to the freelancer, for the sole reason of the certificate & signing process. According to previous attempts with Apples' support regarding the most feasible solution in this case, they recommended me to manage the signing of the package of the freelancer, and simply request the package from the freelancer. I've thus generated an according Developer ID Certificate, but regarding the signing process, I'm confused. I know how signing works with mobile apps in XCode, but regarding software that is not distributed throughout the App Store on macOS, I'm unsure about the process. Also, as far as I know, the entitlements of the application are involved in the signing process. So my concern is that simply having the software package (.app) from the freelancer is not really enough to complete the signing + notarization process? Won't I need further information about the app's entitlements etc.? I would like to have a clear solution about the procedure that is required in these cases, as online documentations and / or forums as well as previous talks with your non-technical support from Apple did not resolve the issue.

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.

In the LightweightCodeRequirements framework, there is a LaunchCodeRequirement object which can be used as a requirement object for a Process for example. What I don't understand (I admit my macOS low-level knowledge is limited) is that how can this be used in a secure way that doesn't fall victim of a Time-of-Check/Time-of-Use issue. e.g. I specify a LaunchCodeRequirement via Process.launchRequirement for my process, let's say /usr/local/bin/mycommandlinetool. The LaunchCodeRequirement specifies my development team and a developer ID certificate. The process must be started in some form, before a SecCode/SecTask object can be created, rather than a SecStaticCode object (which only guarantees its validity checks to be intact as long as the file is not modified). But if the process was started, then I have no tools in my set to prevent it from executing its initialization code or similar. Then, by the time I'm able to check via SecCode/SecTask functions the LaunchCodeRequirement, I might have already ran malicious code - if mycommandlinetool was maliciously replaced. Or does the operating system use a daemon to copy the executable specified for Process to a secure location, then creates the SecStaticCode object, assesses the LaunchCodeRequirement and if passed, launches the executable from that trusted location (which would make sure it is immutable for replacement by malicious actors)? I have a hard time understanding how this works under the hood - if I remember correctly these are private APIs.

Background We are using a Developer ID application certificate to sign our application. We lost the private key and we need to revoke it before we can receive a new one. Per documentation (https://developer.apple.com/support/certificates/), I know that previously installed applications will still be able to run, but new installations will not be able to work. I want to confirm what will happen when we revoke the certificate so we know how to prepare customers for this upcoming change. Questions Will existing installations of the application receive a notice that the certificate has been revoked? Will previously installed applications be able to launch again after they are closed? What will the user see when they try to install the application with the revoked certificate?

This math-educational 3D-graphics courseware utilizes Java3D, which sits on top of hardware-dependent JOGAMP binaries (which instruct at the GPU-level). This code signing command applied to the installer .dmg: codesign -s "myName" --force --options runtime ~/DFG2D_MacOS_Manufacturing/MacOSInstallers/DFG2D_Mac_J1602_x86/DataflowGeometry2D-1.0.300.dmg is supposed to force signing of all the embedded binaries, BUT the notary tool finds about 25 jogamp-fat dynamic libraries (/ *.dylib) UNSIGNED. Processing complete id: 23d81a99-4087-48d2-a567-8072dd2820fe status: Invalid pierrebierre@Pierres-iMac ~ % xcrun notarytool log 17d2fe94-f38a-47d4-9568-cf4dc65f24c9 --apple-id "xxxxxxxxxxx" --team-id "XXXXXXXXX" --password pwpwpwpwpw { "logFormatVersion": 1, "jobId": "17d2fe94-f38a-47d4-9568-cf4dc65f24c9", "status": "Invalid", "statusSummary": "Archive contains critical validation errors", "statusCode": 4000, "archiveFilename": "DataflowGeometry2D-1.0.300.dmg", "uploadDate": "2025-07-13T21:28:21.147Z", "sha256": "57320c4ad4a07f144336084152bf7e3328f8c5694dd568d2cfd23a596b5b3b13", "ticketContents": null, "issues": [ { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "DataflowGeometry2D-1.0.300.dmg/DataflowGeometry2D.app/Contents/app/DFG2D_Mac_x86_300.jar/lib/jogamp-fat/jogamp-fat.jar/natives/macosx-universal/libnativewindow_awt.dylib", "message": "The binary is not signed.", "docUrl": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues#3087721", "architecture": "x86_64" }, { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "DataflowGeometry2D-1.0.300.dmg/DataflowGeometry2D.app/Contents/app/DFG2D_Mac_x86_300.jar/lib/jogamp-fat/jogamp-fat.jar/natives/macosx-universal/libnativewindow_awt.dylib", "message": "The signature does not include a secure timestamp.", "docUrl": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues#3087733", "architecture": "x86_64" }, What is your advice on how to get these binaries signed?

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.

I'm into packaging up my Mac game and want to submit it to the Mac App Store via XCode -> Product -> Archive -> Distribute App. I'm getting the following error: Validation failed The installer package includes files that are only readable by the root user. This will prevent verification of the application's code signature when your app is run. Ensure that non-root users can read the files in your app. I've created post build and post package hooks in xcode that list out the files do a debug log file, but there is no single file that is root only or having not 755 as rights. Any idea what I can change to fix this? Is this even something I can influence? Or is this a App Store connect issue? Thanks Martin

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!

This is a Math+CS Educational app written in Java. I have been able to distribute the Intel-Mac version downloaded as a .dmg (code-signed, notarized and stapled). I also need to support Apple silicon hw. I re-created the entire sw manufacturing structure on my M2 Macbook. I'm using the exact same command scripts that work on the older hardware. I am expecting the jpackage script to run the same way on the M2....but no. The first sign of trouble is I'm not getting an authentication password dialog , which I believe is thrown up by the MacOS when codesign asks to access my Keychain certificates. My keychain is setup the default way. Here is the error msg: [07:38:08.719] Running /usr/bin/codesign [07:38:08.749] java.io.IOException: Command [/usr/bin/codesign, -s, Developer ID Application: Pierre Bierre (SL7L4YU8GT), -vvvv, --timestamp, --options, runtime, --prefix, ST_DFG2D_ARM, /var/folders/v7/06pp2_5d6gz9593k96n2z0v40000gn/T/jdk.jpackage11705714069544945060/images/image-2753484488940359178/DataflowGeom2D.app/Contents/runtime/Contents/Home/lib/libnet.dylib] exited with 1 code at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.Executor.executeExpectSuccess(Executor.java:90) at jdk.jpackage/jdk.jpackage.internal.IOUtils.exec(IOUtils.java:215) If I build the .dmg installer WITHOUT code-signing it, it produces a good .dmg, but I can't distribute it to my students with M2-M3-M4 rigs. The error feedback from "codesign" is nonspecific and inactionable. As a developer, I need specific, actionable error messages. I expect that from the wealthiest computer company in the world. Need the info.

Hey, So i am trying to setup OpenGL on my mac. Specs : M2 Pro, 15.5 (24F74) Now i have setup the entire project properly as far as i know. GLFW, GLAD and the OpenGL framework. the build libraries are also reference and everything. I have also included the glad.c file in the folder. i have also kept it to run locally in signing tab. its still giving me Command CodeSign failed with a nonzero exit code All the ss are provided

I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why codesigning was failing -- I had the pf block set up correctly, my keychains were unlocked, and then, eventually, it occurred to me, hey, maybe an IP address changed, so I disabled IPv6 except for link local, and then amazingly, it went back to working. I filed FB13706261 over a year ago. This is ridiculous.

My iOS version of the app is available on the App Store with a non-team ID prefix for its bundle ID. It has been available there for a long time and I am not sure why I chose a custom prefix for it. The Mac version of the same app is available on the Mac App Store with a different bundle ID and with a prefix that matches my team ID. I am currently looking to "merge" both apps into a single bundle ID. The plan is to stop using the current Mac app and release a new one as a universal app under the existing bundle ID for the iOS app. Unfortunately, it looks like that the Mac App Store does not actually allow any submissions that have a non-team ID for a prefix. I know that it is a very specific case but any suggestions would be welcomed.

We are building an installer application to install a dext. Building in Xcode, the installer app launches fine locally and installs the dext. We then try to sign it with the company Developer ID application certificate. However after doing so we cannot launch the application anymore as we get the following crash at launch: Exception Codes: 0x0000000000000000, 0x0000000000000000 Termination Reason: CODESIGNING 1 Taskgated Invalid Signature Triggered by Thread: 0 Thread 0 Crashed: 0 dyld_path_missing 0x102e187c0 _dyld_start + 0 Thread 0 crashed with ARM Thread State (64-bit): x0: 0x0000000000000000 x1: 0x0000000000000000 x2: 0x0000000000000000 x3: 0x0000000000000000 x4: 0x0000000000000000 x5: 0x0000000000000000 x6: 0x0000000000000000 x7: 0x0000000000000000 x8: 0x0000000000000000 x9: 0x0000000000000000 x10: 0x0000000000000000 x11: 0x0000000000000000 x12: 0x0000000000000000 x13: 0x0000000000000000 x14: 0x0000000000000000 x15: 0x0000000000000000 x16: 0x0000000000000000 x17: 0x0000000000000000 x18: 0x0000000000000000 x19: 0x0000000000000000 x20: 0x0000000000000000 x21: 0x0000000000000000 x22: 0x0000000000000000 x23: 0x0000000000000000 x24: 0x0000000000000000 x25: 0x0000000000000000 x26: 0x0000000000000000 x27: 0x0000000000000000 x28: 0x0000000000000000 fp: 0x0000000000000000 lr: 0x0000000000000000 sp: 0x000000016d13fba0 pc: 0x0000000102e187c0 cpsr: 0x00000000 far: 0x0000000000000000 esr: 0x00000000 Address size fault Binary Images: 0x102e14000 - 0x102eaffff dyld_path_missing (*) <9cf0401a-a938-389e-a77d-9e9608076ccf> /dyld_path_missing 0x102cc0000 - 0x102cc3fff main_executable_path_missing (*) <5fb2bea6-ba11-340d-a7a4-8657d5a736e2> /main_executable_path_missing 0x0 - 0xffffffffffffffff ??? (*) <00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000> ??? Error Formulating Crash Report: dyld_process_snapshot_get_shared_cache failed Following the different help pages from Apple, the application seems to be correctly signed. Looking at the Console, we are seeing the following message at launch: "Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.developer.system-extension.install, com.apple.developer.driverkit". However, the entitlement file I am using to sign the installer app contains those entitlements. We are looking at different possible issues for days now and can't figure it out. Any advice or thought would be appreciated.

We recently had an external pentest for one of our company's macOS applications and they brought up the topic of library validation. Our app has hardened runtime enabled and passes notarization. The codesign verification output includes: flags=0x10000(runtime) The pentesters brought up that both validation and runtime should be present, so I discovered that you could also add library validation by augmenting our flags with: OTHER_CODE_SIGN_FLAGS = --timestamp -o library which changes the flags to: flags=0x12000(library-validation,runtime) The pentesters insist that both options are necessary, especially to avoid library injection when SIP is off, but Apple's docs say that hardened runtime already implies library validation (see here ) My question is: does explicitly specifying library validation provide something that hardened runtime does not already? Or is it correct that hardened runtime already imply library validation? For what it's worth, I did a quick scan of some of the apps on my system, interesting some of the Apple system apps have only library validation (e.g. Safari, Photos), some have both (e.g. Podcasts), some have only hardened runtime (e.g. Mail). So that didn't help answer the question. Thank you!

Hi all, I’ve run into a signing/entitlements problem that shows up only on Big Sur (11.x). The very same .app launches perfectly on Monterey (12), Ventura (13), Sonoma (14 / 14.5) and Sequoia (15). Failure on macOS 11 com.apple.xpc.launchd[1] (application.app.myapp.exams.566312.566318[1602]): removing service since it exited with consistent failure – OS_REASON_CODESIGNING | When validating …/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app/Contents/MacOS/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1: Code has restricted entitlements, but the validation of its code signature failed. Unsatisfied Entitlements: Binary is improperly signed. Launching from Terminal: open -a "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" kLSNoLaunchPermissionErr (-10826) | Launchd job spawn failed with error: 153 What I’ve already checked # signature itself codesign -dvvv "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" # => valid, Authority = Developer ID Application, runtime enabled # full deep/strict verification codesign --verify --deep --strict -vvv "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" # => “satisfies its Designated Requirement” # Gatekeeper assessment spctl --assess --type execute --verbose=4 "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" # => accepted (override security disabled) # embedded provisioning profile matches bundle ID codesign -d --entitlements :- "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" | plutil -p - security cms -D -i "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app/Contents/embedded.provisionprofile" \ | plutil -extract Entitlements xml1 -o - # => both show the AAC entitlement and everything looks in order # notarization ticket stapler validate "/Users/admin/Downloads/MyAppNameBlurred 3.13.1.app" # => “The validate action worked!” Deployment target: MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET = 11.0 Entitlement added: com.apple.developer.automatic-assessment-configuration = true Provisioning profile: generated this year via Developer ID, includes the assessment entitlement and nothing else unusual. Runtime code: we call AEAssessmentSession's network configuration part only on 12 + (guarded with @available(macOS 12.0, *)). Has anyone hit this mismatch on 11.x? Could Big Sur be expecting something older or idk? Any pointers appreciated! Thanks!

The driver does not show up in the app settings after switching to “DriverKit USB Transport - VendorID”. Previously, the app used “DriverKit USB Transport (development)” and everything worked as expected. The entitlements looked like this: <?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.developer.driverkit</key> <true/> <key>com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.usb</key> <array> <dict> <key>idVendor</key> <string>*</string> </dict> </array> </dict> </plist> I received approval to use “DriverKit USB Transport - VendorID”. I updated the App ID configuration in the portal, removed all development entitlements, updated the provisioning profile, and edited the driver’s .entitlements as follows: <?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.developer.driverkit</key> <true/> <key>com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.usb</key> <array> <dict> <key>idVendor</key> <integer>1111</integer> </dict> </array> </dict> </plist> The app installs on an iPad with an M processor, but the driver does not appear in the settings. In the logs I see the following: 272 debug 19:50:42.005193+0300 installd 7935 signing bytes in 5 blob(s) from /var/installd/Library/Caches/com.apple.mobile.installd.staging/temp.bugkAE/extracted/Payload/****.app/SystemExtensions/****Driver.dext/****.Driver(arm64) 272 debug 19:50:42.012068+0300 installd open(/var/installd/Library/Caches/com.apple.mobile.installd.staging/temp.bugkAE/extracted/Payload/****.app/SystemExtensions/net.svedm.****.SDRDriver.dext/Info.plist,0x0,0x1b6) = 4 272 debug 19:50:42.012712+0300 installd 0xc2e14c618 done serializing <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "https://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"><plist version="1.0"><dict><key>application-identifier</key><string>****.Driver</string><key>com.apple.application-identifier</key><string>****</string><key>com.apple.developer.driverkit</key><true/><key>com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.usb</key><array><dict><key>idVendor</key><integer>3034</integer></dict></array><key>com.apple.developer.team-identifier</key><string>****</string><key>com.apple.security.get-task-allow</key><true/><key>get-task-allow</key><true/></dict></plist> 0 error 19:53:08.930054+0300 kernel Sandbox: MyApp(844) deny(1) sysctl-read kern.bootargs 0 error 19:53:08.931571+0300 kernel Sandbox: driverkitd(77) deny(1) syscall-unix 284 syscall-unix-denied-SIGKILL 0 error 19:53:09.985946+0300 kernel 1 duplicate report for Sandbox: driverkitd(77) deny(1) syscall-unix 284 syscall-unix-denied-SIGKILL 0 error 19:53:09.985985+0300 kernel Sandbox: MyApp(844) deny(2) file-test-existence /usr/bin/swift-backtrace 0 error 19:53:09.986011+0300 kernel Sandbox: MyApp(844) deny(2) file-test-existence /usr/bin/arm64e But I don’t quite understand what is going wrong. Any ideas?

Hello I have a qt, CMAKE app, non-xcode one till xcode start supporting cmake. I have 3 apps, 2 basic ones and 1 very complex ones. My complex one build/links/notarises/validates/deploys beautifly. I have tear in my eye when I see it build. The other 2 apps explode and torment me for past 5 days. The build proves is 99% the same, the only thing that a little changes are info.plist and app name+ some minor changes. Its absolutely bananas and I can't fix it, I'm running out of ideas so if any1 could sugged anything, I'll buy &amp; ship you a beer. Anyway, errors: Log: Using otool: Log: inspecting "/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtCore.framework/Versions/A/QtCore" Log: Could not parse otool output line: "/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtCore.framework/Versions/A/QtCore (architecture arm64):" Log: Adding framework: Log: Framework name "QtCore.framework" Framework directory "/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/" Framework path "/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtCore.framework" Binary directory "Versions/A" Binary name "QtCore" Binary path "/Versions/A/QtCore" Version "A" Install name "@rpath/QtCore.framework/Versions/A/QtCore" Deployed install name "@rpath/QtCore.framework/Versions/A/QtCore" Source file Path "/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtCore.framework/Versions/A/QtCore" Framework Destination Directory (relative to bundle) "Contents/Frameworks/QtCore.framework" Binary Destination Directory (relative to bundle) "Contents/Frameworks/QtCore.framework/Versions/A" Log: copied: "/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtWebSockets.framework/Versions/A/QtWebSockets" Log: to "/AppBuild/Agameri_Toolbox/Agameri_Toolbox.app/Contents/Frameworks/QtWebSockets.framework/Versions/A/QtWebSockets" Log: copy: "/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtWebSockets.framework/Resources" "/AppBuild/Agameri_Toolbox/Agameri_Toolbox.app/Contents/Frameworks/QtWebSockets.framework/Versions/A/Resources" Log: copied: "/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtWebSockets.framework/Resources/Info.plist" Log: to "/AppBuild/Agameri_Toolbox/Agameri_Toolbox.app/Contents/Frameworks/QtWebSockets.framework/Versions/A/Resources/Info.plist" Log: copied: "/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtWebSockets.framework/Resources/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy" Log: to "/AppBuild/Agameri_Toolbox/Agameri_Toolbox.app/Contents/Frameworks/QtWebSockets.framework/Versions/A/Resources/PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy" Log: symlink "/AppBuild/Agameri_Toolbox/Agameri_Toolbox.app/Contents/Frameworks/QtWebSockets.framework/QtWebSockets" Log: points to "Versions/Current/QtWebSockets" Log: symlink "/AppBuild/Agameri_Toolbox/Agameri_Toolbox.app/Contents/Frameworks/QtWebSockets.framework/Resources" Log: points to "Versions/Current/Resources" Log: symlink "/AppBuild/Agameri_Toolbox/Agameri_Toolbox.app/Contents/Frameworks/QtWebSockets.framework/Versions/Current" Log: points to "A" Log: Using install_name_tool: Log: in "/AppBuild/Agameri_Toolbox/Agameri_Toolbox.app/Contents/MacOS/Agameri_Toolbox" Log: change reference "@rpath/QtWebSockets.framework/Versions/A/QtWebSockets" Log: to "@rpath/QtWebSockets.framework/Versions/A/QtWebSockets" ERROR: "/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/install_name_tool: fatal error: file not in an order that can be processed (link edit information does not fill the __LINKEDIT segment): /AppBuild/Agameri_Toolbox/Agameri_Toolbox.app/Contents/MacOS/Agameri_Toolbox\n" ERROR: "" Even tho I get that error, it will "Notarize" and "greenlight by gatekeeper. So my automatic build app if he sees error with the __LINKEDIT it will stop deployment. But even tho he "stops" release of app to public I can still go check binary and when I try to run that I get: Library not loaded: @rpath/QtConcurrent.framework/Versions/A/QtConcurrent Referenced from: &lt;69A296DB-8C7D-3BC9-A8AE-947B8D6ED224&gt; /Volumes/VOLUME/*/Agameri_Toolbox.app/Contents/MacOS/Agameri_Toolbox Reason: tried: '/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtConcurrent.framework/Versions/A/QtConcurrent' (code signature in &lt;192D5FAC-FE8C-31AB-86A7-6C2CE5D3E864&gt; '/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtConcurrent.framework/Versions/A/QtConcurrent' not valid for use in process: mapping process and mapped file (non-platform) have different Team IDs), '/System/Volumes/Preboot/Cryptexes/OS/Users/dariusz/Qt/6.9.1/macos/lib/QtConcurrent.framework/Versions/A/QtConcurrent' (no such file), '/Volumes/DEV_MAC/02_CODE/Dev/Icarus.nosync/Icarus_Singleton/codeSingleton/libOutput/Release/QtConcurrent.framework/Versions/A/QtConcurrent' (no such file), '/System/Volumes/Preboot/Cryptexes/OS/Volumes/DEV_MAC/02_CODE/Dev/Icarus.nosync/Icarus_Singleton/codeSingleton/libOu (terminated at launch; ignore backtrace) And here is my build script, its QT based application, I'm using macdeployqt + my own custom signing as the one from macdeployqt breaks on the complex app. (I will post it in next post as apparently there is 7k limit O.O) I've tried to replace the @rpath/ to @executable_path but that has made a million new issues and I'm just lost.

Having reviewed every document, this has been going on for nearly two months. Originally, it was thought that the problem might be related to the fact I had created the developer ID signing certificate on an intel mac, and trying to import and use it on an M1 Mac-Mini. That turned out to not be the case. Completely started over with a new account (the company changed names), requested and was granted the entitlements we needed. Create a new CSR from this new m1 machine, created a Developer ID certificate, installed the certificate on this machine. But no matter what, the codesign fails. Troubleshooting Environment: Brand new Apple Developer account and Developer ID Application certificate (generated CSR on this Mac, installed cert and private key in login keychain) macOS build/signing machine, not running codesign as root Working from Terminal app in GUI session, not via SSH/cron Keychain & Certificate Chain: Verified Developer ID Application: Fidelis Security LLC (J4WGF5B6KZ) certificate and private key are present in login keychain Verified certificate is marked as trusted and has a private key attached Developer ID Certification Authority present and trusted in System keychain (removed any extra from login) Evaluate certificate assistant shows everything is good Apple Root CA present and trusted in System keychain Set all trust settings back to System Defaults after testing with “Always Trust” No expired or duplicate Developer ID intermediates present codesign Troubleshooting: Ran: codesign --force --timestamp --options runtime --sign "Developer ID Application: Fidelis Security LLC (J4WGF5B6KZ)" ./fidelisevents Consistently received: Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer ... errSecInternalComponent Confirmed correct identity using: security find-identity -v -p codesigning (Shows my Developer ID Application cert as valid) Keychain order confirmed with security list-keychains Tried explicit --keychain argument in codesign (no change) Additional Steps Attempted: Downloaded and re-installed all relevant Apple intermediates/root certificates from https://www.apple.com/certificateauthority/ Rebooted the Mac and killed/restarted the securityd daemon Confirmed no use of sudo or root for codesigning Verified keychain is unlocked Checked that partition list grants access to codesign (set with security set-key-partition-list -S "apple:codesign:" -s -k "" ~/Library/Keychains/login.keychain-db) Attempted to codesign a copy of /usr/bin/true (same error) Ran codesign both with and without --timestamp, both on app bundle and binary Keychain Access showing: Certificate and private key present and linked Correct trust chain System keychain containing all Apple intermediates/roots No trust warnings or red Xs Downloaded the latest Apple CA and Developer ID Root certificates and installed those. None of the forum searches have helped. AI is likewise confused.

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