I work with a team that is responsible for our company's centralized infrastructure for code signing various products within our portfolio, including iOS apps. For security purposes, we want to sign apps before their posting on the App Store, and also to log this activity for eventual security audits. Not surprisingly, we need automated processes; we can't use an IDE like Xcode to do the work. We must queue, process, and log all signing jobs, and have Macs dedicated to this purpose. I can't go into many details about our infrastructure due to confidentiality concerns, so I'll apologize now if my questions seem a little vague. We currently require our iOS developers to submit one or more new provisioning profiles as well as their IPA archive for signing. We support supplying multiple provisioning profiles because some of our developers include embedded third-party extensions within their IPAs, and these extensions can also have their own provisioning profiles. Within our back end, we open the archive, sign the relevant portions using the entitlements in one of the profiles (that we believe to be the appropriate one for the particular archive element), overwrite each supplied provisioning profile with (what we believe to be) the appropriate one from user input, and re-compress the archive. Here come the questions: When we receive multiple provisioning profiles, how do we know which profile should be used to help with signing which archive elements? What data (e.g. entitlements application-identifier, team-identifier) can we use? We also need to know which provisioning profiles from their input correspond to those that already exist within the archive. What data can we use to map profiles from one set to the other? Should we be requiring our users to submit new provisioning profiles in the first place? Or should we edit/recycle the existing ones in some way? We'd like to remove any unnecessary burdens for our users, if possible.

Adobe says that Animate works with the latest Mac OS. When I publish apps with Animate, they work on my computer. With a self-signed certificate, they work on some older Mac OS versions, but not on the 2 most recent. How can I test my apps on others' Mac computers? Robert

I have already posted asking about this: [quote='768005021, CynthiaSun, /thread/768005, /profile/CynthiaSun'] Codesigned and notarized app cannot directly write files inside the app bundle... [/quote] But there are still some doubts that have not been answered. We use Qt to develop an application on the macOS platform, and we are attempting to perform code signing and notarization to ensure our the application is trusted by Apple. However, there are a few things that seem weird regarding this statement: "App bundles are read-only by design." Let me provide more details. Currently, when our application starts, it needs to create folder (e.g. Temp) in the root directory of the executable For example: Myapp.app/Contents/MacOS/Myapp ---> Myapp.app/Contents/MacOS/Temp The folder is designed for storing runtime logs or config files for our application. In the past, users may also modify the settings inside target folder if needed. However, the strange thing is that after the application is codesigned and notarized. When we double-click the application Myapp (a.k.a Myapp.app) in Finder, it could successfully launch and create the Temp folder inside the Myapp.app/Contents/MacOS folder. However, when we navigate and attempt to run the main application executable in command line mode (as our application supports this command line execution) $ cd Myapp.app/Contents/MacOS $ ./Myapp -h As our application will check if the root folder has write permission before starting (i.e., check if Myapp.app/Contents/MacOS is writable because we require to create Temp folder in the following steps) It pop up the error that folder does not have write permission. The aforementioned scenarios seems to conflict with this statement: "App bundles are read-only by design" (because when the application is launched directly by clicking in Finder, the Temp folder can be created successfully, but via the console command line, it cannot). I would like to confirm again if writing files in the notarized application MacOS directory is not allowed? If not, have any recommended approaches? (e.g., changing the folder to another directory). What causes the different results in these running scenarios? We are not concerned about breaking the signature after application launched, as it seems that macOS will add it to system trust list after first time successfully launch. (Download the app from internet --> System: it is an app downloaded from the internet. Are you sure want to open it...? OK --> Although our application creates the Temp folder after first launch, when we click the application second time, it could directly open the app)

Hi, If an Apple developer subscription account is stopped, how does it affect already signed and and notarized apps? Will all apps and dmg's already signed and notarized in the past still be valid in the future?

Hi After I added iCloud container and iCloud documents my UITests can't run anymore what is this problem and how can I solve it? Thanks!

Platforms: Ventura and Big Sur Steps to Reproduce: Create new application and installer CSRs with keypairs Generate new certificates in Apple web portal Repackage certificates as .p12 using exported private keys since they are not referenced in keychain app by default. Import certificates into MacOS Keychain Set certificate access to "Always Trust" for all certificate uses Sign binary fails using "codesign --force --sign " Sign installer package succeeds using "productsign --sign Additional Info: The private keys ware initially not recognized by the Keychain application resulting a certificate without a private key "leaf" beneath them. To resolve it I exported the private key and repackaged certificate as a .p12 file. Both certificates appear "good" when evaluated for code signing The installer certificate shows an intermediate and root while the application certificate does not Repackaging as .p12 with expected intermediate and root did not resolve the issue Installing all available intermediates and roots from Apple did not resolve the issue Signing a test app with XCode succeeds In production, we sign using CMake so we need to be able to sign code from the command line with codesign.

I am working on releasing my macOS arm64 app. My problem is that after the user downloads the dmg, double-clicking my.app in the dmg, a Gatekeeper pop-up box will appear with a warning that the developer cannot be verified. Question: Can an application signed with "com.apple.security.cs.disable-library-validation" be published as trusted? If yes, what steps have I missed? If not, can I get an official response from Apple? （Because I referred to this post, it seems to mention that it is possible to publish trusted software.I have looked up similar questions on the forum and tried many things, but nothing works. ） Here are my steps: Use the codesign to sign my.app. Because my app needs to access third-party dynamic libraries, entitlements.plist contains a "com.apple.security.cs.disable-library-validation". After the "codesign -dvvv" check, the signature was successful.✅ Use the "xcrun notarytool" command to notarize my app, and the status is displayed as accepted.✅ Use "xcrun stapler staple" to attach the notarization to my app, and it returns success.✅ Use the "spctl -a -v " command to verify whether my app has passed Gatekeeper, and it returns that it has passed.✅ Then I packaged my.app into a dmg, and then attached the notarization mark to the dmg, which was successful.✅ I completed the above steps and distributed the dmg. When I downloaded the dmg as a user test and double-clicked my.app in it, the Gatekeeper pop-up box still appeared, and the developer cannot be verified.❌

To ship a product outside of the Mac App Store, you must notarise it. The notary service issues a notarised ticket, and the ultimate consumer of that ticket is Gatekeeper. However, Gatekeeper does not just check the ticket; it also applies a variety of other checks, and it’s possible for those checks to fail even if your notarised ticket is just fine. To avoid such problems showing up in the field, test your product’s compatibility with Gatekeeper before shipping it. To do this: Set up a fresh machine, one that’s never seen your product before. If your product supports macOS 10.15.x, x < 4, the best OS version to test with is 10.15.3 [1]. Download your product in a way that quarantines it (for example, using Safari). Disconnect the machine from the network. It might make sense to skip this step. See the discussion below. Install and use your product as your users would. If the product is signed, notarised, and stapled correctly, everything should work. If not, you’ll need to investigate what’s making Gatekeeper unhappy, fix that, and then retest. For detailed advice on that topic, see Resolving Trusted Execution Problems. Run this test on a fresh machine each time. This is necessary because Gatekeeper caches information about your product and it’s not easy to reset that cache. Your best option is to do this testing on a virtual machine (VM). Take a snapshot of the VM before the first test, and then restore to that snapshot when you want to retest. Also, by using a VM you can disable networking in step 3 without disrupting other work on your machine. The reason why you should disable networking in step 3 is to test that you’ve correctly stapled the notarised ticket on to your product. If, for some reason, you’re unable to do that stapling, it’s fine to skip step 3. However, be aware that this may cause problems for a user if they try to deploy your product to a Mac that does not have access to the wider Internet. For more background on this, see The Pros and Cons of Stapling. [1] macOS 10.15.4 fixes a bug that made Gatekeeper unnecessarily strict (r. 57278824), so by testing on 10.15.3 you’re exercising the worst case. The process described above is by far the best way to test your Gatekeeper compatibility because it accurately tests how your users run your product. However, you can also run a quick, albeit less accurate test, using various command-line tools. The exact process depends on the type of product you’re trying to check: App — Run syspolicy_check like this: % syspolicy_check distribution WaffleVarnish.app This tool was introduced in macOS 14. On older systems, use the older spctl tool. Run it like this: % spctl -a -t exec -vvv WaffleVarnish.app Be aware, however, that this check is much less accurate. Disk image — Run spctl like this: % spctl -a -t open -vvv --context context:primary-signature WaffleVarnish.dmg Installer package — Run spctl like this: % spctl -a -t install -vvv WaffleVarnish.pkg Other code — Run codesign like this: % codesign -vvvv -R="notarized" --check-notarization WaffleVarnish.bundle This command requires macOS 10.15 or later. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Revision history: 2024-12-05 Added instructions for using syspolicy_check. Made other minor editorial changes. 2023-10-20 Added links to Resolving Trusted Execution Problems and The Pros and Cons of Stapling. Made other minor editorial changes. 2021-02-26 Fixed the formatting. 2020-04-17 Added the section discussing spctl. 2020-03-25 First version.

Hello, I'm new at developing an ios app, but I have created a basic app, I plan to use just for me using xcode and the language swift. I intend to use this app, to display a video and images on ipads that will be used as KIOS on a trade show. I don't need this app to be published on the app store as I intend to use it solely for my use. Is there a way I can do something like this that won't be restricted with the 10 days restriction? I learned xcode/swift as little as I could to create the app, but now I'm limited to the 10 days, and only 3 devices. Is there a way I can create an offline app, that doesn't have the all the restrictions? I plan to use these ipads over and over again on tradeshows to display my work.

Hello, I am on maxOS 14.6 and I developed a C++ application for macOS with graphical-user interface by using wxWidgets. The .app application bundle is built correctly and the application runs. Now I would like to sign it to get it notarized. I get the following error sudo codesign -vvv --deep --strict MyApp.app/Contents/MacOS/MyApp MyApps.app/Contents/MacOS/MyApp: code has no resources but signature indicates they must be present If I check the signature I get % pkgutil --check-signature MyApp.app Package "MyApp": Status: package is invalid (checksum did not verify) How may I fix this? Thank you!

App is built using jdk21, jpackage to create dmg, pulls in the needed jre. Been working fine until about a week ago when notarize start failing bad signing, which when examined it's complaining modified files - a handful of jre license and copyright text files. DMGs built, signed and notarised successfully are now failing codesign verification. Has a macOS 15.1.1 release or Xcode 16.1 patched something, is there new behaviour to be aware of plse?

Hello, I have been implementing faceID authentication using LocalAuthentication, and I've noticed that if i use swift 5 this code compiles but when i change to swift 6 it gives me a crash saying this compile error: i have just created this project for this error purpose so this is my codebase: import LocalAuthentication import SwiftUI struct ContentView: View { @State private var isSuccess: Bool = false var body: some View { VStack { if isSuccess { Text("Succed") } else { Text("not succeed") } } .onAppear(perform: authenticate) } func authenticate() { let context = LAContext() var error: NSError? if context.canEvaluatePolicy(.deviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics, error: &amp;error) { let reason = "We need to your face to open the app" context.evaluatePolicy(.deviceOwnerAuthenticationWithBiometrics, localizedReason: reason) { sucexd, error in if sucexd { let success = sucexd Task { @MainActor [success] in isSuccess = success } } else { print(error?.localizedDescription as Any) } } } else { print(error as Any) } } } #Preview { ContentView() } also i have tried to not use the task block and also gives me the same error. i think could be something about the LAContext NSObject that is not yet adapted for swift 6 concurrency? also i tried to set to minimal but is the same error Im using xcode 16.1 (16B40) with M1 using MacOS Seqouia 15.0.1 Help.

For some reason Xcode said my certificate was revoked. Developer support says it’s active. Could someone point me towards the steps to reactivate it?

We have an enterprise application which customers are using since long. Suddenly some customers have reported they are unable to open app in iOS 18 OS. On lower versions like 17 it is working fine. We have a deploy this enterprise application on our server from that link our customer can download and install the app in iPhone. Now they are blocked due to this error. After installing the app when they open app below error message is shown to them. "AppName" is no longer available.

note technically code-signing but related...... Why has there been no update to the documentation at: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appstorereceipts/validating_receipts_on_the_device To demonstrate how to validate an SHA256 app store hash ??? The January deadline is looming and I can find no working example code which sucessfully validates an SHA256 hash HELP !!!!

Xcode 16.2 無法在IOS 18.2 Debug Xcode 16.2 iOS 18.2 直接建立新專案 Xcode -> Create New Project -> Multiplatform -> Application -> App 選擇 實體手機 -> 執行 error: attach by pid '1050' failed -- attach failed (Not allowed to attach to process. Look in the console messages (Console.app), near the debugserver entries, when the attach failed. The subsystem that denied the attach permission will likely have logged an informative message about why it was denied.) Logging Error: Failed to initialize logging system due to time out. Log messages may be missing. If this issue persists, try setting IDEPreferLogStreaming=YES in the active scheme actions environment variables.

Chrome has started crashing almost immediately after startup. I've reported the issue to the Chrome team here: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/385433270 I'm hoping to debug the issue a bit more myself. This page from the Chrome team https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/mac/debugging.md#chrome-builds suggests using the follow to strip off the protections: codesign --force --sign - path/to/Google\ Chrome.app However, applying that seems to have no effect: % codesign --force --sign - /Applications/Google\ Chrome\ copy.app /Applications/Google Chrome copy.app: replacing existing signature /Applications/Google Chrome copy.app: resource fork, Finder information, or similar detritus not allowed % lldb /Applications/Google\ Chrome\ copy.app (lldb) target create "/Applications/Google Chrome copy.app" Current executable set to '/Applications/Google Chrome copy.app' (arm64). (lldb) run error: process exited with status -1 (attach failed (Not allowed to attach to process. Look in the console messages (Console.app), near the debugserver entries, when the attach failed. The subsystem that denied the attach permission will likely have logged an informative message about why it was denied.)) I have tried other variations like the following based on Stack Overflow, this forum, etc., but with the same result. (I'm still a little vague on the meaning for some flags, sorry.) Though codesign says that it's "replacing existing signature", as far as I can tell, nothing is changing: % cat <<EOF > debuggee-entitlement.xml <?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.get-task-allow</key> <true/> </dict> </plist> EOF % codesign --verbose=4 -fs - --options library-validation --entitlements debuggee-entitlement.xml /Applications/Google\ Chrome\ copy.app /Applications/Google Chrome copy.app: replacing existing signature /Applications/Google Chrome copy.app: resource fork, Finder information, or similar detritus not allowed file with invalid attached data: Disallowed xattr com.apple.FinderInfo found on /Applications/Google Chrome copy.app lldb still fails the same way. Here's what I see after the above: % codesign -d -vvv /Applications/Google\ Chrome\ copy.app Executable=/Applications/Google Chrome copy.app/Contents/MacOS/Google Chrome Identifier=com.google.Chrome Format=app bundle with Mach-O universal (x86_64 arm64) CodeDirectory v=20500 size=1821 flags=0x12a00(kill,restrict,library-validation,runtime) hashes=46+7 location=embedded Hash type=sha256 size=32 CandidateCDHash sha256=5d7beab2b03d9892426076b24acc19815d7a3ff8 CandidateCDHashFull sha256=5d7beab2b03d9892426076b24acc19815d7a3ff8c1446966e422c3c10672626b Hash choices=sha256 CMSDigest=5d7beab2b03d9892426076b24acc19815d7a3ff8c1446966e422c3c10672626b CMSDigestType=2 CDHash=5d7beab2b03d9892426076b24acc19815d7a3ff8 Signature size=8989 Authority=Developer ID Application: Google LLC (EQHXZ8M8AV) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=Dec 17, 2024 at 2:47:58 PM Notarization Ticket=stapled Info.plist entries=44 TeamIdentifier=EQHXZ8M8AV Runtime Version=15.0.0 Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=63 Internal requirements count=1 size=288 From what I can tell, my codesign runs have changed nothing... I see no diff as compared with what I see running codesign -d on a fresh copy. Is it possible to strip off the protections on my local instance to allow debugging with lldb? If so, could someone share a command for accomplishing that? Although I'm asking about this because of Chrome specifically, I'm hoping to learn more about codesigning in general and to be more empowered as a user to be able to debug when an app I depend on is crashing. Thanks much! Happy Holidays!

I want to code radeem for testflight

I have an executable file named infogodesk, located in the directory /usr/local/SmpAgent/rustdesk/infogodesk. When I execute it using the terminal with ./infogodesk, the process gets terminated by the kernel. However, if I move the executable to another directory, it works fine. This issue is very frustrating, and I hope to get some help. Below is the console log output: 默认 11:26:28.162205+0800 kernel ASP: Validation category (6) does not match top-level policy match (3) for process: /usr/local/SmpAgent/rustdesk/infogodesk 默认 11:26:28.162211+0800 kernel Validation category policy: Notifying syspolicyd about /usr/local/SmpAgent/rustdesk/infogodesk with PID 88264 默认 11:26:28.166695+0800 kernel CODE SIGNING: cs_invalid_page(0x104e04000): p=88264[infogodesk] final status 0x23000200, denying page sending SIGKILL 默认 11:26:28.166698+0800 kernel CODE SIGNING: process 88264[infogodesk]: rejecting invalid page at address 0x104e04000 from offset 0x0 in file "/usr/local/SmpAgent/rustdesk/infogodesk" (cs_mtime:1734509326.0 == mtime:1734509326.0) (depth:0) 默认 11:26:28.166738+0800 kernel infogodesk[88264] Corpse allowed 1 of 5 默认 11:26:28.255182+0800 ReportCrash ASI found [ReportCrash] (sensitive) 'Pid 88264 'infogodesk' CORPSE: Extracting Completed 1, Recent: Pid 86766 'ReportCrash' CORPSE' 默认 11:26:28.261619+0800 ReportCrash ASI found [ReportCrash] (sensitive) 'Pid 88264 'infogodesk' CORPSE: Extracting Completed 1, Recent: Pid 86767 'ReportCrash' CORPSE'

I exported an app from an Xcode project using the "Archive" feature. After signing and notarizing it, the app runs normally on my local machine. However, after packaging it with create-dmg or ditto and distributing it to another Mac, I get an error saying the application cannot run. When I execute the command open ***.app in Terminal, it shows _LSOpenURLsWithCompletionHandler() failed for the application /Applications/Maxi PC Suite.app with error -10810. Does anyone know why this is happening? codesign and notarization info： codesign -vvv Maxi\ PC\ Suite.app ...... Maxi PC Suite.app: valid on disk Maxi PC Suite.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement syspolicy_check distribution Maxi\ PC\ Suite.app App passed all pre-distribution checks and is ready for distribution.