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?

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!

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.

This is a lengthy one. I have basically compiled a Rust binary into a dylib and packaged into a .xcframework that contains per arch .frameworks. This loads correctly when run from Xcode into a real iOS device. However, when deployed to TestFlight the app crashes. Here is what is a bit different, the dylib is not fully self-contained. It tries to reach in an use C functions I have exposed in my library code. Calling functions that are just within the dylib and just return works fine, but the moment it tries to call one of the exposed functions it crashes. A full in-depth step by step of how I packaged the binaries can be found in my website: https://ospfranco.com/complete-guide-to-dylibs-in-ios-and-android When I look at the TestFlight crash report there are no symbols but the termination cause via WatchDog is: Termination Reason: CODESIGNING 2 Invalid Page I have declared my functions as such: OBJC_EXTERN void ios_prepare_request(const char *url) #define EXPORT __attribute__((visibility("default"), used, retain)) extern "C" { EXPORT void ios_prepare_request(const char *url) { NSString *urlString = [NSString stringWithUTF8String:url]; request = [NSMutableURLRequest requestWithURL:[NSURL URLWithString:urlString]]; } } // Function used to prevent optimization void force_symbol_registration() { // Force these symbols to be included in the binary by referencing them volatile void *ptrs[] = {(void *)ios_prepare_request,}; // Prevent compiler from optimizing away the array (void)ptrs; } And I load my framework as: opacity::force_symbol_registration(); // NSBundle *dylib_bundle = // [NSBundle bundleWithIdentifier:@"com.opacitylabs.sdk"]; // NSString *dylib_path = [dylib_bundle pathForResource:@"sdk" ofType:@""]; // // Load the dynamic library // void *handle = dlopen([dylib_path UTF8String], RTLD_NOW | RTLD_GLOBAL); // if (!handle) { // NSString *errorMessage = [NSString stringWithUTF8String:dlerror()]; // *error = // [NSError errorWithDomain:@"OpacitySDKDylibError" // code:1002 // userInfo:@{NSLocalizedDescriptionKey : // errorMessage}]; // return -1; // or appropriate error code // } // Make sure the main executable's symbols are available dlopen(NULL, RTLD_NOW | RTLD_GLOBAL); NSBundle *frameworkBundle = [NSBundle bundleWithIdentifier:@"com.opacitylabs.sdk"]; if (![frameworkBundle isLoaded]) { BOOL success = [frameworkBundle load]; if (!success) { NSString *errorMessage = @"Failed to load framework"; *error = [NSError errorWithDomain:@"OpacitySDKDylibError" code:1002 userInfo:@{NSLocalizedDescriptionKey : errorMessage}]; return -1; } } As you can see, I have also tried dlopen both work when run from Xcode but crash when deployed on testflight. I have tried re-signing the xcframework/frameworks on a pre build step but it doesn't work As stated, I can call the functions inside the dylib, but once they try to call my exposed code it crashes Is this achievable at all or just a limitation of the iOS sandbox?

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.

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.

Hello, I have a macOS app built with Flutter’s macOS target (native Xcode project). The app is unsigned (no Developer ID code signing / notarization). The .app bundle looks valid: CFBundlePackageType = APPL Unique CFBundleIdentifier No LSUIElement or LSBackgroundOnly Executable exists and is runnable Placed at /Applications/MyApp.app (top-level), runs fine from Finder However, it does not show up in Launchpad. What I tried: Remove quarantine: xattr -dr com.apple.quarantine "/Applications/MyApp.app" Force Launch Services registration: /System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/Frameworks/LaunchServices.framework/Support/lsregister -f "/Applications/MyApp.app" Rebuild LS caches: /System/Library/Frameworks/CoreServices.framework/Frameworks/LaunchServices.framework/Support/lsregister -kill -r -domain local -domain system -domain user Reset Launchpad DB and restart Dock: defaults write com.apple.dock ResetLaunchPad -bool true && killall Dock Verified bundle structure/type: mdls -name kMDItemContentType -name kMDItemKind "/Applications/MyApp.app" → shows com.apple.application-bundle / Application Questions Is code signing/notarization required for an app to appear in Launchpad (even if it runs from Finder)? What additional conditions cause Launchpad to skip an otherwise valid, unsigned .app in /Applications? Are there deeper Launch Services or Dock database checks I can run to diagnose why this specific app is excluded?

I added a watchkit extension to an existing app. I get this error when uploading to App Store Connect. Building the archive itself is fine: Prepared archive for uploading Upload failed error: Validation failed Missing Info.plist value. A value for the key “WKApplication”, or “WKWatchKitApp” if your project has a WatchKit App Extension target, is required in “Runner.app/Watch/watch_Watch_App.app” bundle. For details, see: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/watchkit/creating_independent_watchos_apps/setting_up_a_watchos_project have the exact same issue when bundling. I added the flag manually in a additional plist fields entry with WKApplication=1 because my Info.Plist is generated and it didn't help. I wrote a custom Run Script Phase that added the flag and that didn't help as well. I need a reply from someone from Apple here. This needs to be fixed.

Hi guys, Is there any good up-to-date tutorial about publishing a Python based app on Apple Store? Now, I have developed a standalone Python app from PyCharm, and it's using Pyside6 for UI and some major Python libraries. It's a productivity app with a little A.I. features. I used PyInstaller to prepare the app. Currently, I am stuck at the stage of codesign and Apple Review process, because I am manually doing codesign and building the package from command-line. Without using Xcode, things can get messy or miss easily. It would be nice to follow a up-to-date tutorial about how to complete the codesign and Apple Review process for a Python based app. For example, what to do, how to do, what to be careful during the Apple Review process, etc. Thanks!

We have an app which is hybrid using React Native and Native features. We released our app recently which showed issues related to missing packages/corrupt package but xCode didn't gave any error and we were able to Archive and submit app successfully.

To validate incoming XPC connections from other executables, we perform SecCode checks for the dynamic signature of the connection (kSecCSDynamicInformation). Reading the setCodeSigningRequirement(_:) function documentation it appears to perform only static signing checks, is that so? If we use setCodeSigningRequirement(:) function in our listener(:, shouldAcceptNewConnection:) do we still need to check the dynamic information to be properly secure?

Hello Apple Developer Support Community, I am encountering a persistent issue while trying to code sign my macOS application (PromptVault.app) using a valid Developer ID Application certificate. The signing process fails with the following warning and error for every native .so file inside the app bundle: `Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "(null)" <file-path>: errSecInternalComponent` What I have tried so far: Verified that my Developer ID Application certificate and the associated private key exist correctly in the login keychain. Confirmed that the intermediate certificate "Apple Worldwide Developer Relations - G6" is installed and valid in the System keychain. Added Terminal to Full Disk Access in Security & Privacy to ensure signing tools have required permissions. Executed security set-key-partition-list to explicitly allow code signing tools to access the private key. Reinstalled both developer and Apple intermediate certificates. Used codesign to individually sign .so files and then sign the entire bundle. Ensured macOS and Xcode Command Line Tools are up to date. Created a clean Python virtual environment and rebuilt all dependencies. Tested code signing in multiple ways and with verbose logging. Current status: Despite all these efforts, the same warning and error persist during the signing process of every .so file. This prevents successful code signing and notarization, blocking distribution. Request for assistance: Could anyone confirm if my certificate and keychain setup sounds correct? Are there known issues or extra steps necessary to properly build the trust chain for Developer ID certificates on macOS 15.6.1 (Sequoia)? Any suggestions for resolving the errSecInternalComponent during signing native libraries? Guidance on ensuring the entire certificates chain is trusted and usable by codesign tools? I can provide debug logs, screenshots of my keychain and security settings, or any other diagnostic information if needed. Thanks in advance for your help!

Your development team has reached the maximum number of registered iPhone devices. I am use the free provisioning file. So how can I delete old device and use my new iPhone to develop my app. only way is use a paid account? or register a new Apple ID?

We have an application which keeps throwing the error "application is damaged and cannot be opened. You should move it to Trash" I have already referred to the documentation: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/706379 and https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/706442 I have checked the following possible root causes: Codesign of the application using the codesign command Notarization of the application using the spctl command Executable permissions Checked for the presence of "com.apple.quarantine" flag for the application using xattr -l <path to executables" Checked the bundle structure None of the above listed items seemed to be a problem and are as expected. Can you please help us understand what could cause this issue and how to resolve this without recommending an uninstall/reinstall of the application?

I am experiencing a persistent issue when trying to sign my application, PhotoKiosk.app, using codesign. The process consistently fails with the error errSecInternalComponent, and my troubleshooting indicates the problem is with how the system accesses or validates my certificate's trust chain, rather than the certificate itself. Error Details and Configuration: codesign command executed: codesign --force --verbose --options=runtime --entitlements /Users/sergiomordente/Documents/ProjetosPhotocolor/PhotoKiosk-4M/entitlements.plist --sign "Developer ID Application: Sérgio Mordente (G75SJ6S9NC)" /Users/sergiomordente/Documents/ProjetosPhotocolor/PhotoKiosk-4M/dist/PhotoKiosk.app Error message received: Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "(null)" /Users/sergiomordente/Documents/ProjetosPhotocolor/PhotoKiosk-4M/dist/PhotoKiosk.app: errSecInternalComponent Diagnostic Tests and Verifications Performed: Code Signing Identity Validation: I ran the command security find-identity -v -p codesigning, which successfully confirmed the presence and validity of my certificate in the Keychain. The command output correctly lists my identity: D8FB11D4C14FEC9BF17E699E833B23980AF7E64F "Developer ID Application: Sérgio Mordente (G75SJ6S9NC)" This suggests that the certificate and its associated private key are present and functional for the system. Keychain Certificate Verification: The "Apple Root CA - G3 Root" certificate is present in the System Roots keychain. The "Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority (G6)" certificate is present and shown as valid. The trust setting for my "Developer ID Application" certificate is set to "Use System Defaults". Attempted Certificate Export via security: To further diagnose the problem, I attempted to export the certificate using the security find-certificate command with the exact name of my identity. Command executed (using double quotes): security find-certificate -c -p "Developer ID Application: Sérgio Mordente (G75SJ6S9NC)" &gt; mycert.pem Error message: security: SecKeychainSearchCopyNext: The specified item could not be found in the keychain. The same error occurred when I tried with single quotes. This result is contradictory to the output of find-identity, which successfully located the certificate. This suggests an internal inconsistency in the Keychain database, where the certificate is recognized as a valid signing identity but cannot be located via a simple certificate search. Additional Troubleshooting Attempts: I have already recreated the "Developer ID Application" certificate 4 times (I am at the limit of 5), and the issue persists with all of them. The application has been rebuilt, and the codesign command was run on a clean binary. Conclusion: The problem appears to be an internal macOS failure to build the trust chain for the certificate, as indicated by the errSecInternalComponent error. Although the certificate is present and recognized as a valid signing identity by find-identity, the codesign tool cannot complete the signature. The failure to find the certificate with find-certificate further supports the suspicion of an inconsistency within the keychain system that goes beyond a simple certificate configuration issue. I would appreciate any guidance on how to resolve this, especially given that I am at my developer certificate limit and cannot simply generate a new one.

I've recently upgraded to the RC candidates of macOS 26 and Xcode 26. The app I'm building has a helper tool using SMAppService. When I run the app and helper tool in macOS 15 or macOS 26, all works as expected. When it runs on macOS 13 or 14, which previously worked. The helper now crashes on launch with the following reason: Termination Reason: CODESIGNING 4 Launch Constraint Violation I found this developer session which seems to address this, but the plist I've added doesn't seem to satisfy the constraint. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2023/10266/ Here are the contents of my new plist: Are there any gotchas here that I might be missing? Thanks!

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.

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"

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.

This post is part of a cluster of posts related to the trusted execution system. If you found your way here directly, I recommend that you start at the top. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Resolving Gatekeeper Problems Gatekeeper strives to ensure that only trusted software runs on a user’s Mac. It’s important that your code pass Gatekeeper. If not, you’re likely to lose a lot of customers, and your users’ hard-won trust. There are four common Gatekeeper problems: App blocked by a dangling load command path Broken code signature Lack of notarisation Command-line tool blocked by Gatekeeper The first problem is by far the most common. For the details, see Resolving Gatekeeper Problems Caused by Dangling Load Command Paths. For general information about Gatekeeper, read Apple > Developer > Signing Mac Software with Developer ID and Apple > Support > Safely open apps on your Mac. IMPORTANT This post focuses on Developer ID-signed code. Gatekeeper should not block App Store apps. If an app downloaded from the App Store fails to run, it’s likely to be some other trusted execution issue. For more about this, read Resolving Trusted Execution Problems. macOS 14 introduced gktool, a very minimal interface to Gatekeeper. Run the tool with the help argument to learn more: % gktool help Verify Your Signature A good first step in any Gatekeeper investigation is to verify that your code is signed correctly. Use the codesign tool for this: % codesign -v -vvv --strict --deep MyApp.app The -vvv options increase verbosity to the point where codesign will give you useful diagnostics. For example: % codesign -v -vvv --strict --deep "Munged.app" Munged.app: a sealed resource is missing or invalid file added: …/Munged.app/Contents/Resources/names/Adam.txt file modified: …/Munged.app/Contents/Resources/names/Morgan.txt file missing: …/Munged.app/Contents/Resources/names/Rhonda.txt This app was changed after it was signed in three different ways: Adam.txt was added. Morgan.txt was modified. Rhonda.txt was removed. You might see some results that make no sense. For example: Start with an app with a valid code signature: % codesign -v -vvv --strict --deep "NotNormal.app" NotNormal.app: valid on disk NotNormal.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement Use the Finder to create a zip archive (File > Compress). Use the Finder to unpack that archive. Check the code signature of the unpacked file: % codesign -v -vvv --strict --deep "NotNormal 2.app" NotNormal 2.app: a sealed resource is missing or invalid file added: …/NotNormal 2.app/Contents/Resources/names/Zoë Schrödinger.txt file missing: …/NotNormal 2.app/Contents/Resources/names/Zoë Schrödinger.txt There are two things to note here. First, just compressing and decompressing the app broke its code signature. Weird! Second, look at the error messages. It seems that the Zoë Schrödinger.txt file is was both added and removed. Weirder! To see what’s going on here you have to look at a hex dump of the file name: % ls "NotNormal.app/Contents/Resources/names" | xxd 00000000: 5a6f c3ab 2053 6368 726f cc88 6469 6e67 Zo.. Schro..ding 00000010: 6572 2e74 7874 0a er.txt. % ls "NotNormal 2.app/Contents/Resources/names" | xxd 00000000: 5a6f 65cc 8820 5363 6872 6fcc 8864 696e Zoe.. Schro..din 00000010: 6765 722e 7478 740a ger.txt. The names are not the same! The app started out with the ë in precomposed form and the ö in decomposed form. Compressing and decompressing the app converted the ë to its decomposed form, and that change broke the code signature. Programs that deal with Unicode are expected to ignore differences in normalisation. Sadly, Apple’s code signing implementation missed that memo (r. 68829319). For more details see this post but the executive summary is that it’s best to stick to ASCII when naming files in a bundle. Identify a Notarisation Problem Gatekeeper requires that your app be notarised. If not, it will block the execution of your app with a generic, user-level message. If you find your app blocked by Gatekeeper, check if this is a notarisation issue by looking in the system log for an entry like this: type: info time: 2022-05-11 14:57:21.812176 -0700 process: syspolicyd subsystem: com.apple.syspolicy category: default message: ticket not available: 2/2/8b7410713591e6c79ea98f0132136f0faa55d22a Note If the ticket details show as <private>, enable private data in the system log. For information on how to do that, see Recording Private Data in the System Log. For general information about the system log, see Your Friend the System Log. The long hex number is the code directory hash, or cdhash, of the offending code. In this example, it’s the cdhash of the app itself: % codesign -d -vvv /Applications/NotNotarised.app … CDHash=8b7410713591e6c79ea98f0132136f0faa55d22a … However, in some cases it may be the cdhash of some library referenced by the app. For more information about cdhashes, see TN3126 Inside Code Signing: Hashes. Resolve a Notarisation Problem The obvious cause of this problem is that you haven’t notarised your app. For information on how to do that, see Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution. If you have notarised your app and yet you still see this problem, something more subtle is happening. For example, your app might reference a dynamic library that wasn’t seen by the notary service. To investigate this: Fetch the notary log for your app. For advice on that, see Fetching the Notary Log. Confirm that the notary log matches the app you installed. Look in the notary log for the sha256 property. Its value is a SHA-256 hash of the file received by the notary service. Check that this matches the SHA-256 hash of the file you used to install your app. If not, see Hash Mismatch, below. Search the notary log for the cdhash value from the Gatekeeper log message. If the notary log doesn’t contain that cdhash, that code wasn’t included in the notarised ticket. It’s possible that you failed to submit the code to the notary service, that it was switched out with a different version after you notarised your app, that it was package in some way that the notary service couldn’t see it, or that something went wrong within the notary service. Hash Mismatch If you stapled your notarised ticket to the file used to install your app then the hashes in step 2 of the previous section won’t match. What to do depends on the file type: If the file used to install your app was a zip archive (.zip), you definitely have the wrong file. Zip archives don’t support stapling. If the file used to install your app was a signed disk image (.dmg), compare the disk image’s cdhash with the cdhash for the disk image in the notary log. If those match, you know you’re working with the same disk image. To dump a disk image’s cdhash, run the codesign tool as follows: % codesign -d -vvv DISK_IMAGE … CDHash=d963af703ac2e54af6609e9ad309abee7b66fae2 … Replace DISK_IMAGE with the path to your disk image. If the file used to install your app was a disk image but it wasn’t signed, switch to a signed disk image. It’s generally a better option. If the file used to install your app was an installer package (.pkg), there’s no good way to know if this is the correct package. In this case, modify your notarisation workflow to retain a copy of the file before it was modified by stapler. Tool Blocked by Gatekeeper If your product includes a command-line tool, you might notice this behaviour: When you double click the tool in Finder, it’s blocked by Gatekeeper. When you run the tool from within Terminal, it works. This is a known bug in macOS (r. 58097824). The issue is that, when you double click a tool in the Finder, it doesn’t run Gatekeeper’s standard execution logic. Rather, the Finder passes the tool to Terminal as a document and that opens a window (and associated shell) in which to run that document. This triggers Gatekeeper’s document logic, and that logic always blocks the tool. There are two ways around this: Embed your tool in an application. If the user runs the application first, Gatekeeper runs its normal application check. If the user allows the app to run, Gatekeeper records that decision and applies it to the app and any code within the app, including your tool. Install your tool using an installer package. When the user goes to install the package, Gatekeeper checks it. Assuming that check passes, Gatekeeper does no further checks on the content it installed. Revision History 2024-11-11 Added a mention of gktool. 2022-05-20 Added the Verify Your Signature section. Made other minor editorial changes.