Hi,
I've recently observed a sudden increase in support requests for one of my apps on the Mac App Store, reporting the error " is damaged and can't be opened. Please re-download it from the Mac App Store", all on different systems: macOS 12, macOS 13, and macOS 15 Sequoia.
Re-downloading does not resolve the issue most of the time.
One user reported that being connected to the internet resolved it - perhaps this is an OCSP issue again?
I myself cannot reproduce this issue.
Has there been a change in code-signing recently? Have some certificates changed? Anything else I should be aware of?
What is the best course of action to have users take who experience this, when re-downloading the app from the Mac App Store does not work?
Thank you,
– Matthias
General
RSS for tagDemystify code signing and its importance in app development. Get help troubleshooting code signing issues and ensure your app is properly signed for distribution.
Selecting any option will automatically load the page
Post
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Hello. I have an enterprise application that requires specific privileges to execute correctly on MacOS. One of these privileges is SystemPolicyAllFiles (aka Full Disk Access), as we use the endpoint security framework.
When we distribute our application, we generate:
A signed, notarized pkg consisting of our application binaries.
An MDM-compatible .mobileconfig, which contains the SystemPolicyAllFiles setting.
We expect our users to install both to get the application to function correctly.
However, we have three environments we deploy to: Internal (local development on a developer's workstation), "development" (where features are integrated prior to release) and "production" (what our customers get).
For local, our developers create an Apple account and use a Mac Development certificate for signing. They also generate their own embedded.provisionprofile and drop that into their local installation config. For development/production, we use our Developer ID certificate and Developer Installer certificate, with an endpoint security embedded.provisionprofile bound to those.
However, when we generate a .mobileconfig, we need to include a CodeRequirement (CR) for SystemPolicyAllFiles. I've been retrieving this using codesign -dr - ... (i.e., the designated requirement aka DR). However, the designated requirement is very specific to the certificate, which is problematic specifically for local development, where each developer has their own Mac Development certificate.
Here's what the relevant section of our generated mobileconfig looks like right now:
<dict>
<key>SystemPolicyAllFiles</key>
<array>
<dict>
<key>Allowed</key>
<true/>
<key>CodeRequirement</key>
<string>identifier "com.example.app and anchor apple generic and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = <TEAMID></string>
<key>Comment</key>
<string>app</string>
<key>Identifier</key>
<string>com.exmple.app</string>
<key>IdentifierType</key>
<string>bundleID</string>
<key>StaticCode</key>
<false/>
</dict>
</array>
</dict>
That's in a format that works for our Developer ID cert, but the DR for the Mac Development certificate looks like:
identifier "com.example.app" and anchor apple generic and certificate leaf[subject.CN] = "Mac Developer: John Doe (12ABC34567)" and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.1] /* exists */
Question: Is it possible to relax the code requirement so that it is generic enough to cover all Mac Developer certificates and Developer ID certificates we use? If not, is there a way to have one code requirement for our Mac Developer certificates and a separate CR for our Developer ID certificate?
My use case is deploying a static "local" .mobileconfig using our internal company MDM (Apple Business Essentials) to all developer workstations so we don't have to have each developer manually configure their system for the software to run.
Thanks!
D
We have a rather complex network of dependencies for our application stack and, from it, we create multiple unique executables that are placed into the Contents/MacOS directory of our bundle.
MyApp.app
`- Contents/
`- Frameworks/...
`- MacOS/
`- exec_a
`- exec_b
`- Resources/...
Both executables require the same dependencies (and use the same shared .dylib files built as targets in the same project) so it makes sense for them to be in the same place rather than in their own .app folder as I understand it.
Qt Libs -> core_lib.dylib -> gui_lib.dylib -> exec_a
`-> exec_b
etc.
We've confirmed build artifacts are correct and the rpath/dependencies are all clean. When in development, all executables run as expected and we can command exec_a (the executable we're listing in the primary Info.plist) to launch exec_b at any time.
Once the bundle is signed, however, we cannot get exec_b to launch in any capacity. Even lldb dies right away because it can't attach to anything. We assume this is something in the gatekeeper area of blocking these additional executables.
We get the following when trying to run those additional exes in any way:
Trace/BPT trap: 5
We're using macdeployqt to finalize the bundle and bring in the correct packages - perhaps something it's doing is causing the additional executables to fail or we're missing an entitlement.
We've submitted the app to TestFlights successfully even with these invalid executables to see if there was something the processing of the app would find but so far nothing.
We've seen other example of applications with multiple executables in the same MacOS directory and are wondering what the difference is. Any hints or guidance would be great. Thank you!
Hello,
We use automatic signing and Fastlane on our CI. Fastlane uses xcodebuild to create an archive.
xcodebuild -workspace ourApp.xcworkspace -scheme app-dev -destination generic/platform=iOS -archivePath app-dev.xcarchive -skipPackagePluginValidation -allowProvisioningUpdates -authenticationKeyID OurAppStoreConnectAuthKey -authenticationKeyIssuerID OurAppStoreConnectAuthKeyIssuerId -authenticationKeyPath /path/to/OurAppStoreConnectKey.p8 clean archive
All works fine, but ....
Why does Xcode 16 log out logged Apple ID and create a new every build? As a result, we have more and more Unknown Apple IDs in Xcode, and for each of them an error appears in log.
Error:
xcodebuild[3174:1804334] DVTDeveloperAccountManager: Failed to load credentials for 0A1DF15C-ETC-ETC: Error Domain=DVTDeveloperAccountCredentialsError Code=0 "Invalid credentials in keychain for 0A1DF15C-ETC-ETC, missing Xcode-Username" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Invalid credentials in keychain for 0A1DF15C-ETC-ETC, missing Xcode-Username}
Of course, the originally logged-in Apple ID has an error corresponding to his non-logged-in state.
xcodebuild[3174:1804334] DVTDeveloperAccountManager: Failed to load credentials for originally_logged-in_user: Error Domain=DVTDeveloperAccountCredentialsError Code=0 "Invalid credentials in keychain for originally_logged-in_user, missing Xcode-Token" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Invalid credentials in keychain for originally_logged-in_user, missing Xcode-Token}
Why does this happen and how can it be fixed? Why does Xcode 16 log out its logged Apple ID?
When I try to launch my own Java app, I get the following error message.
xpcproxy exited due to OS_REASON_CODESIGNING | Launch Constraint Violation, error info: c[5]p[1]m[1]e[0], (Constraint not matched) launch type 3, failure proc [vc: 1]: /bin/bash
As far as I know, the failing process path is /bin/bash.
This issue is only happening on macOS Sequoia. The Java app works without any issue on MacOS Sonoma or any previous macOS versions. I did not make any changes, including launch constraints or any other settings. After updating to macOS Sequoia, I started getting this error and can no longer launch my app.
Thank you so much.
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.
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?
Topic:
Code Signing
SubTopic:
General
I facing issue where the system extension i try to install have message:
no related kext found for sysex 'com.apple.usbsoundriver'
com.apple.usbsoundriver:extension failed to validate! uninstalling...
uninstalling invalid extension com.apple.usbsoundriver
Is internet access is required for system extension validation? I install the driver without internet access.
This work in some others machine, only fresh reformated Mac machine without internet connection have this issue. Why is this so?
Hi All,
Really weird one here...
I have two bundle ids with the same reverse dns name...
com.company.app1
com.company.app2
app1 was installed on the device a year ago.
app2 was also installed on the device a year ago but I released a new updated version and pushed it to the device via Microsoft InTunes.
A year ago the vendor Id's matched as the bundle id's were on the same domain of com.company.
Now for some reason the new build of app2 or any new app I build isn't being recognised as on the same domain as app1 even though the bundle id should make it so and so the Vendor Id's do not match and it is causing me major problems as I rely on the Vendor Id to exchange data between the apps on a certain device.
In an enterprise environment, does anyone know of any other reason or things that could affect the Vendor Id?
According to Apple docs, it seems that only the bundle name affects the vendor id but it isn't following those rules in this instance.
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.
Topic:
Code Signing
SubTopic:
General
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!
Hi, I am a long time programmer in C#, and newer to Rust, and a rookie to MacOS 15.1.
Over the past few days I have made numerous attempts to run a Rust GUI binary that I compiled on Mac.
Here are some examples of things I have tried using.
Executable compiled in M1 mac not running on Apple Silicon Mac - help - The Rust Programming Language Forum
And here....
How to run unsigned apps in macOS 15.1
Also here... "sudo spctl --master-disable"
There are many more that I have tried.
I also tried moving the binary from my developer folder to the Application folder and running....
xattr -r -d com.apple.quarantine /Applications/csv
Note that "csv" is the name of my binary.
You have probably seen this 100 times, so can you point me to me to something that allows my Rust binaries to run under MacOS?
PS The Rust program code works just fine under Linux. I can either type Cargo Run and run the binary from the Terminal or go directly to the executable and double click on it to open the GUI application. The only thing that MacOS lets me do it open the GUI from the Terminal. Commander One says that I do not have the proper credentials to open the file directly. Finder also does not allow me to open the binary directly.
Thanks, Jim
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?
We are using an app distributed via an iOS enterprise certificate. There is an exceptional user who could normally use the app signed with this certificate before upgrading to iOS 18. However, after updating to iOS 18 (currently on version 18.3), the app crashes immediately upon launch. Real-time logs indicate that the application fails to start. This issue is unique to this user, as other users on the same iOS 18.3 system do not experience the problem.
console log
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'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
I am a developer working on iOS apps.
I would like to report an issue occurring in iOS 18 beta and iOS 18.1 beta.
Our company has two Enterprise accounts, and we are developing two apps:
A app / TeamId: ABCDEFG
B app / TeamId: HIJKLMN
When we distribute these apps, which have different TeamIds, and install them on a device running iOS 18 beta,
both apps install successfully, but only one app will run.
(Other app crashed immediately after being launched.)
This issue does not occur on versions prior to iOS 18.
I would like to know if this is a problem that will be resolved in future updates, or if it is a policy change.
Background
I've repeatedly run into codesigning (and missing provisioning profile) issues for my Ruby/Glimmer app and am looking for ways to troubleshoot this outside of Xcode. The app structure is as follows:
PATHmanager.app
└── Contents
├── Info.plist
├── MacOS
│ └── PATHmanager
├── PkgInfo
├── Resources
│ └── AppIcon.icns
├── _CodeSignature
│ └── CodeResources
└── embedded.provisionprofile
Architecture
I have a Mac mini Apple M2 Pro with macOS Ventura 13.4. Xcode is not used directly, but the underlying command line tools (e.g., codesign, productbuild, pkgutil, xcrun) are run from a custom Ruby script.
xcodebuild -version
Xcode 14.3.1
Build version 14E300c
Questions
Is the .app directory and file structure/naming sufficient? If not, can you point me in the direction of a minimal example that does not use Xcode?
Info.plist is an XML text document (not binary), which I believe is in an acceptable format, but how do I lint this file and determine if it contains all of the necessary key/value pairs?
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
<key>CFBundleDevelopmentRegion</key>
<string>en</string>
<key>CFBundleDisplayName</key>
<string>PATH manager</string>
<key>CFBundleExecutable</key>
<string>PATHmanager</string>
<key>CFBundleIconFile</key>
<string>AppIcon.icns</string>
<key>CFBundleIdentifier</key>
<string>com.chipcastle.pathmanager</string>
<key>CFBundleInfoDictionaryVersion</key>
<string>6.0</string>
<key>CFBundleName</key>
<string>PATHmanager</string>
<key>CFBundlePackageType</key>
<string>APPL</string>
<key>CFBundleShortVersionString</key>
<string>1.15</string>
<key>CFBundleSupportedPlatforms</key>
<array>
<string>MacOSX</string>
</array>
<key>CFBundleVersion</key>
<string>1.15</string>
<key>ITSAppUsesNonExemptEncryption</key>
<false/>
<key>LSApplicationCategoryType</key>
<string>public.app-category.developer-tools</string>
<key>LSMinimumSystemVersion</key>
<string>12.0</string>
<key>LSUIElement</key>
<false/>
<key>NSAppTransportSecurity</key>
<dict>
<key>NSAllowsArbitraryLoads</key>
<true/>
</dict>
<key>NSHumanReadableCopyright</key>
<string>© 2025 Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc.</string>
<key>NSMainNibFile</key>
<string>MainMenu</string>
<key>NSPrincipalClass</key>
<string>NSApplication</string>
</dict>
</plist>
PATHmanager is a Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64 file created by using Tebako. Does this executable need to be codesigned, or is codesigning the .app folder sufficient?
Does the .app directory need an entitlements file? Here's how I codesign it:
codesign --deep --force --verify --verbose=4 --options runtime --timestamp --sign 'Apple Distribution: Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc. (BXN9N7MNU3)' '/Users/chip/Desktop/distribution/PATHmanager.app'
Does the PATHmanager binary need an entitlements file? Here's how I codesign it:
codesign --deep --force --verify --verbose=4 --options runtime --timestamp --entitlements '/Users/chip/Desktop/PATHmanager.entitlements' --sign 'Apple Distribution: Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc. (BXN9N7MNU3)' '/Users/chip/Desktop/distribution/PATHmanager.app/Contents/MacOS/PATHmanager'
How can I verify what entitlements, if any, are required for codesigning the binary? The PATHmanager.entitlements file is an XML text file containing only the following:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
<key>com.apple.security.app-sandbox</key>
<true/>
</dict>
</plist>
Is the embedded.provisionprofile necessary, and if so, how do I know determine if it matches the certificate or entitlements that I'm using? Additionally, is it named and located properly?
I submitted this to the AppStore several weeks ago and the reviewer reported that the executable would not load on their machine (even though it worked on mine.) Is it better for me to release via TestFlight for testing, and if so, do I need to following a separate process for codesigning (i.e., using different entitlements, profiles, certs, etc) when doing so?
I've been playing whack-a-mole with this for too long to mention and am hoping to nail down a better deployment flow, so any suggestions for improvement will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Topic:
Code Signing
SubTopic:
General