You can now easily request access to managed capabilities for your App IDs directly from the new Capability Requests tab in Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles > Identifiers. With this update, view available capabilities in one convenient location, check the status of your requested capabilities, and see any notes from Apple related to your requests. Learn more about capability requests.

General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums subtopics: Code Signing > General, Code Signing > Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles, Code Signing > Notarization, Code Signing > Entitlements Forums tags: Code Signing, Signing Certificates, Provisioning Profiles, Entitlements Developer Account Help — This document is good in general but, in particular, the Reference section is chock-full of useful information, including the names and purposes of all certificate types issued by Apple Developer web site, tables of which capabilities are supported by which distribution models on iOS and macOS, and information on how to use managed capabilities. Developer > Support > Certificates covers some important policy issues Bundle Resources > Entitlements documentation TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles — This includes links to the other technotes in the Inside Code Signing series. WWDC 2021 Session 10204 Distribute apps in Xcode with cloud signing Certificate Signing Requests Explained forums post --deep Considered Harmful forums post Don’t Run App Store Distribution-Signed Code forums post Resolving errSecInternalComponent errors during code signing forums post Finding a Capability’s Distribution Restrictions forums post Signing code with a hardware-based code-signing identity forums post New Capabilities Request Tab in Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles forums post Isolating Code Signing Problems from Build Problems forums post Investigating Third-Party IDE Code-Signing Problems forums post Determining if an entitlement is real forums post Mac code signing: Forums tag: Developer ID Creating distribution-signed code for macOS documentation Packaging Mac software for distribution documentation Placing Content in a Bundle documentation Embedding nonstandard code structures in a bundle documentation Embedding a command-line tool in a sandboxed app documentation Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement documentation Defining launch environment and library constraints documentation WWDC 2023 Session 10266 Protect your Mac app with environment constraints TN2206 macOS Code Signing In Depth archived technote — This doc has mostly been replaced by the other resources linked to here but it still contains a few unique tidbits and it’s a great historical reference. Manual Code Signing Example forums post The Care and Feeding of Developer ID forums post TestFlight, Provisioning Profiles, and the Mac App Store forums post For problems with notarisation, see Notarisation Resources. For problems with the trusted execution system, including Gatekeeper, see Trusted Execution Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

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'

we are currently using an APNs Authentication Key to send notifications and have not generated any Development or Production APNs certificates. Could you please confirm whether using the APNs Authentication Key alone is sufficient under the updated requirements? Alternatively, do we need to generate Development and Production APNs certificates that support SHA-2 for compliance with the changes?

Hello, we are currently encountering a similar issue. We need to inject our capabilities into a third-party app by re-signing it (not a full re-signing process—just requiring the provisioning profile and certificate to match). However, this seems to affect the functionality of universal links. We've found that this issue only occurs on iOS 18. We noticed that when re-signing the app, the entitlements related to associated domains are changed to a wildcard: [Key] com.apple.developer.associated-domains [Value] [Array] [String] * However, this doesn’t cause any issues on iOS 17. Through further testing, we discovered that in order for universal links to work properly, we need to restore the original value of com.apple.developer.associated-domains and use a provisioning profile that matches the app's bundle ID. This means our previous re-signing approach using a certificate and provisioning profile from another bundle will no longer work. We’d like to ask: is this a new restriction introduced in iOS 18? If we manually restore the original com.apple.developer.associated-domains entitlement and use a provisioning profile that matches the app’s bundle ID, will universal links function correctly going forward?

I am reaching out regarding a persistent issue I have been facing with code signing. Despite extensive troubleshooting, I am unable to resolve the problem, and I would greatly appreciate your assistance. When attempting to sign my electron application with codesign with the following command: codesign --keychain ~/Library/Keychains/login.keychain --sign “Developer ID Application: MYNAME (DEV-ID)” --force --timestamp --options runtime --verbose=4 dist/mac-arm64/my.app I receive the following error message: “Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer ‘Developer ID Application: MYNAME (DEV-ID)‘“. This prevents me from successfully completing the code signing and notarization process. To resolve this, I have meticulously tried to troubleshoot the problem. Here are the steps taken so far: Imported Certificates into Keychains: I imported all necessary certificates (including Developer ID Application, Developer ID Certification Authority, Apple Root CA and Apple Root CA - G2) into the keychain. I tested with both the System and Login keychains (one at a time to avoid errors due to duplicates) Checked Trust Settings: I confirmed that the trust settings for the certificates are properly configured to “Always Trust.” I verified the private key is present in Keychain Access and is properly linked to the public certificate. Ensured valid identity: I ensured that the correct Developer ID identity is valid and the associated private key is available (security find-identity -v -p codesigning and security find-key -t private | grep “MY NAME”) Ensured keychain access permissions: I ensured that the respective keychain has access permissions (security set-key-partition-list -S apple-tool:,apple: -s -k ~/Library/Keychains/login.keychain) Verified matching Issuer and Subject to build certificate chain: I verified that the Issuer and Subject fields in the certificates show the correct references to build the certificate chain. Deleted and Re-imported Certificates: I deleted and re-imported the certificates multiple times to ensure there were no import issues or corruption in the certificates. Tested simplified setup: I attempted to sign simple files, such as a plain .txt file, using the Developer ID Application certificate I also attempted signing with minimal flags to rule out any issues with the app structure or build configuration Updated Xcode Command Line Tools One potential factor is that I am signing the application on a different machine from the one where the certificates were originally generated. I included the private key when exporting the certificate as a .p12 file from the original computer and imported it into the second computer’s keychain. This second computer is not connected to iCloud, and I suspect this could potentially affect the signing process. Despite all these efforts, the issue persists, and I am unable to identify the root cause. I would greatly appreciate your guidance on resolving this matter so I can successfully complete the code signing and notarization process. Thank you for your time and support.

My notarization submission been "In Progress" status for over 30 minutes now. I thought this process should be much faster.

Hello, I'm currently developing an iOS app that uses SensorKit. Everything works fine in development and testing — the app correctly requests and receives SensorKit permissions on test devices. In my App ID configuration, the SensorKit Reader Access entitlement (com.apple.developer.sensorkit.reader.allow) is included and visible in Xcode under the project’s entitlements list. However, when I try to archive and distribute the app, I get the following errors in Xcode: Provisioning profile failed qualification Profile doesn't support SensorKit Reader Access. Provisioning profile failed qualification Profile doesn't include the com.apple.developer.sensorkit.reader.allow entitlement. Even though my provisioning profile includes this entitlement, Xcode still refuses to distribute the app. Here’s what I’ve confirmed so far: The provisioning profile lists com.apple.developer.sensorkit.reader.allow in its entitlements. SensorKit works perfectly in debug and development builds. The issue only occurs when attempting to distribute (Archive → Distribute App). Could this be because my account has only development entitlement for SensorKit and not the distribution entitlement? If so, how can I verify or request the proper distribution entitlement for SensorKit Reader Access? Thank you for any guidance or confirmation from Apple regarding this entitlement behavior.

I just made a TikTok account accidentally using my Apple ID I’m trying to delete the account and the only way to delete it is to put this code in I don’t know where to look for the code and apparently it was sent to my private relay.appleid.com.

Hi Team, i'm running into same issue with notarization time. I create new, small app for a customer but however the notarization is running since this morning, so almost a few hours. This isn't normal or ? Is there anything what i can do ? Best regard, Lars

i was complete my program, and export a mac app already it work ok in my macmini, but if i want send it to app store, that i have no way now i still do not know how to make this app perfect like, when i use pyinstaller to build this app, is there any info or elements need make with? i can sign my app now, even i use codesign -dvvv my.app to check the sign, it is also ok, there no any feedback said it anything wrong. so, any master know fix app sign or any infoplist please tech me... help

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.

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

I am writing to follow up on my request for Family Control permission, which I submitted through the appropriate form over a week ago. Unfortunately, I have not yet received any response or access to the requested permissions. Could you kindly provide an update on the status of my request? If any further information or action is needed from my end, please let me know.

A few weeks ago I requested the subject entitlement. I'm still waiting for it to be added to our account. Who or how can I find out what going on with it. I have no correspondence from Apple yet saying it was denied and why. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/entitlements/com.apple.developer.persistent-content-capture?language=objc Thank you.

Hello, I've been trying to notarize a Unity 2023.2 app since yesterday, but our submissions stay stuck in In Progress. The first one has been running for 18 hours now with no signs of stopping, and two more attempts have been made since with no results. Here are the submission IDs in case someone on the team wants to take a look: 00ef6def-601b-46f3-a94f-699d8956a28f d03f5748-2261-430c-934e-14fa9679afd9 a42d3b5c-3cdb-4bf2-9c86-c92320358ff3 Thank you!

App Notarization got stuck, showing In-Progress from last 24 hrs. This is really frustrating. Can anyone plz update on this?

I'm trying to add keychain-access-groups capability to my app for MacOs devices and I'm getting an error while signing the code. If I add this capability to an app for iOS devices, this does not happen and it works correctly. Are there any limitations to using this capability on MacOS devices? My entitlement file is 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/> <key>com.apple.security.application-groups</key> <array> <string>group.com.cqesolutions</string> </array> <key>com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-only</key> <true/> <key>com.apple.security.smartcard</key> <true/> <key>keychain-access-groups</key> <array> <string>$(AppIdentifierPrefix)com.cqesolutions.desktopDNIe</string> <!--<string>$(AppIdentifierPrefix)com.apple.token</string>--> <string>com.apple.token</string> </array> </dict> </plist>

Hi, This is my first time developing for iPhone, and I believe I have encountered an unusual edge case related to user management. Background: I work at a very small company currently in the proof-of-concept stage of building an iOS app. We created an Apple account under the company name: Green Vibe, using our corporate email. Initially, I developed the app under the free account on my local iPhone, and everything worked smoothly. When NFC functionality became necessary, we upgraded to a paid Apple Developer account. At that point, I enrolled as a developer under my personal name (Or Itach) while logged in with the Green Vibe Apple account. I want to emphasize that only one Apple account was created — the Green Vibe account. The Issue: When attempting to add NFC, I was able to create the required certificate under the name Or Itach. However, when compiling the project, Xcode prompts me to enter the login password for the user Or Itach. This is problematic because there is no Apple ID associated with that name — only the Apple Developer enrollment under Green Vibe exists. Request: Could you please advise on the proper way to resolve this situation? Specifically: Should the developer enrollment be tied directly to the Green Vibe account rather than to an individual name? How can I correctly configure the account so that Xcode no longer requires a nonexistent Apple ID password? Thank you very much for your support and clarification.

The notary service requires that all Mach-O images be linked against the macOS 10.9 SDK or later. This isn’t an arbitrary limitation. The hardened runtime, another notarisation requirement, relies on code signing features that were introduced along with macOS 10.9 and it uses the SDK version to check for their presence. Specifically, it checks the SDK version using the sdk field in the LC_BUILD_VERSION Mach-O load command (or the older LC_VERSION_MIN_MACOSX command). There are three common symptoms of this problem: When notarising your product, the notary service rejects a Mach-O image with the error The binary uses an SDK older than the 10.9 SDK. When loading a dynamic library, the system fails with the error mapped file has no cdhash, completely unsigned?. When displaying the code signature of a library, codesign prints this warning: % codesign -d vvv /path/to/your.dylib … Library validation warning=OS X SDK version before 10.9 does not support Library Validation … If you see any of these errors, read on… The best way to avoid this problem is to rebuild your code with modern tools. However, in some cases that’s not possible. Imagine if your app relies on the closed source libDodo.dylib library. That library’s vendor went out of business 10 years ago, and so the library hasn’t been updated since then. Indeed, the library was linked against the macOS 10.6 SDK. What can you do? The first thing to do is come up with a medium-term plan for breaking your dependency on libDodo.dylib. Relying on an unmaintained library is not something that’s sustainable in the long term. The history of the Mac is one of architecture transitions — 68K to PowerPC to Intel, 32- to 64-bit, and so on — and this unmaintained library will make it much harder to deal with the next transition. IMPORTANT I wrote the above prior to the announcement of the latest Apple architecture transition, Apple silicon. When you update your product to a universal binary, you might as well fix this problem on the Intel side as well. Do not delay that any further: While Apple silicon Macs are currently able to run Intel code using Rosetta 2, that’s not something you want to rely on in the long term. Heed this advice from About the Rosetta Translation Environment: Rosetta is meant to ease the transition to Apple silicon, giving you time to create a universal binary for your app. It is not a substitute for creating a native version of your app. But what about the short term? Historically I wasn’t able to offer any help on that front, but this has changed recently. Xcode 11 ships with a command-line tool, vtool, that can change the LC_BUILD_VERSION and LC_VERSION_MIN_MACOSX commands in a Mach-O. You can use this to change the sdk field of these commands, and thus make your Mach-O image ‘compatible’ with notarisation and the hardened runtime. Before doing this, consider these caveats: Any given Mach-O image has only a limited amount of space for load commands. When you use vtool to set or modify the SDK version, the Mach-O could run out of load command space. The tool will fail cleanly in this case but, if it that happens, this technique simply won’t work. Changing a Mach-O image’s load commands will break the seal on its code signature. If the image is signed, remove the signature before doing that. To do this run codesign with the --remove-signature argument. You must then re-sign the library as part of your normal development and distribution process. Remember that a Mach-O image might contain multiple architectures. All of the tools discussed here have an option to work with a specific architecture (usually -arch or --architecture). Keep in mind, however, that macOS 10.7 and later do not run on 32-bit Macs, so if your deployment target is 10.7 or later then it’s safe to drop any 32-bit code. If you’re dealing with a Mach-O image that includes 32-bit Intel code, or indeed PowerPC code, make your life simpler by removing it from the image. Use lipo for this; see its man page for details. It’s possible that changing a Mach-O image’s SDK version could break something. Indeed, many system components use the main executable’s SDK version as part of their backwards compatibility story. If you change a main executable’s SDK version, you might run into hard-to-debug compatibility problems. Test such a change extensively. It’s also possible, but much less likely, that changing the SDK version of a non-main executable Mach-O image might break something. Again, this is something you should test extensively. This list of caveats should make it clear that this is a technique of last resort. I strongly recommend that you build your code with modern tools, and work with your vendors to ensure that they do the same. Only use this technique as part of a short-term compatibility measure while you implement a proper solution in the medium term. For more details on vtool, read its man page. Also familiarise yourself with otool, and specifically the -l option which dumps a Mach-O image’s load commands. Read its man page for details. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Revision history: 2025-04-03 — Added a discussion of common symptoms. Made other minor editorial changes. 2022-05-09 — Updated with a note about Apple silicon. 2020-09-11 — First posted.

Hi there, I am trying to build the Apple SimpleAudioDriver example but fail with codesign and/or provisioning. I would be ok for now with the local option, but XCode 16.4 doesn't show the option "build to run locally" (SIP is disabled). When using "Automatically manage signing" it ends in a "Please file a bug report". I found that having two different development teams tripped it up, so I deleted all certificates and keys and made sure to be only signed into one account in Xcode. Can anyone give advice? Thanks a ton! Here is the URL to the sample: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coreaudio/building-an-audio-server-plug-in-and-driver-extension macOS: 15.6.1 XCode: 16.4 Hardware: MacBook Pro M2 Max SIP: disabled

I would like to code sign an app or installer with an RSA 4096-bit code signing certificate. I created a CSR using RSA4096bit and ECC in Mac Keychain Access, but I was unable to use that CSR to create a code signing certificate on the Apple Developer site. How do I issue an RSA4096-bit or ECC code signing certificate?