General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums subtopic: Code Signing > Notarization Forums tag: Notarization WWDC 2018 Session 702 Your Apps and the Future of macOS Security WWDC 2019 Session 703 All About Notarization WWDC 2021 Session 10261 Faster and simpler notarization for Mac apps WWDC 2022 Session 10109 What’s new in notarization for Mac apps — Amongst other things, this introduced the Notary REST API Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution documentation Customizing the Notarization Workflow documentation Resolving Common Notarization Issues documentation Notary REST API documentation TN3147 Migrating to the latest notarization tool technote Fetching the Notary Log forums post Q&A with the Mac notary service team Developer > News post Apple notary service update Developer > News post Notarisation and the macOS 10.9 SDK forums post Testing a Notarised Product forums post Notarisation Fundamentals forums post The Pros and Cons of Stapling forums post Resolving Error 65 When Stapling forums post Many notarisation issues are actually code signing or trusted execution issue. For more on those topics, see Code Signing Resources and Trusted Execution Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

We've noticed, that size of our ipa started to vary from time to time. We've found that all the difference was in the LC_CODE_SIGNATURE command under the _LINKEDIT segment of binary. The main reason of that change was the different number of hash slots due to different value of page size: 4096 on macOS SEQUOIA and 16384 on macOS TAHOE. So the size of the final binary was dependent on the machine, it was produced on. I didn't find out any information on why the default page size changed on TAHOE. Apple’s codesign supports a --pagesize argument. For regular builds that setting can be passed via OTHER_CODE_SIGN_FLAGS=--pagesize 16384. But it seems that xcodebuild export ...` completely ignores it: i've tried to pass invalid size (not the power of two), and the export still succeded. I've also managed to get xcodebuild logs via log stream --style compact --predicate 'process == "xcodebuild" OR process == "codesign"' --level trace They have no occurrences of --pagesize: 2026-03-24 13:43:27.236 Df xcodebuild[93993:a08c53] [IDEDistributionPipeline:verbose] invoking codesign: <NSConcreteTask: 0x8a1b21bd0; launchPath='/usr/bin/codesign', arguments='( "-f", "-s", 8C38C4A2CB0388A3DB6BAEFE438F20E044EE6CB2, "--entitlements", "/var/folders/w_/5t00sclx2vlcm4_fvly7wvh00000gn/T/XcodeDistPipeline.~~~T3Dcdf/entitlements~~~c2srXx", "--preserve-metadata=identifier,flags,runtime,launch-constraints,library-constraints", "--generate-entitlement-der", "--strip-disallowed-xattrs", "-vvv", "/var/folders/w_/5t00sclx2vlcm4_fvly7wvh00000gn/T/XcodeDistPipeline.~~~T3Dcdf/Root/Payload/App.app/Frameworks/FLEXWrapper.framework" )'> So here I have some questions: How is the default page size selected? Why the default page size may change between SEQUOIA and TAHOE? How to provide page size to xcodebuild's export or it's a bug that it doesn't look at the value of OTHER_CODE_SIGN_FLAGS?

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.

Hi All, Like many others I'm a little confused with gaining access to the family controls capability. Our app is ready to push to testflight, and we sent the request to apple last week. However only learning today that we need to request for the shield extension as well. I wanted to ask what the expected timeline is for being approved? I've seen posts here saying less than a week, and some people having to wait longer than 6 weeks. Any advise or guidance on getting approved smoothly & swiftly would be highly appreciated

We have an app with the default email entitlement that was granted several years ago. During our latest deployment, we received an error from our pipeline. When testing a manual submission in Xcode, we saw this error: Entitlement com.apple.developer.mail-client not found and could not be included in profile. This likely is not a valid entitlement and should be removed from your entitlements file. We checked the provisioning profile, and the default email entitlement is still present. It is visible on the certificate portal and also in the embedded.mobileprovision file. Can you suggest what we can do to release a new version of our app?

I am distributing a macOS application outside the App Store using Developer ID and need to provide provisioning profiles to customers for installation during the package installation process. I have two questions: How can I package and provide the provisioning profile(s) so that the customer can install them easily during the application installation process? Are there any best practices or tools that could simplify this step? In my case, there are multiple provisioning profiles. Should I instruct the customer to install each profile one by one, or is there a way to combine them and have them installed all at once? Any insights, resources, or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

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.

Hi everyone, I’m having trouble getting remote push notifications working on iOS for a production Flutter app, and it looks like it’s related to the provisioning profile / entitlements used during signing. Context Platform: Flutter Push provider: OneSignal (backend is Supabase; Android push works fine) CI: Codemagic Target: iOS TestFlight / App Store builds I’m on Windows, so I cannot open Xcode locally. All iOS builds happen via Codemagic. Capabilities / entitlements In the Apple Developer portal, my App ID for com.zachspizza.app has: Push Notifications capability enabled A separate Broadcast capability is listed but currently not checked. In my repo, ios/Runner/Runner.entitlements contains: xml aps-environment production So the project is clearly requesting the push entitlement. Codemagic signing setup For my App Store workflow (ios_appstore_release in codemagic.yaml ): I use a combination of manual and automatic signing: Environment variables can provide: P12_BASE64 + P12_PASSWORD (distribution certificate) MOBILEPROVISION_BASE64 (a .mobileprovision file) A script in the workflow: Creates a temporary keychain. Imports the .p12 and installs the .mobileprovision into ~/Library/MobileDevice/Provisioning Profiles. For the final export, I generate an exportOptions.plist that does: If a profile name/UUID is provided via env (PROV_PROFILE_SPEC, PROV_PROFILE_UUID, PROVISIONING_PROFILE_SPECIFIER, PROVISIONING_PROFILE): xml signingStylemanual provisioningProfiles com.zachspizza.app[profile name or UUID] Otherwise, it falls back to: xml signingStyleautomatic After archiving and exporting, my script runs: bash codesign -d --entitlements :- "$ARCHIVE_PATH/Products/Applications/Runner.app" ... and again on the signed Runner.app inside the exported IPA codesign -d --entitlements :- "$SIGNED_APP" In both cases, the effective entitlements output does not show aps-environment, even though: The App ID has push enabled. Runner.entitlements includes aps-environment = production. Observed behavior iOS devices (TestFlight build) do not receive remote push notifications at all. Android devices receive notifications as expected with the same backend payloads. OneSignal configuration and backend are verified; this appears to be an APNs / signing / entitlements problem. The Codemagic logs strongly suggest that the provisioning profile being used for signing does not carry aps-environment. Questions Under what conditions would a distribution provisioning profile (for an App ID with Push Notifications enabled) result in a signed app without aps-environment, even when: The entitlements file in the project includes aps-environment, and The App ID in the Developer portal has Push Notifications enabled? Does using a CI flow like the above (custom .p12 + .mobileprovision installed via script, exportOptions with signingStyle=manual) increase the chances of: Xcode ignoring the requested entitlements, or Selecting a provisioning profile variant that does not include the push entitlement? Is there a recommended way, from the Apple side, to verify that a given .mobileprovision (the one I’m base64-encoding and installing in CI) definitely includes the aps-environment entitlement for my bundle ID? i.e., a canonical method to inspect the profile and confirm that APNs is included before using it in CI? Are there any known edge cases where: The project entitlements include aps-environment, The App ID has Push Notifications enabled, But the final signed app still has no aps-environment, due to profile mismatch or signing configuration? Given that I’m on Windows and can’t open Xcode to manage signing directly, I’d really appreciate guidance on how to ensure that the correct push-enabled provisioning profile is being used in this CI/manual-signing setup, and how to debug why aps-environment is being stripped or not applied. CodeMagic Signing/Export Step: Signing / entitlements output from Codemagic Dumping effective entitlements for Runner.app in archive... /Users/builder/clone/build/ios/archive/Runner.xcarchive/Products/Applications/Runner.app: code object is not signed at all Failed to dump entitlements Exporting IPA with exportOptions.plist... 2025-11-20 22:25:00.111 xcodebuild[4627:42054] [MT] IDEDistribution: -[IDEDistributionLogging _createLoggingBundleAtPath:]: Created bundle at path "/var/folders/w2/rrf5p87d1bbfyphxc7jdnyvh0000gn/T/Runner_2025-11-20_22-25-00.110.xcdistributionlogs". 2025-11-20 22:25:00.222 xcodebuild[4627:42054] [MT] IDEDistribution: Command line name "app-store" is deprecated. Use "app-store-connect" instead. ▸ Export Succeeded Dumping entitlements from signed Runner.app inside exported IPA... Executable=/private/var/folders/w2/rrf5p87d1bbfyphxc7jdnyvh0000gn/T/tmp.LHkTK7Zar0/Payload/Runner.app/Runner warning: Specifying ':' in the path is deprecated and will not work in a future release application-identifier.com.zachspizza.app beta-reports-active com.apple.developer.team-identifier get-task-allow As you can see, the signed app’s entitlements do not contain aps-environment at all, even though Runner.entitlements in the project has aps-environmentproduction and the App ID has Push Notifications enabled. Thanks in advance for any help and pointers.

I’m working on an iOS VPN app and looking into using NETunnelProvider (Packet Tunnel) for the VPN implementation. From the documentation it seems that Packet Tunnel is required for VPN protocols like OpenVPN, but the Packet Tunnel capability doesn’t appear to be available by default. Does using NETunnelProvider / Packet Tunnel require a special entitlement to be enabled by Apple for App Store apps? If so, what is the general process for requesting or enabling that entitlement?

I'm attempting to upload an updated version of our macOS app for distribution via the App Store. We've done this without issue before, but I am now receiving a warning when I upload the app via Transporter: "Cannot be used with TestFlight because the signature for the bundle at “AXON Studio.app” is missing an application identifier but has an application identifier in the provisioning profile for the bundle. Bundles with application identifiers in the provisioning profile are expected to have the same identifier signed into the bundle in order to be eligible for TestFlight." (90886) I just recently started seeing this warning when I upload our application via Transporter. Before this warning started happening, I was using the exact same process and scripts to build/package/codesign our application. NOTE: we are not using Xcode to build our application, so we can't take advantage of any codesigning/packaging automation provided by Xcode (the app is written in C#/.NET 6.0), so we are doing all build/package/codesign steps using the appropriate macOS command line utilities. Also, I have verified that the app bundle and its contents have valid signatures. Does anyone have any idea what may have changed to cause this warning, or how I might go about determining the root cause so I can fix it?

Hey, Just recently I realized something I have been overlooking in my build pipelines. I thought that by adding the the "hardened runtime", I disable 3rd-party library injection (I do not have the disable-library-validation entitlement added). However, I was using some checks on my code and I noticed that the "library validation" code signature check fails on my applications (e.g. adding the .libraryValidation requirement via the LightweightCodeRequirements framework) - with codesign -dvvvv /path/to/app I can check it doesn't have the CS_REQUIRE_LV flag: [...] CodeDirectory v=20500 size=937 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=18+7 location=embedded [...] then I used in Xcode the "Other Code Signing Flags" setting and added the -o library option, which added the flag: [...] CodeDirectory v=20500 size=937 flags=0x12000(library-validation,runtime) hashes=18+7 location=embedded [...] Is this flag something I should be explicitly setting? Because I was under the impression enabling hardened runtime would be enough. Popular Developer ID distributed applications (e.g. Google Chrome, Parallels Desktop, Slack) all have this flag set.

I have a valid Developer ID Certificate, I've used it to sign an app locally and send the app to other machines of my colleagues to make sure it works and does not get triggered by GateKeeper Now I want to automate the process of signing and notarization on github actions and so I want to export my certificate and upload it there. Initially I tried uploading both the Developer ID Certificate and the G2 CA both as .cer files encoded in base64. But apparently I need my certificate to be in .p12 format When I try to export it from keychain access the option to export as .p12 is disabled. So how can I do it ?

Hi everyone, After I recently changed my Apple ID (iCloud) password, my Developer ID certificate stopped working for signing macOS apps. Symptoms: Signing fails with the Developer ID certificate that was previously working fine. I tried re-downloading the certificate from my Apple Developer account and importing it into the Keychain, but the issue persists. It seems that the Developer ID identity is no longer trusted or properly linked to my system since the password change. Attempts: Re-downloaded and installed the certificate from the developer portal. Verified that the private key is present and linked. Checked keychain access and code-signing identity — everything appears normal, but the signed apps are rejected or the signing process fails. Blocking issue: I am unable to delete or revoke the Developer ID certificate on my account (Apple Support says it's not possible). Also, I can't create a new one due to the certificate limit. Questions: Is it expected for a Developer ID certificate to become invalid after changing the Apple ID password? Is there a recommended way to refresh or restore the certificate trust on macOS? How can I invalidate the current certificate and generate a new one if I'm stuck? Any insights or official guidance would be really appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone, I am trying to generate an .ipa file for my .NET MAUI (net9.0-ios) application, but every attempt fails with the same codesigning error. I have tried multiple approaches, including building from Windows paired to macOS, and directly building through the macOS terminal, but nothing is working. Below are the exact steps I followed: Steps I Performed 1.>Generated the Apple Development certificate using Keychain Access on macOS. 2.>Added that certificate into my developer account and created the corresponding provisioning profile. 3.>Created an App ID, attached the App ID to the provisioning profile, and downloaded it. 4.>Added the provisioning profile into Xcode. Verified that the certificate is correctly visible in Keychain Access (private key available). Attempted to build/publish the MAUI app to generate the .ipa file. Issue Whenever I run the publish command or build via Windows/macOS, codesigning fails with the following error: /usr/bin/codesign exited with code 1: Frameworks/libSkiaSharp.framework: replacing existing signature Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "Apple Development: Created via API (8388XAA3RT)" Frameworks/libSkiaSharp.framework: errSecInternalComponent Failed to codesign 'PCS_EmpApp.app/Frameworks/libSkiaSharp.framework': Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "Apple Development: Created via API (8388XAA3RT)" PCS_EmpApp.app: errSecInternalComponent Build failed with 4 error(s) and 509 warning(s) Environment .NET: 9.0 MAUI: latest tools Xcode: 26.0.1 macOS: 26.0.1 Building for ios-arm64 (device) What I suspect It looks like the signer certificate might not be trusted, or the certificate chain cannot connect to an Apple root CA. But the certificate was created using the Developer website and appears valid. Need Help With Why is codesign unable to build the certificate chain? Do I need a different type of certificate? (App Store / Distribution vs Development?) How can I successfully generate the .ipa file? Any guidance will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

I'm experiencing an issue when exporting an Enterprise distribution certificate where the certificate and private key won't export together - the private key keeps getting left out. I'm running macOS Tahoe. Has anyone encountered the same issue or know of a solution? Any help would be appreciated.

Xcode automatic signing consistently fails for the macOS target when adding the App Groups capability, even though the Developer Portal is correctly configured. Error: Provisioning profile “Mac Team Provisioning Profile: com.example.testapp.mobile” doesn’t support the App Groups capability. Setup: • Bundle ID: com.example.testapp.mobile • App Group: $(TeamIdentifierPrefix)group.com.example.testapp.mobile Troubleshooting Steps Tried (None Helped): • Changed bundle identifiers and deleted/recreated them in the Developer Portal • Deleted and recreated App Groups • Removed and re-added the developer account in Xcode • Deleted all provisioning profiles from the system • Cleared Derived Data and Xcode caches • Even tried on a clean macOS system This setup used to work previously. The issue seems to have started after the Apple Developer account was renewed.

I believe that this is related to the post https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/790880. I essentially have the same problem that they did. I submit my Distribution PKG for notarization but the notarization fails and when I attempt to install the PKG user the UI I get a "External component packages (3) trustLevel=0 (trust evaluation failed; treating as invalid due to higher trust level for parent product archive)" However if I install using "sudo installer -verboseR -pkg ConcealDistribution.pkg -target /" everything works as expected. The difference between me and the other post is that when I expand my PKG using pkgutil --expand I do not have a Resources folder within my top level distribution. Instead my structure looks like ConcealDistribution ├── Distribution ├── ConcealConnect.pkg ├── ConcealBrowse.pkg └── ConcealUpdate.pkg The specific notary service errors I receive are as follows { "logFormatVersion": 1, "jobId": "7e30e3fd-1739-497c-a02e-64fbe357221d", "status": "Invalid", "statusSummary": "Archive contains critical validation errors", "statusCode": 4000, "archiveFilename": "ConcealDistribution.pkg", "uploadDate": "2025-10-08T19:41:33.491Z", "sha256": "40aacfacf25c6da0be8fe31ae9c145a25ddf9ed1f38be714687c74d95b26619d", "ticketContents": null, "issues": [ { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "ConcealDistribution.pkg", "message": "Package ConcealDistribution.pkg has no signed executables or bundles. No tickets can be generated.", "docUrl": null, "architecture": null }, { "severity": "warning", "code": null, "path": "ConcealDistribution.pkg", "message": "The contents of the package at ConcealDistribution.pkg could not be extracted.", "docUrl": null, "architecture": null } ] } For what its worth all the inner PKGs have their executables signed, the PKGs are signed themselves and they are all notarized and stapled without issue. Then I am attempting to sign and notarize the outer PKG and that is where the problems pop up. Additionally I'm not sure when this stopped working as I expected but just a few months ago I was able to do this exact same process and install with the UI and have it work.

I have been updating some NSXPCConnection code in my macOS 26 app (not sandboxed) to use XPCSession and friends instead. And it is working well and the experience has been generally good. But I have run into a problem when using XPCSession.setPeerRequirement() which I really want to use. It works well when I use something simple like XPCPeerRequirement.isFromSameTeam() but I want to check some more requirements and also use the code from multiple apps (but same team). That is, I want to check for multiple identifiers and team ID and version (and perhaps also in the future that the certificate is a Developer ID). And previously I would use SecRequirementCreateWithString with an entitlement string conceptually like this: var entitlement = "anchor apple generic and (" entitlement += "identifier idA" entitlement += " or identifier idB" entitlement += ")" entitlement += " and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = TeamID" entitlement += #" and info [CFBundleShortVersionString] >= "1.0""# and it works just as it should when creating and using that SecRequirement so I don't think that there is anything particularly wrong with the entitlement. And I had hoped that I could use the same string with XPCPeerRequirement.hasEntitlement(entitlement) but it doesn't work (I get a general "Peer forbidden" error). So I think that I don't really understand what sort of entitlement that hasEntitlement() wants. And also I don't really understand the other ways available to create a XPCPeerRequirement. I have also tried to use a XPCDictionary with XPCPeerRequirement(lightweightCodeRequirements:) but I can't get that to work either (and it seems a bit wrong to have to drop down to use e.g. xpc_object_t with new modern API:s). So my question is: is it possible to create a XPCPeerRequirement with an entitlement like above and, in that case, how? Or is there some other work-around to use XPCSession.setPeerRequirement() with a more complex requirement, e.g. is there a way to combine multiple XPCPeerRequirements into one? Thank you for reading this. /Peter

This is .entitlements file: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>com.apple.developer.endpoint-security.client</key> <true/> </dict> </plist> Code signing: codesign --sign -vvv --timestamp --options=runtime --force --entitlements ./UES.entitlements -s "Developer ID Application: XXXX Ltd. (XXXXXX)" ./UES.app When I run it on macOS 13.x, it works fine. If I run the system on macOS 11.x, it reports a "killed" error (if codesign remove --entitlements ./UES.entitlements, Then the startup will not report an error, but the endpoint security rights cannot be used) System log: 2025-04-21 13:58:27.039638+0800 0xd5941 Default 0x0 149 0 amfid: /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES signature not valid: -67050 2025-04-21 13:58:27.039762+0800 0xd5bbf Default 0x0 0 0 kernel: mac_vnode_check_signature: /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES: code signature validation failed fatally: When validating /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES: 2025-04-21 13:58:27.039815+0800 0xd5bbf Default 0x0 0 0 kernel: proc 29354: load code signature error 4 for file "UES" 2025-04-21 13:58:27.040720+0800 0xd5bc0 Default 0x0 0 0 kernel: (AppleSystemPolicy) ASP: Security policy would not allow process: 29354, /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES 2025-04-21 13:58:27.045974+0800 0xd58be Error 0x0 66405 0 CoreServicesUIAgent: [com.apple.launchservices:uiagent] handle LS launch error: {\n Action = oapp;\n AppMimimumSystemVersion = "10.13";\n AppPath = "/Applications/UES.app";\n ErrorCode = "-10826";\n} 2025-04-21 13:58:39.121619+0800 0xd5941 Default 0x0 149 0 amfid: /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES signature not valid: -67050 2025-04-21 13:58:39.121832+0800 0xd5e0f Default 0x0 0 0 kernel: mac_vnode_check_signature: /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES: code signature validation failed fatally: When validating /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES: 2025-04-21 13:58:39.121861+0800 0xd5e0f Default 0x0 0 0 kernel: proc 29415: load code signature error 4 for file "UES" 2025-04-21 13:58:39.122571+0800 0xd5e10 Default 0x0 0 0 kernel: (AppleSystemPolicy) ASP: Security policy would not allow process: 29415, /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES 2025-04-21 13:58:46.297915+0800 0xd5941 Default 0x0 149 0 amfid: /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES signature not valid: -67050 2025-04-21 13:58:46.298031+0800 0xd5f85 Default 0x0 0 0 kernel: mac_vnode_check_signature: /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES: code signature validation failed fatally: When validating /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES: 2025-04-21 13:58:46.298072+0800 0xd5f85 Default 0x0 0 0 kernel: proc 29485: load code signature error 4 for file "UES" 2025-04-21 13:58:46.300248+0800 0xd5f86 Default 0x0 0 0 kernel: (AppleSystemPolicy) ASP: Security policy would not allow process: 29485, /Applications/UES.app/Contents/MacOS/UES May I ask what the reason is?

I'm working on an app that needs access to device activity. When I add device activity entitlement, I'm getting Provisioning profile "..." doesn't include the com.apple.developer.deviceactivity entitlement. This is failing for both, the main app and the extension, and both have entitlements added. It is not clear how to add it to the profile, the provisioning profile is created/managed by XCode. When I remove the entitlement, I can build my app but it won't be able to use device activity data I reached out to Developer Support, and they sent me here. What is the right way to add device activity entitlement? I'm also seeing another issue with XCode Cloud builds. When I remove device activity entitlement. I can build my app w/o any issue, and I can also install it directly on my iPhone. However, XCode Cloud builds fail wit Run command: 'xcodebuild -exportArchive -archivePath /Volumes/workspace/tmp/d41fc2f1-4f39-4906-8941-112488e75f6c.xcarchive -exportPath /Volumes/workspace/adhocexport -exportOptionsPlist /Volumes/workspace/ci/ad-hoc-exportoptions.plist '-DVTPortalRequest.Endpoint=http://172.16.68.193:8089' -DVTProvisioningIsManaged=YES -IDEDistributionLogDirectory=/Volumes/workspace/tmp/ad-hoc-export-archive-logs -DVTSkipCertificateValidityCheck=YES -DVTServicesLogLevel=3' I suspect that it could be related to my app having DeviceActivityExtension but no device activity entitlement is present. Thanks, Peter.