IMPORTANT The underlying issue here (FB8830007) was fixed in macOS 11.3, so the advice in this post is irrelevant if you’re building on that release or later. Note This content is a repost of info from another thread because that thread is not world readable (it’s tied to the DTK programme). A number of folks have reported problems where: They have a product that supports older versions of macOS (anything prior to 10.11). If they build their product on Intel, everything works. If they build their product on Apple Silicon, it fails on those older versions of macOS. A developer filed a bug about this (FB8830007) and, based on the diagnosis of that bug, I have some info to share as to what’s going wrong and how you can prevent it. Let’s start with some background. macOS’s code signing architecture supports two different hash formats: sha1, the original hash format, which is now deprecated sha256, the new format, support for which was added in macOS 10.11 codesign should choose the signing format based on the deployment target: If your deployment target is 10.11 or later, you get sha256. If your deployment target is earlier, you get both sha1 and sha256. This problem crops up because, when building for both Intel and Apple Silicon, your deployment targets are different. You might set the deployment target to 10.9 but, on Apple Silicon, that’s raised to the minimum Apple Silicon system, 11.0. So, which deployment target does it choose? Well, the full answer to that is complex but the executive summary is that it chooses the deployment target of the current architecture, that is, Intel if you’re building on Intel and Apple Silicon if you’re building on Apple Silicon. For example: intel% codesign -d --arch x86_64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha1,sha256 … intel% codesign -d --arch arm64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha1,sha256 … arm% codesign -d --arch x86_64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha256 … arm% codesign -d --arch arm64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha256 … The upshot is that you have problems if your deployment target is less than 10.11 and you sign on Apple Silicon. When you run on, say, macOS 10.10, the system looks for a sha1 hash, doesn’t find it, and complains. The workaround is to supply the --digest-algorithm=sha1,sha256, which overrides the hash choice logic in codesign and causes it to include both hashes: arm% codesign -s - --digest-algorithm=sha1,sha256 Test664892.app arm% codesign -d --arch x86_64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha1,sha256 … % codesign -d --arch arm64 -vvv Test664892.app … Hash choices=sha1,sha256 … Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

From time to time I see folks run into error 65 when stapling a ticket to their notarised Mac software. This post explains the two common causes of that error. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread here on the forums. Put it in the Code Signing > Notarization topic area so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Resolving Error 65 When Stapling If you directly distribute Mac software, you must sign and notarise your product so that it passes Gatekeeper. For information on how to do this, see: Notarizing macOS software before distribution, if you use Xcode Creating distribution-signed code for macOS, Packaging Mac software for distribution, and Customizing the notarization workflow otherwise The last step of that process is to staple a ticket to your notarised product. This can fail with error 65. There are two common causes of that failure: No appropriate ticket Trust issues The following sections explain how to recognise and resolve these issues. Note You are not absolutely required to staple your product. See The Pros and Cons of Stapling for more on that topic. No Appropriate Ticket Consider the following stapling error: % stapler staple "TestError65.dmg" Processing: /Users/quinn/Desktop/TestError65 2025-03-03 22-12-47/TestError65.dmg CloudKit query for TestError65.dmg (2/d812985247c75e94fd603f026991f96144a031af) failed due to "Record not found". Could not find base64 encoded ticket in response for 2/d812985247c75e94fd603f026991f96144a031af The staple and validate action failed! Error 65. Note the Record not found message. This indicates that the stapling operation failed because there’s no appropriate ticket. To investigate this, look at the notary log: % notarytool-log b53042b6-4cbb-4cef-ade4-dae034a69947 { … "status": "Accepted", … "sha256": "f012735a6d53b17082c088627da4249c9988111d17e7a90c49aa64ebc6bae22e", "ticketContents": [ { "path": "TestError65.dmg/TestError65.app", "digestAlgorithm": "SHA-256", "cdhash": "abc27b0f2daee77b9316de3c6844fbd9e234621c", "arch": "x86_64" }, { "path": "TestError65.dmg/TestError65.app", "digestAlgorithm": "SHA-256", "cdhash": "9627c72e53d44ae77513613e2ce33314bd5ef41e", "arch": "arm64" }, { "path": "TestError65.dmg/TestError65.app/Contents/MacOS/TestError65", "digestAlgorithm": "SHA-256", "cdhash": "abc27b0f2daee77b9316de3c6844fbd9e234621c", "arch": "x86_64" }, { "path": "TestError65.dmg/TestError65.app/Contents/MacOS/TestError65", "digestAlgorithm": "SHA-256", "cdhash": "9627c72e53d44ae77513613e2ce33314bd5ef41e", "arch": "arm64" }, { "path": "TestError65.dmg", "digestAlgorithm": "SHA-256", "cdhash": "01a553c91ee389764971767f5082ab8c7dcece02" } ], "issues": null } First, make sure that the status field is Accepted. If there’s some other value, the notary service didn’t generate a ticket at all! To understand why, look at the rest of the notary log for errors and warnings. Assuming that your notarisation request was successful, look through the log for cdhash values. These represent the contents of the ticket generated by the notary service. Compare that list to the cdhash values of the code being signed: % hdiutil attach "TestError65.dmg" … … /Volumes/Install TestError65 % codesign -d -vvv --arch arm64 "/Volumes/Install TestError65/TestError65.app" … CDHash=9627c72e53d44ae77513613e2ce33314bd5ef41e … % codesign -d -vvv --arch x86_64 "/Volumes/Install TestError65/TestError65.app" … CDHash=abc27b0f2daee77b9316de3c6844fbd9e234621c … Those are all present in the ticket. However, consider the cdhash of the disk image itself: % codesign -d -vvv "TestError65.dmg" … CDHash=d812985247c75e94fd603f026991f96144a031af … That’s the cdhash that stapler is looking for: CloudKit query for TestError65.dmg (2/d812985247c75e94fd603f026991f96144a031af) failed due to "Record not found". But it’s not present in the notarised ticket. Note The term cdhash stands for code directory hash. If you’re curious what that’s about, see TN3126 Inside Code Signing: Hashes and the Notarisation Fundamentals DevForums post. What happened here is: I built the app. I signed it with my Developer ID code-signing identity. I created a disk image from that app. I signed that with my Developer ID code-signing identity. I notarised that. I then re-signed the disk image. This changes the cdhash in the code signature. Now the disk image’s cdhash doesn’t match the cdhash in the ticket, so stapling fails. To resolve this problem, make sure you’re stapling exactly the file that you submitted to the notary service. One good option is to compare the SHA-256 hash of the file you’re working on with the sha256 field in the notary log. Trust Issues Now consider this stapling error: % stapler staple "TestError65.dmg" Processing: /Users/quinn/TestError65.dmg Could not validate ticket for /Users/quinn/TestError65.dmg The staple and validate action failed! Error 65. Note how it’s different from the previous one. Rather than saying that the ticket was not found, it says Could not validate ticket. So, stapler found the ticket for the file and then tried to validate it before doing the staple operation. That validation failed, and thus this error. The most common cause of this problem is folks messing around with trust settings. Consider this: % security dump-trust-settings SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. % security dump-trust-settings -d SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. Contrast it with this: % security dump-trust-settings SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. % security dump-trust-settings -d Number of trusted certs = 1 Cert 0: Apple Root CA - G3 Number of trust settings : 10 … Someone has tweaked the trust settings for the Apple Root CA - G3 anchor. In fact, I used Keychain Access to mark the certificate as Always Trust. You’d think that’d avoid problems, but you’d be wrong. Our code signing machinery expects Apple’s anchor and intermediate certificates to have the default trust settings. IMPORTANT Some trust settings overrides are fine. For example, on my main work Mac there are trust settings overrides for Apple internal anchors. This problem occurs when there are trust settings overrides for Apple’s standard anchor and intermediate certificates. To fix this: In Terminal, run the dump-trust-settings commands shown above and build a list of Apple certificates with trust settings overrides. In Keychain Access, find the first problematic certificate in your list. Note that there may be multiple instances of the certificate in different keychains. If that’s the case, follow these steps for each copy of the certificate. Double click the certificate to open it in a window. If the Trust section is collapsed, expand it. Ensure that all the popups are set to their default values (Use System Defaults for the first, “no value specified” for the rest). If they are, close the window and move on to step 8. If not, set the popups to the default values and close the window. Closing the window may require authentication to save the trust settings. Repeat steps until 2 through 7 for each of the problematic certificates you found in step 1. When you’re done, run the dump-trust-settings commands again to confirm that your changes took effect.

Hello, I sent this in as a feedback several weeks ago about watchOS 26.2 beta 2 but since the issue is still active now that watchOS 26.2 is in production I'm reposting here for the community. I would also like to submit a DTS about this issue but honestly don't know the best way to go about it and would appreciate advice about that. There seems to be an issue with VPP distribution for our app on watchOS 26.2. When our watchOS companion app is launched after being installed through VPP to a supervised iPhone, it encounters a dyld error before main() or any application code is even called. The same app launches correctly in every other circumstance we could imagine and test: – Installed through VPP on supervised devices running watchOS 26.1. – Installed from the app store (using an apple id) on a supervised iPhone and paired watch running iOS 26.2 / watchOS 26.2. – Installed through Testflight on a supervised iPhone and paired watch running iOS 26.2 / watchOS 26.2. – Installed through the app store on unsupervised devices running watchOS 26.1 and 26.2. This strongly appears to be a VPP signing issue because we even did the following experiment: Install iPhone and Watch apps through the App Store on a supervised device pair running public iOS 26.2 beta 2 / watchOS 26.2 beta 2. Verify that both apps launch successfully. Use an MDM command to install from VPP over the existing installations Verify that the watch app fails to launch (the iOS app is unaffected) My feedback included some crash logs which I won't be reposting publicly here. Any feedback or ideas appreciated.

This issue keeps cropping up on the forums and so I decided to write up a single post with all the details. If you have questions or comments: If you were referred here from an existing thread, reply on that thread. If not, feel free to start a new thread. Use whatever topic and subtopic is appropriate for your question, but also add the Entitlements tag so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Determining if an entitlement is real In recent months there’s been a spate of forums threads involving ‘hallucinated’ entitlements. This typically pans out as follows: The developer, or an agent working on behalf of the developer, changes their .entitlements file to claim an entitlement that’s not real. That is, the entitlement key is a value that is not, and never has been, supported in any way. Xcode’s code signing machinery tries to find or create a provisioning profile to authorise this claim. That’s impossible, because the entitlement isn’t a real entitlement. Xcode reports this as a code signing error. The developer misinterprets that error [1] in one of two ways: As a generic Xcode code signing failure, and so they start a forums thread asking about how to fix that problem. As an indication that the entitlement is managed — that is, requires authorisation from Apple to use — and so they start a forums thread asking how to request such authorisation. The fundamental problem is step 1. Once you start claiming entitlements that aren’t real, you’re on a path to confusion. Note If you’re curious about how provisioning profiles authorise entitlement claims, read TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. There are a couple of ways to check whether an entitlement is real. My preferred option is to create a new test project and use Xcode’s Signing & Capabilities editor to add the corresponding capability to it. Then look at what Xcode did. You might find that Xcode claimed a different entitlement, or added an Info.plist key, or did nothing at all. IMPORTANT If you can’t find the correct capability in the Signing & Capabilities editor, it’s likely that this feature is available to all apps, that is, it’s not gated by an entitlement or anything else. Another thing you can do is search the documentation. The vast majority of real entitlements are documented in Bundle Resources > Entitlements. IMPORTANT When you search for documentation, focus on the Apple documentation. If, for example, you search the Apple Developer Forums, you might be mislead by other folks who are similarly confused. If you find that you’re mistakenly trying to claim a hallucinated entitlement, the fix is trivial: Remove it from your .entitlements file so that your app starts to build again. Then add the capability using Xcode’s Signing & Capabilities editor. This will do the right thing. If you continue to have problems, feel free to ask for help here on the forums. See the top of this post for advice on how to do that. [1] Xcode 26.2, currently being seeded as Release Candidate, is much better about this (r. 155327166). Give it a whirl! Commonly Hallucinated Entitlements This section lists some of the more commonly hallucinated entitlements: com.apple.developer.push-notifications — The correct entitlement is aps-environment (com.apple.developer.aps-environment on macOS), documented here. There’s also the remote-notification value in the UIBackgroundModes property. com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase — There’s no entitlement for in-app purchase. Rather, in-app purchase is available to all apps with an explicit App ID (as opposed to a wildcard App ID). com.apple.InAppPurchase — Likewise. com.apple.developer.storekit — Likewise. com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase.non-consumable — Likewise. com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase.subscription — Likewise. com.apple.developer.app-groups — The correct entitlement is com.apple.security.application-groups, documented here. And if you’re working on the Mac, see App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony. com.apple.developer.background-modes — Background modes are controlled by the UIBackgroundModes key in your Info.plist, documented here. UIBackgroundModes — See the previous point. com.apple.developer.voip-push-notification — There’s no entitlement for this. VoIP is gated by the voip value in the UIBackgroundModes property. com.apple.developer.family-controls.user-authorization — The correct entitlement is com.apple.developer.family-controls, documented here. IMPORTANT As explained in the docs, this entitlement is available to all developers during development but you must request authorisation for distribution. com.apple.developer.device-activity — The DeviceActivity framework has the same restrictions as Family Controls. com.apple.developer.managed-settings — If you’re trying to use the ManagedSettings framework, that has the same restrictions as Family Controls. If you’re trying to use the ManagedApp framework, that’s not gated by an entitlement. com.apple.developer.callkit.call-directory — There’s no entitlement for the Call Directory app extension feature. com.apple.developer.nearby-interaction — There’s no entitlement for the Nearby interaction framework. com.apple.developer.secure-enclave — On iOS and its child platforms, there’s no entitlement required to use the Secure Enclave. For macOS specifically, any program that has access to the data protection keychain also has access to the Secure Enclave [1]. See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. com.apple.developer.networking.configuration — If you’re trying to configure the Wi-Fi network on iOS, the correct entitlement is com.apple.developer.networking.HotspotConfiguration, documented here. com.apple.developer.musickit — There is no MusicKit capability. Rather, enable MusicKit via the App Services column in the App ID editor, accessible from Developer > Certificates, Identifiers, and Profiles > Identifiers. com.apple.mail.extension — Creating an app extension based on the MailKit framework does not require any specific entitlement. com.apple.security.accessibility — There’s no entitlement that gates access to the Accessibility APIs on macOS. Rather, this is controlled by the user in System Settings > Privacy & Security. Note that sandboxed apps can’t use these APIs. See the Review functionality that is incompatible with App Sandbox section of Protecting user data with App Sandbox. com.apple.developer.adservices — Using the AdServices framework does not require any specific entitlement. [1] While technically these are different features, they are closely associated and it turns out that, if you have access to the data protection keychain, you also have access to the SE. Revision History 2025-12-09 Updated the Xcode footnote to mention the improvements in Xcode 26.2rc. 2025-11-03 Added com.apple.developer.adservices to the common hallucinations list. 2025-10-30 Added com.apple.security.accessibility to the common hallucinations list. 2025-10-22 Added com.apple.mail.extension to the common hallucinations list. Also added two new in-app purchase hallucinations. 2025-09-26 Added com.apple.developer.musickit to the common hallucinations list. 2025-09-22 Added com.apple.developer.storekit to the common hallucinations list. 2025-09-05 Added com.apple.developer.device-activity to the common hallucinations list. 2025-09-02 First posted.

Hi, I have some doubts about certificates expiration given this "new" requirement around signing for some common third party SDKs: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements/ Use case: I build an SDK that will be distributed as an XCFramework and will be used in AppStore apps from different people. My SDK internally uses some other third party libraries that are integrated as binaries Let's assume some of those third party libraries are from the list above and therefore seem to be required to be signed. I distribute my SDK with all in order (third party SDKs from that list with valid signatures) People using my SDK over the time provide an update to their apps on the AppStore but by then some of the third party libraries of my SDK has an expired certificate. What would happen? People using my SDK won't have any issues as far as my SDK has a valid signature (despite third party libraries from the list have expired signatures) People using my SDK will get a warning about it but still will be able to submit to the AppStore. In that case, would AppStore Review process decline the update? People using my SDK will get an error, not being able to submit to the AppStore and will require me an update version of the SDK with those third party libraries re-signed. My understanding is that all would work as far as my SDK has a valid signature (after all is the one taking responsibility of the code inside), independently of what happens with the signature of those libraries themselves, am I correct?.

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

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've submitted my app, signed with a new Developer Id Certificate for a distribution outside of the App Store, 88 hours ago. xcrun notarytool history ... Shows the submission as "In Progress". xcrun notarytool log ... Tells me "Submission log is not yet available or submissionId does not exist". I don't know if that's expected for an "In Progress" submission. As far as I can tell the signing worked without problems. I'm using the Tauri toolchain, which under its hood is using notarytool. How long can I expect this to take? If there is a problem with my submission does the status just stay on "In Progress" or do I get an error? Thanks

Successfully received submission history. history ...... -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-10-19T18:34:47.472Z id: d3248896-7841-421e-9470-101df9d0da21 name: ... status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-10-19T18:12:45.325Z id: e5822fa0-5bcf-4610-81fc-9f541e8ad189 name: ... status: In Progress

I am making an iOS step counting app and I have included a widget in the design. I would like to get the widget to pull data from the main app to display step count etc so I created a bundle id for the widget and have been trying to use a group id to link them together. The group capabilities for both seem to be set up/enabled properly with the same App Groups id, but I've been getting an error in xcode which says, " 'Provisioning Profile: "BUNDLE_ID" doesn't include the com.apple.developer.security.application-groups entitlement.' Try Again But the identifiers do have the App Group id enabled. I have tried automatic signing, manual signing with generated profiles, unchecking and rechecking auto-signing, removing and re-adding the group capability. Creating a new bundle id from scratch, creating a new group id from scratch. Always I get the error. I've really pulled my hair out troubleshooting this and would appreciate support. I'm happy to answer and questions or share details. Thank you.

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.

Hello everyone, I'm encountering an issue while trying to publish an app on TestFlight. The app in question is Home Assistant, which I've compiled from the source. I am able to compile and install the app on my device without any problems. My company's developer account is properly configured, and I have set Xcode to automatically manage the provisioning profile. The archive is also created successfully, but when I attempt to upload it to Apple Store Connect for testing via TestFlight, I receive the following error: ERROR: [ContentDelivery.Uploader] Asset validation failed (90525) Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app/PlugIns/HomeAssistant-Extensions-PushProvider.appex' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'. (ID: ceac6dcc-9c76-412e-8ea7-f2d2845f8013) I've made several attempts to resolve this issue to no avail. For instance, if I add the missing capability manually, then I am informed that the provisioning profile is incorrect. However, checking the network extension settings on my company's dev account, I see nothing related to push notifications, which are located elsewhere. Thus, I am stuck in a loop where either the provisioning file is correct but the entitlement is missing, or if the entitlement is present, then the provisioning profile is deemed incorrect. URL:https://contentdelivery.itunes.apple.com status code: 409 (conflict) httpBody: { "errors" : [ { "id" : "ceac6dcc-9c76-412e-8ea7-f2d2845f8013", "status" : "409", "code" : "STATE_ERROR.VALIDATION_ERROR.90525", "title" : "Asset validation failed", "detail" : "Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app/PlugIns/HomeAssistant-Extensions-PushProvider.appex' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'." }, { "id" : "9ff2143b-3c00-4912-b59f-8342fa6fe5c0", "status" : "409", "code" : "STATE_ERROR.VALIDATION_ERROR.90525", "title" : "Asset validation failed", "detail" : "Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'." } ] } ======================================= 2024-01-10 23:19:35.506 ERROR: [ContentDelivery.Uploader] Asset validation failed (90525) Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app/PlugIns/HomeAssistant-Extensions-PushProvider.appex' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'. (ID: ceac6dcc-9c76-412e-8ea7-f2d2845f8013) 2024-01-10 23:19:35.506 DEBUG: [ContentDelivery.Uploader] Error Domain=ContentDelivery Code=90525 "Asset validation failed" UserInfo={NSLocalizedFailureReason=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app/PlugIns/HomeAssistant-Extensions-PushProvider.appex' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'. (ID: ceac6dcc-9c76-412e-8ea7-f2d2845f8013), NSUnderlyingError=0x6000022b6430 {Error Domain=IrisAPI Code=-19241 "Asset validation failed" UserInfo={status=409, detail=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app/PlugIns/HomeAssistant-Extensions-PushProvider.appex' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'., id=ceac6dcc-9c76-412e-8ea7-f2d2845f8013, code=STATE_ERROR.VALIDATION_ERROR.90525, title=Asset validation failed, NSLocalizedFailureReason=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app/PlugIns/HomeAssistant-Extensions-PushProvider.appex' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'., NSLocalizedDescription=Asset validation failed}}, iris-code=STATE_ERROR.VALIDATION_ERROR.90525, NSLocalizedDescription=Asset validation failed} 2024-01-10 23:19:35.507 ERROR: [ContentDelivery.Uploader] Asset validation failed (90525) Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'. (ID: 9ff2143b-3c00-4912-b59f-8342fa6fe5c0) 2024-01-10 23:19:35.507 DEBUG: [ContentDelivery.Uploader] Error Domain=ContentDelivery Code=90525 "Asset validation failed" UserInfo={NSLocalizedFailureReason=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'. (ID: 9ff2143b-3c00-4912-b59f-8342fa6fe5c0), NSUnderlyingError=0x6000022b6640 {Error Domain=IrisAPI Code=-19241 "Asset validation failed" UserInfo={status=409, detail=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'., id=9ff2143b-3c00-4912-b59f-8342fa6fe5c0, code=STATE_ERROR.VALIDATION_ERROR.90525, title=Asset validation failed, NSLocalizedFailureReason=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'., NSLocalizedDescription=Asset validation failed}}, iris-code=STATE_ERROR.VALIDATION_ERROR.90525, NSLocalizedDescription=Asset validation failed} 2024-01-10 23:19:35.507 DEBUG: [ContentDelivery.Uploader] swinfo errors: ( "Error Domain=ContentDelivery Code=90525 \"Asset validation failed\" UserInfo={NSLocalizedFailureReason=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app/PlugIns/HomeAssistant-Extensions-PushProvider.appex' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'. (ID: ceac6dcc-9c76-412e-8ea7-f2d2845f8013), NSUnderlyingError=0x6000022b6430 {Error Domain=IrisAPI Code=-19241 \"Asset validation failed\" UserInfo={status=409, detail=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app/PlugIns/HomeAssistant-Extensions-PushProvider.appex' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'., id=ceac6dcc-9c76-412e-8ea7-f2d2845f8013, code=STATE_ERROR.VALIDATION_ERROR.90525, title=Asset validation failed, NSLocalizedFailureReason=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app/PlugIns/HomeAssistant-Extensions-PushProvider.appex' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'., NSLocalizedDescription=Asset validation failed}}, iris-code=STATE_ERROR.VALIDATION_ERROR.90525, NSLocalizedDescription=Asset validation failed}", "Error Domain=ContentDelivery Code=90525 \"Asset validation failed\" UserInfo={NSLocalizedFailureReason=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'. (ID: 9ff2143b-3c00-4912-b59f-8342fa6fe5c0), NSUnderlyingError=0x6000022b6640 {Error Domain=IrisAPI Code=-19241 \"Asset validation failed\" UserInfo={status=409, detail=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'., id=9ff2143b-3c00-4912-b59f-8342fa6fe5c0, code=STATE_ERROR.VALIDATION_ERROR.90525, title=Asset validation failed, NSLocalizedFailureReason=Missing Entitlement. The bundle 'Home Assistant.app' is missing entitlement 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension'., NSLocalizedDescription=Asset validation failed}}, iris-code=STATE_ERROR.VALIDATION_ERROR.90525, NSLocalizedDescription=Asset validation failed}" )

I was working in Xcode with a free personal Team ID. I upgraded to the Dev Program and now have a paid Team ID. I used the same Apple ID for both. The paid Team ID shows up in developer.apple.com as associated with my Apple ID. However, Xcode is not using the paid Team ID in signing, it's stuck on my old personal Team ID. In addition, I'm getting provisioning errors (0xe8008015) when we try to run our app on an iPhone. Anyone have any thoughts? I've scoured the forums and ChatGPT'd, Cursor'd, etc...all of the suggested fixes do not work. This almost seems like Apple needs to make my Apple ID associated with the paid Team ID or something, to start. Thanks all.

Hello, when building and signing my application in a Github actions workflow, I am facing an issue on the latest version of xCode (16.4). This issue is resolved by downgrading to 16.3. My CI/CD pipeline is running headless and installing provisioning profile to ~/Library/MobileDevice/Provisioning Profiles.

Xcode is prompting I enter a codesign login password when I am archiving my project. My password seems incorrect since there is no action after I enter my password and tap allow. what could be the problem?

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.

The capability associated with "FAMILY_CONTROLS" could not be determined. Please file a bug report at https://feedbackassistant.apple.com and include the Update Signing report from the Report navigator.

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"

This post is a ‘child’ of Resolving errSecInternalComponent errors during code signing. If you found your way here directly, I recommend that you start at the top. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Fixing an untrusted code-signing certificate If your code-signing identity is set up correctly, selecting its certificate in Keychain Access should display a green checkmark with the text “This certificate is valid”. If it does not, you need to fix that before trying to sign code. There are three common causes of an untrusted certificate: Expired Missing issuer Trust settings overrides Check for an expired certificate If your code-signing identity’s certificate has expired, Keychain Access shows a red cross with the text “… certificate is expired”. If you try to sign with it, codesign will fail like so: % codesign -s "Apple Development" -f "MyTrue" error: The specified item could not be found in the keychain. If you use security to list your code-signing identities, it will show the CSSMERR_TP_CERT_EXPIRED status: % security find-identity -p codesigning Policy: Code Signing Matching identities 1) 4E587951B705280CBB8086325CD134D4CDA04977 "Apple Development: …" (CSSMERR_TP_CERT_EXPIRED) 1 identities found Valid identities only 0 valid identities found The most likely cause of this problem is that… yep… your certificate has expired. To confirm that, select the certificate in Keychain Access and look at the Expires field. Or double click the certificate, expand the Details section, and look at the Not Valid Before and Not Valid After fields. If your code-signing identity’s certificate has expired, you’ll need to renew it. For information on how to do that, see Developer Account Help. If your certificate hasn’t expired, check that your Mac’s clock is set correctly. Check for a missing issuer In the X.509 public key infrastructure (PKI), every certificate has an issuer, who signed the certificate with their private key. These issuers form a chain of trust from the certificate to a trusted anchor. In most cases the trusted anchor is a root certificate, a certificate that’s self signed. Certificates between the leaf and the root are known as intermediate certificates, or intermediates for short. Your code-signing identity’s certificate is issued by Apple. The exact chain of trust depends on the type of certificate and the date that it was issued. For example, in 2022 Apple Development certificates are issued by the Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority — G3 intermediate, which in turn was issued by the Apple Root CA certificate authority. If there’s a missing issuer in the chain of trust between your code-signing identity’s certificate and a trusted anchor, Keychain Access shows a red cross with the text “… certificate is not trusted”. If you try to sign with it, codesign will fail like so: % codesign -s "Apple Development" -f "MyTrue" MyTrue: replacing existing signature Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "Apple Development: …" MyTrue: errSecInternalComponent The message unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer is key. If you use security to list your identities, it will not show up in the Valid identities only list but there’s no explanation as to why: % security find-identity -p codesigning Policy: Code Signing Matching identities 1) 4E587951B705280CBB8086325CD134D4CDA04977 "Apple Development: …" 1 identities found Valid identities only 0 valid identities found IMPORTANT These symptoms can have multiple potential causes. The most common cause is a missing issuer, as discussed in this section. Another potential cause is a trust settings override, as discussed in the next section. There are steps you can take to investigate this further but, because this problem is most commonly caused by a missing intermediate, try taking a shortcut by assuming that’s the problem. If that fixes things, you’re all set. If not, you have at least ruled out this problem. Apple publishes its intermediates on the Apple PKI page. The simplest way to resolve this problem is to download all of the certificates in the Apple Intermediate Certificates list and use Keychain Access to add them to your keychain. Having extra intermediates installed is generally not a problem. If you want to apply a more targeted fix: In Keychain Access, find your code-signing identity’s certificate and double click it. If the Details section is collapsed, expand it. Look at the Issuer Name section. Note the value in the Common Name field and, if present, the Organizational Unit field. For example, for an Apple Development certificate that’s likely to be Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority and G3, respectively. Go to the Apple PKI and download the corresponding intermediate. To continue the above example, the right intermediate is labelled Worldwide Developer Relations - G3. Use Keychain Access to add the intermediate to your keychain. Sometimes it’s not obvious which intermediate to choose in step 4. If you’re uncertain, download all the intermediates and preview each one using Quick Look in the Finder. Look in the Subject Name section for a certificate whose Common Name and Organizational Unit field matches the values from step 3. Finally, double check the chain of trust: In Keychain Access, select your code-signing identity’s certificate and choose Keychain Access > Certificate Assistant > Evaluate. In the resulting Certificate Assistant window, make sure that Generic (certificate chain validation only) is selected and click Continue. It might seem like selecting Code Signing here would make more sense. If you do that, however, things don’t work as you might expect. Specifically, in this case Certificate Assistant is smart enough to temporarily download a missing intermediate certificate in order to resolve the chain of trust, and that’ll prevent you from seeing any problems with your chain of trust. The resulting UI shows a list of certificates that form the chain of trust. The first item is your code-signing identity’s certificate and the last is an Apple root certificate. Double click the first item. Keychain Access presents the standard the certificate trust sheet, showing the chain of trust from the root to the leaf. You should expect to see three items in that list: An Apple root certificate An Apple intermediate Your code-signing identity’s certificate If so, that’s your chain of trust built correctly. Select each certificate in that list. The UI should show a green checkmark with the text “This certificate is valid”. If you see anything else, check your trust settings as described in the next section. Check for a trust settings override macOS allows you to customise trust settings. For example, you might tell the system to trust a particular certificate when verifying a signed email but not when connecting to a TLS server. The code-signing certificates issued by Apple are trusted by default. They don’t require you to customise any trust settings. Moreover, customising trust settings might cause problems. If code signing fails with the message unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer, first determine the chain of trust per the previous section then make sure that none of these certificates have customised trust settings. Specifically, for each certificate in the chain: Find the certificate in Keychain Access. Note that there may be multiple instances of the certificate in different keychains. If that’s the case, follow these steps for each copy of the certificate. Double click the certificate to open it in a window. If the Trust section is collapsed, expand it. Ensure that all the popups are set to their default values (Use System Defaults for the first, “no value specified” for the rest). If they are, move on to the next certificate. If not, set the popups to the default values and close the window. Closing the window may require authentication to save the trust settings. Another way to explore trust settings is with the dump-trust-settings subcommand of the security tool. On a stock macOS system you should see this: % security dump-trust-settings SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. % security dump-trust-settings -d SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. That is, there are no user or admin trust settings overrides. If you run these commands and see custom trust settings, investigate their origins. IMPORTANT If you’re working in a managed environment, you might see custom trust settings associated with that environment. For example, on my personal Mac I see this: % security dump-trust-settings -d Number of trusted certs = 1 Cert 2: QuinnNetCA Number of trust settings : 10 … because my home network infrastructure uses a custom certificate authority and I’ve configured my Mac to trust its root certificate (QuinnNetCA). Critically, this custom trust settings are nothing to do with code signing. If you dump trust settings and see an override you can’t explain, and specifically one related to code-signing certificate, use Keychain Access to remove it. Revision History 2025-09-29 Added information about the dump-trust-settings command to Check for a trust settings override. Made other minor editorial changes. 2022-08-10 First posted.

I have added an in-app purchase function into my app, and have enabled in-app purchase profile in developer portal(it's on by default and is marked gray in developer portal, I don't know if that's how it supposed to look like). I have issued the agreements and tried signing the app both manually and automatically, but neither of that worked. App can be built successfully in simulator but does not show the simulation window, but cannot build on real device or archive. Errors: Missing com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase, com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase.non-consumable, and com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase.subscription entitlements. Automatic signing failed Xcode failed to provision this target.