In Swift I'm using unzip by launching a Process to unzip a file. I added a launchRequirement to the process in order to make sure the executable is code signed by Apple and the identifier is com.apple.unzip. After testing out my code on another machines (both physical and virtual), I found out that in some the identifier is actually com.apple.zipinfo, which broke the SigningIdentifier requirement. It's safe to assume that /usr/bin/unzip can be trusted since it's in a System Integrity Protection (SIP) location, but I'm wondering why this executable has different identifiers?

I am building an electron app bundled with python. My code signing was fast, but when it came to notarization, it has already taken over 6+ hours. How can I speed things up?

Good afternoon, Our team is currently developing a mobile application that includes video call functionality, and we are seeking the optimal approach to enable incoming calls on iOS devices. Ideally, we would like calls to be delivered even when the app is completely closed or after the device is restarted. As I understand it, this may require obtaining VoIP permissions; otherwise, calls may only work when the app is open or running in the background. I would appreciate it if you could confirm my understanding and advise me on the steps or requirements for obtaining the appropriate permissions. Currently, when I try to launch the app in XCode, I see an error (screenshot).

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

Our app .dmg file was successfully code signed. We then revised the app and created a new .dmg. Running codesign gave an "app is already signed" message. Then running codesign -dv said "code object is not signed at all" Older solutions said to use -f to force signing, but that is no longer an option.

Hello, I'm currently trying to upload a new version of an existing application. But each time I try to validate the archive of the application, I got the following error in Xcode (v16.2) : Invalid code signing entitlements. Your application bundle’s signature contains code signing entitlements that aren’t supported on macOS. Specifically, the “37CG5MY799.com.example.app” value for the com.apple.application-identifier key in “com.example.app.pkg/Payload/app.app/Contents/MacOS/app” isn’t supported. This value should be a string that starts with your Team ID, followed by a dot (“.”), followed by the bundle ID. I suspect that there is a problem with the App ID Prefix (that is 37CG5MY799 for the app) when our team ID is E4R7RJ7LA3 but I cannot find a solution. I asked the Apple Developer Support for help and I have read the documentation they sent but it couldn't solve this problem so they redirected me to the forums. https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/qa/qa1879/_index.html https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/technotes/tn2318/_index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40013777-CH1-OVERVIEW https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/technotes/tn2318/_index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40013777-CH1-TNTAG33 There isn't any obvious App ID Prefix mismatch in the entitlement between the Application's signature entitlement and the Embedded provisioning profile entitlement . Application's signature entitlement : <dict> <key>com.apple.application-identifier</key> <string>37CG5MY799.com.example.app</string> <key>com.apple.developer.team-identifier</key> <string>E4R7RJ7LA3</string> <key>com.apple.security.app-sandbox</key> <true/> <key>com.apple.security.application-groups</key> <array> <string>group.com.example.app</string> </array> <key>com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-only</key> <true/> </dict> Embedded provisioning profile entitlement : <dict> <key>com.apple.security.application-groups</key> <array> <string>group.com.example.app</string> <string>E4R7RJ7LA3.*</string> </array> <key>com.apple.application-identifier</key> <string>37CG5MY799.com.example.app</string> <key>keychain-access-groups</key> <array> <string>37CG5MY799.*</string> </array> <key>com.apple.developer.team-identifier</key> <string>E4R7RJ7LA3</string> </dict> The app also have a browser extension that correctly use the Team ID. How to solve this problem ? Thanks for your time, Qeg

I'm trying to help out one of our vendors by building a skeleton PCI dext which they can flesh out. However, I can't seem to get the signing right. I can't sign it at all using no team or my personal team. "Signing for requires a development team", and "Personal development teams ... do not support the System Extension capability". I can't sign the driver because "DriverKit Team Provisioning Profile: doesn't match the entitlements file's value for the com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.pci entitlement. I think this problem occurs because our company has already been assigned a transport.pci entitlement, but for our own PCI vendor ID. But I want to build and test software that works with our vendor's PCI device. I tried generating a profile for the driver manually, it contained only our own company's PCI driver match: IOPCIPrimaryMatch = "0x0000MMMM&0x0000FFFF"; where MMMM is our own PCI vendor ID. Is there a better way to inspect the profile Xcode is using than the postage-stamped sized info popup which truncates the information? I would download the generated profile but it doesn't appear on the profile, but Xcode is accessing it from somewhere. When I look at the available capabilities I can add to an app identifier on the Developer portal, I see com.apple.developer.driverkit.transport.usb, which is "development only". There's no "development only" capability for PCI. Does this mean it isn't possible to develop even a proof-of-concept PCI driver without being first granted the DriverKit PCI (Primary Match) entitlement? When adding capabilities to a driver, the list of available capabilities shown in Xcode has one "DriverKit PCI (Primary Match) entry", but if I double click it, two such entries appear in the Signing and Capabilities tab for my driver target. On the Developer portal, when I look at my driver's Identifier, there are two Capabilities labelled DriverKit PCI (Primary Match). Why?

I am responsible for the mobile app and thus also of the apple developer and app store connect accounts of a company. An external freelancer developed a software package for us which we aim to offer for installation and use on macOS systems of our customers; distributed exclusively outside of the Apple App Store. The software package has nothing to do with the mobile app. MacOS' Gatekeeper currently warns or even prevents our customers regarding the installation of the package on their device; pretty much as described here: https://developer.apple.com/developer-id/. According to a previous talk with Apple's Support, the software package (.app) the Freelancer developed must be signed with one of our own certificates. As we cannot grant selective app store connect access to third persons (only for the concerned certificates), we prefer to not provide access to our entire apple developer account to the freelancer, for the sole reason of the certificate & signing process. According to previous attempts with Apples' support regarding the most feasible solution in this case, they recommended me to manage the signing of the package of the freelancer, and simply request the package from the freelancer. I've thus generated an according Developer ID Certificate, but regarding the signing process, I'm confused. I know how signing works with mobile apps in XCode, but regarding software that is not distributed throughout the App Store on macOS, I'm unsure about the process. Also, as far as I know, the entitlements of the application are involved in the signing process. So my concern is that simply having the software package (.app) from the freelancer is not really enough to complete the signing + notarization process? Won't I need further information about the app's entitlements etc.? I would like to have a clear solution about the procedure that is required in these cases, as online documentations and / or forums as well as previous talks with your non-technical support from Apple did not resolve the issue.

I've been distributing my Math Education app (Java-based) as a downloadable .dmg. My sw manufacturing process was working well on my Intel-iMac a year ago (signing, notarization, stapling). I need to support Apple Silicon, so I replicated the SW manuf. stack on my M2 MacBook, including putting my Developer and Installer Certificates in the Keychain Access. I get through building the M2,M2,M4 .dmg installer file just fine. But the Codesign is failing. It should be prompting me for my MacOS password (it does this in the Intel-Mac process), but fails this command: codesign --sign "Pierre Bierre (SL7L4YU8GT)" --force --options runtime --verbose --timestamp ~/DFG2D_MacOS_Manufacturing/MacOSInstallers/DFG2D_Mac_J17010_295 The response was: error: The specified item could not be found in the keychain. The signer reference is correct, and works fine on the Intel-Mac codesign process. What could explain why the same script fails in the M2 environment? Does codesign normally prompt for the MacOS user password ? Why would that fail?

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.

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.

In the LightweightCodeRequirements framework, there is a LaunchCodeRequirement object which can be used as a requirement object for a Process for example. What I don't understand (I admit my macOS low-level knowledge is limited) is that how can this be used in a secure way that doesn't fall victim of a Time-of-Check/Time-of-Use issue. e.g. I specify a LaunchCodeRequirement via Process.launchRequirement for my process, let's say /usr/local/bin/mycommandlinetool. The LaunchCodeRequirement specifies my development team and a developer ID certificate. The process must be started in some form, before a SecCode/SecTask object can be created, rather than a SecStaticCode object (which only guarantees its validity checks to be intact as long as the file is not modified). But if the process was started, then I have no tools in my set to prevent it from executing its initialization code or similar. Then, by the time I'm able to check via SecCode/SecTask functions the LaunchCodeRequirement, I might have already ran malicious code - if mycommandlinetool was maliciously replaced. Or does the operating system use a daemon to copy the executable specified for Process to a secure location, then creates the SecStaticCode object, assesses the LaunchCodeRequirement and if passed, launches the executable from that trusted location (which would make sure it is immutable for replacement by malicious actors)? I have a hard time understanding how this works under the hood - if I remember correctly these are private APIs.

Background We are using a Developer ID application certificate to sign our application. We lost the private key and we need to revoke it before we can receive a new one. Per documentation (https://developer.apple.com/support/certificates/), I know that previously installed applications will still be able to run, but new installations will not be able to work. I want to confirm what will happen when we revoke the certificate so we know how to prepare customers for this upcoming change. Questions Will existing installations of the application receive a notice that the certificate has been revoked? Will previously installed applications be able to launch again after they are closed? What will the user see when they try to install the application with the revoked certificate?

I've successfully distributed a Java-based app .dmg from my intel iMac, but am trying to port over the signing authority ( Certificate and Identity) to an M2. I'm following the "backup your Identities" recipe to make a .p12 file, but I can't complete the Export. The .p12 file format option is greyed out (while .pem and .cer are offered). What could be causing this? I can sign my .dmg installers from this computer, so codesign is happy with what it is seeing in the Keychain.

This math-educational 3D-graphics courseware utilizes Java3D, which sits on top of hardware-dependent JOGAMP binaries (which instruct at the GPU-level). This code signing command applied to the installer .dmg: codesign -s "myName" --force --options runtime ~/DFG2D_MacOS_Manufacturing/MacOSInstallers/DFG2D_Mac_J1602_x86/DataflowGeometry2D-1.0.300.dmg is supposed to force signing of all the embedded binaries, BUT the notary tool finds about 25 jogamp-fat dynamic libraries (/ *.dylib) UNSIGNED. Processing complete id: 23d81a99-4087-48d2-a567-8072dd2820fe status: Invalid pierrebierre@Pierres-iMac ~ % xcrun notarytool log 17d2fe94-f38a-47d4-9568-cf4dc65f24c9 --apple-id "xxxxxxxxxxx" --team-id "XXXXXXXXX" --password pwpwpwpwpw { "logFormatVersion": 1, "jobId": "17d2fe94-f38a-47d4-9568-cf4dc65f24c9", "status": "Invalid", "statusSummary": "Archive contains critical validation errors", "statusCode": 4000, "archiveFilename": "DataflowGeometry2D-1.0.300.dmg", "uploadDate": "2025-07-13T21:28:21.147Z", "sha256": "57320c4ad4a07f144336084152bf7e3328f8c5694dd568d2cfd23a596b5b3b13", "ticketContents": null, "issues": [ { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "DataflowGeometry2D-1.0.300.dmg/DataflowGeometry2D.app/Contents/app/DFG2D_Mac_x86_300.jar/lib/jogamp-fat/jogamp-fat.jar/natives/macosx-universal/libnativewindow_awt.dylib", "message": "The binary is not signed.", "docUrl": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues#3087721", "architecture": "x86_64" }, { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "DataflowGeometry2D-1.0.300.dmg/DataflowGeometry2D.app/Contents/app/DFG2D_Mac_x86_300.jar/lib/jogamp-fat/jogamp-fat.jar/natives/macosx-universal/libnativewindow_awt.dylib", "message": "The signature does not include a secure timestamp.", "docUrl": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues#3087733", "architecture": "x86_64" }, What is your advice on how to get these binaries signed?

I have an app that runs as a status bar app, mostly. I have set the following in the info.plist file for the app: <key>Application is agent (UIElement)</key> <true/> However, I get a compile error: Provisioning profile Mac Team Provisioning Profile: yout.Drive doesn't include the Application is agent (UIElement) entitlement. Checking the entitlements, I do not see this entitlement anywhere. Where and how do I set this?

Hello everyone, I'm facing a critical build issue related to Family Controls entitlements and would appreciate any insights or help from the community or Apple engineers. My Goal: I am trying to build and run my app on a physical device to test my DeviceActivityMonitor and ShieldConfigurationExtension. I have already been approved for the Family Controls (Development) entitlement. The Problem: When I try to build, Xcode fails with the following errors, preventing me from testing: For my DeviceActivityMonitor target: Provisioning profile "..." doesn't include the com.apple.developer.deviceactivity entitlement. For my SOSAppShieldExtension target: Provisioning profile "..." doesn't include the com.apple.developer.screen-time-api entitlement. The Core Evidence: This seems to be a server-side issue with how the provisioning profiles are generated. I have used the security cms -D -i command to inspect the downloaded .mobileprovision files. The inspection reveals that the profiles do contain the parent com.apple.developer.family-controls entitlement. However, they are missing the required child entitlements: The profile for my monitor extension is missing com.apple.developer.deviceactivity. The profile for my shield extension is missing com.apple.developer.screen-time-api. Troubleshooting Steps I've Already Taken: I believe I have exhausted all possible client-side fixes. Here is what I have tried over the past few days: Confirmed Approval: I am fully approved for the Family Controls (Development) entitlement. Enabled Capabilities: The "Family Controls" capability is checked and enabled for all three relevant App IDs (main app, monitor extension, shield extension) on the developer portal. Profile Regeneration: I have deleted and regenerated all provisioning profiles for all targets multiple times. Forcing a Server Refresh: I have toggled the "Family Controls" capability off, saved, and then toggled it back on and saved again for each App ID. Creating New Identifiers: I created a brand new, clean App ID for the DeviceActivityMonitor extension (com.sosapp.ios.devicemonitor) and created a new profile for it, but the error persists. Xcode Configuration: I am using manual signing in Xcode and have double-checked that each target is pointing to the correct, newly downloaded provisioning profile. I have also cleaned the build folder and deleted Derived Data multiple times. My Question: Given that my account is approved and the capability is enabled, but the generated profiles are provably missing the necessary child entitlements, this points directly to a bug in the profile generation service on Apple's backend. Has anyone else experienced this specific issue where the parent entitlement is present but the required child entitlements are missing? Is there a known workaround, or can an Apple engineer please investigate the profile generation for my Team ID? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

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.

Tried notarizing my app yesterday afternoon via Mac terminal, and when I came back to work this morning it was still "In Process...". I closed terminal, and checked appleid.apple.com, and it was asking me to reset my password- maybe because the notarization timed out? Either way, I reset my password, generated a new app-specific password and tried notarizing the app again, but it's now been 3 hours and it's still "In Process..." again. When I check the status via terminal, nothing seems off- and the status is In Progress. How can I determine if there's a bigger issue I need to fix before notarizing? UUID: e7ae29c8-2478-41a3-93b4-3f274de643d0

Looking for some assistance and having an Apple Signing Certificate for our Audio Units Plugin.