I want to distribute a macOS application created with Electron to third parties, but I am currently unable to do so because the code signing is not working correctly. From the following response, it appears that the code signing itself was successful: $ codesign -dvvv dist/mac-arm64/AnySticky.app Executable=/Users/myname/dev/electron-tutorial/dist/mac-arm64/AnySticky.app/Contents/MacOS/AnySticky Identifier=com.electron.electron-tutorial Format=app bundle with Mach-O thin (arm64) CodeDirectory v=20500 size=778 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=13+7 location=embedded Hash type=sha256 size=32 CandidateCDHash sha256=e105ecd3c2051554239df404c185f00fca5900de CandidateCDHashFull sha256=e105ecd3c2051554239df404c185f00fca5900de742e572c154aa889e9929186 Hash choices=sha256 CMSDigest=e105ecd3c2051554239df404c185f00fca5900de742e572c154aa889e9929186 CMSDigestType=2 CDHash=e105ecd3c2051554239df404c185f00fca5900de Signature size=9083 Authority=Apple Development: MY NAME (66MDM239Z8) Authority=Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=Dec 18, 2024 at 20:26:03 Info.plist entries=30 TeamIdentifier=9C8S7XP2UN Runtime Version=14.0.0 Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=11 Internal requirements count=1 size=192 However, when I attempt to notarize the app, I receive an error stating that the app is not signed with a valid Developer ID certificate: $ xcrun notarytool submit dist/mac-arm64/AnySticky.zip --keychain-profile "AnySticky" --wait Excerpt from the error message: { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "AnySticky.zip/AnySticky.app/Contents/MacOS/AnySticky", "message": "The binary is not signed with a valid Developer ID certificate.", "docUrl": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues#3087721", "architecture": "arm64" }, { "severity": "error", "code": null, "path": "AnySticky.zip/AnySticky.app/Contents/Frameworks/AnySticky Helper (Renderer).app/Contents/MacOS/AnySticky Helper (Renderer)", "message": "The binary is not signed with a valid Developer ID certificate.", "docUrl": "https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution/resolving_common_notarization_issues#3087721", "architecture": "arm64" }, ... I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how to resolve this issue. Thanks.

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!

I want to code radeem for testflight

Iam trying to notarize with notarytool command with app-specific password. xcrun notarytool submit <Path> --apple-id <APPLE_ID> --password <APP_SPECIFIC_PASSWORD> --team-id <Team-ID> But it fails with error Error: HTTP status code: 401. Unable to authenticate. Invalid session. Ensure that all authentication arguments are correct. Tried generating new app-specific password, still failing. Tried storing password in keychain with store-credentials option, again failing. --verbose option with store-credentials showing below error This process stores your credentials securely in the Keychain. You reference these credentials later using a profile name. Validating your credentials... [06:05:28.854Z] Info [API] Initialized Notary API with base URL: https://appstoreconnect.apple.com/notary/v2/\ [06:05:28.854Z] Info [API] Preparing GET request to URL: https://appstoreconnect.apple.com/notary/v2/test?, Parameters: [:], Custom Headers: private<Dictionary<String, String>> [06:05:28.855Z] Debug [AUTHENTICATION] Delaying current request to refresh app-specific password token. [06:05:28.855Z] Info [API] Preparing GET request to URL: https://appstoreconnect.apple.com/notary/v2/asp?, Parameters: [:], Custom Headers: private<Dictionary<String, String>> [06:05:28.855Z] Debug [AUTHENTICATION] Authenticating request to '/notary/v2/asp' with Basic Auth. Username: , Password: private, Team ID: [06:05:28.856Z] Debug [TASKMANAGER] Starting Task Manager loop to wait for asynchronous HTTP calls. [06:05:30.194Z] Debug [API] Received response status code: 401, message: unauthorized, URL: https://appstoreconnect.apple.com/notary/v2/asp?, Correlation Key: [06:05:30.195Z] Error [TASKMANAGER] Completed Task with ID 2 has encountered an error. [06:05:30.195Z] Debug [TASKMANAGER]Ending Task Manager loop. Error: HTTP status code: 401. Unable to authenticate. Invalid session. Ensure that all authentication arguments are correct.

Xcode 16.2 無法在IOS 18.2 Debug Xcode 16.2 iOS 18.2 直接建立新專案 Xcode -> Create New Project -> Multiplatform -> Application -> App 選擇 實體手機 -> 執行 error: attach by pid '1050' failed -- attach failed (Not allowed to attach to process. Look in the console messages (Console.app), near the debugserver entries, when the attach failed. The subsystem that denied the attach permission will likely have logged an informative message about why it was denied.) Logging Error: Failed to initialize logging system due to time out. Log messages may be missing. If this issue persists, try setting IDEPreferLogStreaming=YES in the active scheme actions environment variables.

To ship a product outside of the Mac App Store, you must notarise it. The notary service issues a notarised ticket, and the ultimate consumer of that ticket is Gatekeeper. However, Gatekeeper does not just check the ticket; it also applies a variety of other checks, and it’s possible for those checks to fail even if your notarised ticket is just fine. To avoid such problems showing up in the field, test your product’s compatibility with Gatekeeper before shipping it. To do this: Set up a fresh machine, one that’s never seen your product before. If your product supports macOS 10.15.x, x < 4, the best OS version to test with is 10.15.3 [1]. Download your product in a way that quarantines it (for example, using Safari). Disconnect the machine from the network. It might make sense to skip this step. See the discussion below. Install and use your product as your users would. If the product is signed, notarised, and stapled correctly, everything should work. If not, you’ll need to investigate what’s making Gatekeeper unhappy, fix that, and then retest. For detailed advice on that topic, see Resolving Trusted Execution Problems. Run this test on a fresh machine each time. This is necessary because Gatekeeper caches information about your product and it’s not easy to reset that cache. Your best option is to do this testing on a virtual machine (VM). Take a snapshot of the VM before the first test, and then restore to that snapshot when you want to retest. Also, by using a VM you can disable networking in step 3 without disrupting other work on your machine. The reason why you should disable networking in step 3 is to test that you’ve correctly stapled the notarised ticket on to your product. If, for some reason, you’re unable to do that stapling, it’s fine to skip step 3. However, be aware that this may cause problems for a user if they try to deploy your product to a Mac that does not have access to the wider Internet. For more background on this, see The Pros and Cons of Stapling. [1] macOS 10.15.4 fixes a bug that made Gatekeeper unnecessarily strict (r. 57278824), so by testing on 10.15.3 you’re exercising the worst case. The process described above is by far the best way to test your Gatekeeper compatibility because it accurately tests how your users run your product. However, you can also run a quick, albeit less accurate test, using various command-line tools. The exact process depends on the type of product you’re trying to check: App — Run syspolicy_check like this: % syspolicy_check distribution WaffleVarnish.app This tool was introduced in macOS 14. On older systems, use the older spctl tool. Run it like this: % spctl -a -t exec -vvv WaffleVarnish.app Be aware, however, that this check is much less accurate. Disk image — Run spctl like this: % spctl -a -t open -vvv --context context:primary-signature WaffleVarnish.dmg Installer package — Run spctl like this: % spctl -a -t install -vvv WaffleVarnish.pkg Other code — Run codesign like this: % codesign -vvvv -R="notarized" --check-notarization WaffleVarnish.bundle This command requires macOS 10.15 or later. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Revision history: 2024-12-05 Added instructions for using syspolicy_check. Made other minor editorial changes. 2023-10-20 Added links to Resolving Trusted Execution Problems and The Pros and Cons of Stapling. Made other minor editorial changes. 2021-02-26 Fixed the formatting. 2020-04-17 Added the section discussing spctl. 2020-03-25 First version.

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.

I am a developer, please send me the authentication code !

I get these errors. I think I've checked everything possible. "entitlements file, Identifiers etc." but I couldn't find a solution. I tried manual signing as well. Same result. The profiles I added also become invalid after a while. Everything seems normal in my developer account.

I’m running into an issue where the com.apple.developer.storekit entitlement is not being included in provisioning profiles, even though my App ID is properly configured for In-App Purchase. Entitlements file: explicitly includes <key>com.apple.developer.storekit</key> <true/> Capability: In-App Purchase is enabled in the Apple Developer Portal and shows as “Enabled.” What I’ve tried: Automatic signing in Xcode → profiles generated, but missing com.apple.developer.storekit Manual signing → deleted and recreated provisioning profiles multiple times; entitlement still missing. Waited several hours for possible propagation. Verified that my in-app purchase products are set up correctly. Error message: Provisioning profile "iOS Team Provisioning Profile: zu.inniu" doesn't include the com.apple.developer.storekit entitlement Question: Has anyone else encountered this? Is there a step I might be missing to get StoreKit entitlements included in provisioning profiles, or could this be a backend issue that needs escalation through Apple DTS? This is blocking me from building my app for physical devices, so any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

I am a complete novice and I find that I cannot restore or delete the “Apple Development” certificate (I only use it for signing). From what I understand, you need to be in a program to manage certificates, but I have no intention of distributing any applications and, from my point of view, it makes no sense to pay. Am I wrong or am I doing something wrong? Notes: This happened after I installed Tahoe on a new installation. I was able to restore it using a copy of the keychains folder I had from Sequoia. Xcode (Apple Accounts - Manage Certificates) now shows me two certificates, indicating that one is not in the keychain and cannot be deleted.

I've submitted several requests for Family Controls Distribution access for all of my app targets over two weeks ago and have not gotten any response. The app I've been working on for over a year is finally ready to beta test to 200+ waitlisted users but this final roadblock is killing me! Anyone know what to do? Is there anyone else I could reach out to other than the apple request form to get help with this? Thank you!

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"

No matter how many times I download what seems to be a cert for Mac App Distribution Certificate Type Mac App Distribution When I look at its Apple Mac App Signing extension property in the keychain, it always says Apple Mac App Signing (Development) Whenever I try to use it to code sign, the signing is 'generic' which fails security checks. AI says... The certificate field Apple Mac App Signing (Development) (1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.7) indicates that the certificate is intended for development purposes. This type of certificate is used for signing macOS applications during the development and testing phases. But that is not what I am expecting to get from the certificate type Mac App Distribution. What can I do to actually get to production?

I recently completed an app transfer from one developer account to another (both controlled by me). The old team ID was GZS3K47B3Y, the new one is LRG5645LP7. Almost everything is working properly, but I am seeing that my iCloud Key-Value store (NSUbiquitousKeyValueStore) is no longer shared across my app and app extensions after the transfer. Previously, my app and app extensions all shared a single iCloud Key-Value store, and they could all read/write to the same iCloud synced store. This is no longer working after the app transfer. According to this support page (https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/transfer-an-app/overview-of-app-transfer): "If your app uses iCloud Key-Value Storage (KVS), the full KVS value will be embedded in any new provisioning profiles you create for the transferred app. Update your entitlements plist with the full KVS value in your provisioning profile." This seems to be the case for the main app, whose provisioning profile contains the full value: com.apple.developer.ubiquity-kvstore-identifier: GZS3K47B3Y.com.serpentisei.studyjapanese But the app extension's provisioning profile now contains: com.apple.developer.ubiquity-kvstore-identifier: LRG5645LP7.* Is there a way to update the app extension provisioning profile to also include the original identifier from before the transfer, so that I can continue to share iCloud KVS access across the app and extension? Thanks!

Hello everyone, We develop an app called Unite (bundle ID: com.BZG.Unite), which allows users to create standalone macOS applications from websites. These user-generated apps are based on a backend browser template called DefaultApp (bundle ID: com.bzg.default.app). Here's how our setup works: Unite and DefaultApp: Both are signed with our Developer ID and include necessary provisioning profiles and entitlements. User-Created Apps: When a user creates an app with Unite, it generates a customized version of DefaultApp with the user's chosen name and settings. These apps are ad-hoc signed upon creation to reflect their unique identity. Issue Since updating to macOS 15, every time a user launches a created app, they encounter a persistent prompt asking for permission to access files outside the app's container. Granting full disk access in System Preferences suppresses the prompt, but this is not a practical solution for end-users. Upon launching a user-created app (e.g., "ExampleTest"), the following prompt appears: This prompt appears on every launch of the app. Steps to Reproduce On a Mac running macOS 15, create a new app using Unite (e.g., "ExampleTest"). Launch the newly created app. Observe the prompt requesting access to files outside the app's container. Close and relaunch the app; the prompt appears again. What We Have Tried Given that our apps use an app group (group.BZG.unite.sharedData) to share data between Unite, DefaultApp, and user-created apps, we believe this is triggering the prompt due to changes in System Integrity Protection (SIP) in macOS 15. We are further confident given that if the user does not allow access, the app does launch, but shows an error indicating that the created app was unable to access the data that is typically in the shared group. Here’s a summary of our troubleshooting efforts: 1. Adjusting App Group Configuration Ensured the app group name aligns with Apple's guidelines, including prefixing with the Team ID (teamid.group.BZG.unite.sharedData). Verified that the app group is correctly declared in the com.apple.security.application-groups entitlement. 2. Provisioning Profile Creation Generated provisioning profiles via Xcode and the Developer Console, ensuring the app group entitlement is included. Applied the provisioning profile to the user-created app during code signing. Despite these efforts, the issue continues. 3. Entitlements and Code Signing Created an entitlements file for the user-created app, mirroring the entitlements from DefaultApp, including: <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "https://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>com.apple.application-identifier</key> <string>id.com.BZG.ExampleTest</string> <key>com.apple.developer.team-identifier</key> <string>id</string> <key>com.apple.security.application-groups</key> <array> <string>id.group.BZG.unite.sharedData</string> </array> <key>com.apple.security.app-sandbox</key> <true/> </dict> </plist> Signed the user-created app with our Developer ID and the provisioning profile Verified the entitlements 4. Reviewing System Logs Observed error messages indicating unsatisfied entitlements: message: com.BZG.ExampleTest: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.security.application-groups **5. Consulting Documentation and WWDC Sessions ** Referenced post on App Groups in macOS vs iOS. Reviewed the macOS 15 Release Notes regarding SIP and app group container protection. Watched WWDC 2024 Session 10123: What's new in privacy, starting at 12:23. Questions Is there a way to authorize the com.apple.security.application-groups entitlement in the provisioning profile for ad-hoc signed apps? Given the SIP changes in macOS 15, how can we enable our ad-hoc signed, user-generated apps to access the app group container without triggering the persistent prompt? Are there alternative approaches to sharing data between the main app and user-generated apps that comply with macOS 15's SIP requirements? Is there anything to try that we're missing here to solve this? Any guidance on how to resolve this issue or workarounds to allow app group access without triggering the prompt would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance!

Title: Apple's Outdated and Restrictive Certificate Signing Process: A Barrier to Innovation Introduction In the dynamic field of mobile app development, the agility and freedom offered to developers can significantly dictate the pace of innovation and user satisfaction. Apple's certificate signing process, a legacy from an earlier era of computing, starkly contrasts with more modern approaches, particularly Android's Keystore system. This article delves into the cumbersome nature of Apple's approach, arguing that its outdated and proprietary methods hinder the development process and stifle innovation. The Burdensome Nature of Apple's Certificate Signing Proprietary Restrictions: Apple's certificate signing is not just a process; it's a gatekeeper. By forcing developers to go through its own system to obtain certificates, Apple maintains a tight grip on what gets published and updated. This closed ecosystem approach reflects a dated philosophy in an age where flexibility and openness are key drivers of technological advancement. Complex and Time-Consuming: The process to acquire and maintain a valid certificate for app signing is notoriously intricate and bureaucratic. Developers must navigate a maze of procedures including certificate requests, renewals, and provisioning profiles. Each step is a potential roadblock, delaying urgent updates and bug fixes, which can be crucial for user retention and satisfaction. Lack of Autonomy: Apple's centralized control means every application must be signed under the stringent watch of its guidelines. This lack of autonomy not only slows down the release cycle but also curbs developers' creative processes, as they must often compromise on innovative features to meet Apple's strict approval standards. Comparing Android’s Keystore System Developer-Friendly: In stark contrast, Android’s Keystore system empowers developers by allowing them to manage their cryptographic keys independently. This system supports a more intuitive setup where keys can be generated and stored within the Android environment, bypassing the need for any external approval. Speed and Flexibility: Android developers can use the same key across multiple applications and decide their expiration terms, which can be set to never expire. This flexibility facilitates a quicker development process, enabling developers to push updates and new features with minimal delay. The Impact on the Developer Ecosystem Innovation Stifling: Apple's outdated certificate signing process does not just affect the technical side of app development but also impacts the broader ecosystem. It places unnecessary hurdles in front of developers, particularly small developers who may lack the resources to frequently manage certificate renewals and navigate Apple’s rigorous approval process. Market Response: The market has shown a preference for platforms that offer more freedom and less bureaucratic interference. Android's growing market share in many regions can be partially attributed to its more developer-friendly environment, which directly contrasts with Apple's tightly controlled ecosystem. Conclusion Apple’s certificate signing method, while ensuring a secure environment, is an archaic relic in today’s fast-paced tech world. It binds developers with outdated, proprietary chains that hinder rapid development and innovation. As the technological landscape evolves towards more open and flexible systems, Apple’s restrictive practices could potentially alienate developers and erode its competitive edge. For Apple to maintain its relevance and appeal among the developer community, a significant overhaul of its certificate signing process is not just beneficial—it's necessary.

The product archive package's signature is invalid. Ensure that it is signed with your "3rd Party Mac Developer Installer" certificate. (90237) I'm receiving this error, despite the fact that I'm using this certificate when creating the pkg (with electron-forge) My configuration is shown below - note the 3rd Party Mac Developer Installer identity when using new MakerPKG. const config: ForgeConfig = { packagerConfig: { asar: true, name: 'Deep Focus', icon: 'resources/icon.icns', osxSign: { identity: 'Apple Distribution: Timeo Williams (3Y4F3KTSJA)', type: 'distribution', provisioningProfile: '/Users/timeo/Desktop/Deep Focus/deepWork/distribution.provisionprofile', preAutoEntitlements: false, // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/explicit-function-return-type optionsForFile() { return { entitlements: 'build/entitlements.mas.plist' } } }, extendInfo: 'build/info.plist', osxUniversal: { mergeASARs: true }, appCategoryType: 'public.app-category.productivity', appBundleId: 'com.electron.deepfocus', extraResource: [ 'resources/.env', 'resources/icon.icns', ] }, rebuildConfig: {}, makers: [ new MakerSquirrel({}), new MakerZIP({}), new MakerRpm({}), new MakerDeb({}), new MakerDMG({ appPath: './out/Deep Focus-darwin-arm64/Deep Focus.app', name: 'Deep Focus', icon: './resources/icon.icns', format: 'ULFO', overwrite: true, contents: (opts) => [ { x: 130, y: 220, type: 'file', path: opts.appPath }, { x: 410, y: 220, type: 'link', path: '/Applications' } ] }), new MakerPKG({ name: 'Deep Focus', identity: '3rd Party Mac Developer Installer: Timeo Williams (3Y4F3KTSJA)' }) ], plugins: [ new VitePlugin({ build: [ { entry: 'src/main.ts', config: 'vite.main.config.ts', target: 'main' }, { entry: 'src/preload.ts', config: 'vite.preload.config.ts', target: 'preload' } ], renderer: [ { name: 'main_window', config: 'vite.renderer.config.mts' // Path to Vite config for renderer process } ] }), new FusesPlugin({ version: FuseVersion.V1, [FuseV1Options.RunAsNode]: false, [FuseV1Options.EnableCookieEncryption]: true, [FuseV1Options.EnableNodeOptionsEnvironmentVariable]: false, [FuseV1Options.EnableNodeCliInspectArguments]: false, [FuseV1Options.EnableEmbeddedAsarIntegrityValidation]: true, [FuseV1Options.OnlyLoadAppFromAsar]: true }) ] } Yet, I'm getting the error from Transporter that it's invalid?

Hi, I'm looking to update an old build for our app but we can't seem to download the certificate for Xcode. The button seems to be greyed out, not sure what to do to resolve this.

When I submit my app for notarization, it takes more than 24 hours but still shows "In progress". Does anyone else experience the same issue? Here is the history records: Successfully received submission history. history -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2024-12-22T07:32:20.998Z id: 81f36df5-21a2-4101-a264-9ac62e7b85a5 name: Gatsbi.zip status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2024-12-22T04:00:29.496Z id: 6d99632c-7aef-4e46-bdef-d70845cd39b5 name: Gatsbi.zip status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2024-12-21T10:54:48.433Z id: 1fdcd6c6-d707-4521-9b4d-4a5f3e03959a name: Gatsbi.zip status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2024-12-21T10:05:02.700Z id: 4237e15e-00e3-4884-9bdd-f7f900af2dc1 name: Gatsbi.zip status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2024-12-21T08:40:19.404Z id: 102039b9-4a16-4fbb-8371-f9b6cb0e1a80 name: Gatsbi.zip status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2024-12-21T07:31:01.588Z id: b6f82941-1ac2-4f5d-99ed-c44141934a0d name: Gatsbi.zip status: Accepted