I developed a macOS application and have already signed the pkg package. However, when I submitted it for notarization using the following command: xcrun notarytool submit --signed.pkg --apple-id "**@gmail.com" --team-id "2*******M" --password "this is password" --wait I received a "Rejected" status. The log provided the following details: "logFormatVersion": 1, "jobId": "f5f3751d-b449-4a2f-b905-32d38ab5963b", "status": "Rejected", "statusSummary": "Team is not yet configured for notarization. Please contact Developer Programs Support at developer.apple.com under the topic Development and Technical / Other Development or Technical Questions.", "statusCode": 7000, "archiveFilename": "*********.pkg", "uploadDate": "2025-03-20T03:16:43.651Z", "sha256": "3ca39700c531a66571721424a6c00668748011174b4ae20bbbec5c2d3a8a41f9", "ticketContents": null, "issues": null``` Can you help me, thank you.

Hey everyone, I was granted access to Family Controls (Distribution) for my main App ID The entitlement is visible and enabled in the App ID configuration. I’ve successfully created and used a provisioning profile that injects com.apple.developer.family-controls for the main app. ✅ However, the issue is with an extension target under the same parent App ID and all others Despite enabling the Family Controls (Development) capability in this extension’s App ID config, every new provisioning profile I generate for the extension fails to include the entitlement. I’ve confirmed this by: • Dumping the .mobileprovision with security cms -D → no sign of com.apple.developer.family-controls • Recreating the profile multiple times (Development and Distribution) • Ensuring the entitlement is toggled on in the portal • Validating the parent app profile does include it ⸻ ❗Question: Is there a known issue where Family Controls doesn’t get injected into extension App IDs even after team approval? Or is there an extra step I need to take to get this entitlement injected properly into provisioning profiles for app extensions?

After signing and notarizing our application, the entitlement “com.apple.security.get-task-allow” is removed. However, we want this entitlement to remain and we want to be able to create a corefile when needed. Is it possible to make the “com.apple.security.get-task-allow” entitlement persistent after signing and notarizing, so that our application can create a corefile?

Hi, I recently created and installed new code signing certificates/keys on my main Mac. How to easily copy these certificates/keys to my another Mac with the same Apple ID? Earlier Quinn suggested: "The easiest way to do this is use Xcode’s import/export feature. Launch Xcode, choose Xcode > Settings, select Accounts, select the account in question, then choose Export Apple ID and Code Signing Assets from the action (…) menu." And it worked fine in 2020-2021. However import/export options are no longer available in XCode 16 anymore. Please suggest a simple solution.

Hey everyone, I've been trying to notarize my Electron macOS app for the past two days without any success. My longest attempt took nearly 4 hours, and my current attempt has already been running for 2 hours and 26 minutes. From what I can see in the logs, the signing step has completed successfully, and the app is currently in the notarization stage. But it's been stuck there with no real updates or progress indicators. Is this kind of delay normal? Has anyone else experienced such long notarization times? Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

Hello. I have an enterprise application that requires specific privileges to execute correctly on MacOS. One of these privileges is SystemPolicyAllFiles (aka Full Disk Access), as we use the endpoint security framework. When we distribute our application, we generate: A signed, notarized pkg consisting of our application binaries. An MDM-compatible .mobileconfig, which contains the SystemPolicyAllFiles setting. We expect our users to install both to get the application to function correctly. However, we have three environments we deploy to: Internal (local development on a developer's workstation), "development" (where features are integrated prior to release) and "production" (what our customers get). For local, our developers create an Apple account and use a Mac Development certificate for signing. They also generate their own embedded.provisionprofile and drop that into their local installation config. For development/production, we use our Developer ID certificate and Developer Installer certificate, with an endpoint security embedded.provisionprofile bound to those. However, when we generate a .mobileconfig, we need to include a CodeRequirement (CR) for SystemPolicyAllFiles. I've been retrieving this using codesign -dr - ... (i.e., the designated requirement aka DR). However, the designated requirement is very specific to the certificate, which is problematic specifically for local development, where each developer has their own Mac Development certificate. Here's what the relevant section of our generated mobileconfig looks like right now: <dict> <key>SystemPolicyAllFiles</key> <array> <dict> <key>Allowed</key> <true/> <key>CodeRequirement</key> <string>identifier "com.example.app and anchor apple generic and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = <TEAMID></string> <key>Comment</key> <string>app</string> <key>Identifier</key> <string>com.exmple.app</string> <key>IdentifierType</key> <string>bundleID</string> <key>StaticCode</key> <false/> </dict> </array> </dict> That's in a format that works for our Developer ID cert, but the DR for the Mac Development certificate looks like: identifier "com.example.app" and anchor apple generic and certificate leaf[subject.CN] = "Mac Developer: John Doe (12ABC34567)" and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.1] /* exists */ Question: Is it possible to relax the code requirement so that it is generic enough to cover all Mac Developer certificates and Developer ID certificates we use? If not, is there a way to have one code requirement for our Mac Developer certificates and a separate CR for our Developer ID certificate? My use case is deploying a static "local" .mobileconfig using our internal company MDM (Apple Business Essentials) to all developer workstations so we don't have to have each developer manually configure their system for the software to run. Thanks! D

I started the notarization process for my electron app (just a browser window loading a URL) yesterday (26/03/2025) at around 05:23 GMT. I noticed in a couple of posts here in the forum that it may sometimes take a day to notarize the first app submitted by a team, but it has been over 30 hours since I submitted the app for notarization Here's the log. createdDate: 2025-03-26T05:23:11.102Z id: ddcb3fca-4667-4acb-8fd1-3298a7c244cc name: xolock-browser.zip status: In Progress Is there any reason why it is taking so long? Thanks in advance!

I started the notarization process for my electron app (just a browser window loading a URL) yesterday (26/03/2025) at around 05:23 GMT. I noticed in a couple of posts here in the forum that it may sometimes take a day to notarize the first app submitted by a team, but it has been over 30 hours now. Here's the log from xcrun notarytool history. createdDate: 2025-03-26T05:23:11.102Z id: ddcb3fca-4667-4acb-8fd1-3298a7c244cc name: xolock-browser.zip status: In Progress Do help me out here, I have zero idea why this is taking so long. Thanks in advance!

I have app developed in electron.js and python and it works in ios 15 after codesigning but not in ios 14 or below I need to understand if theres a specific instruction that we need to while building the app or do I need to codesign in lower version? what can I do solve this issue??

I regularly see folks run into problems with their Developer ID signing identities. Historically I pointed them to my posts on this thread, but I’ve decided to collect these ideas together in one place. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread here on DevForums and tag it with Developer ID so that I see it. IMPORTANT Nothing I write here on DevForums is considered official documentation. It’s just my personal ramblings based on hard-won experience. There is a bunch of official documentation that covers the topics I touch on here, including: Xcode documentation Xcode Help Developer Account Help Developer > Support > Certificates For a lot more information about code signing, see the Code Signing Resources pinned post. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" The Care and Feeding of Developer ID Most Apple signing assets are replaceable. For example, if you accidentally lose access to your Apple Development signing identity, it’s a minor inconvenience. Just use the Developer website to revoke your previous certificate and create a replacement. Or have Xcode do that for you. IMPORTANT If you don’t understand the difference between a certificate and a digital identity, and hence signing identity, read Certificate Signing Requests Explained before reading this post. Some signing assets are precious. Losing access to such assets has significant consequences. Foremost amongst those are Developer ID signing identities. These allow you to sign Mac products that ship independently. Anyone with access to your Developer ID signing identity can sign code as you. This has a number of consequences, both for you and for your relationship with Apple. Identify a Developer ID Signing Identity A Developer ID signing identity consists of two parts: the certificate and the private key. There are two different flavours, identifiable by the subject name in the certificate: Developer ID Application — This is named Developer ID Application: TTT, where TTT identifies your team. Use this to sign code and disk images. Developer ID Installer — This is named Developer ID Installer: TTT, where TTT identifies your team. Use this to sign installer packages. Note If you do KEXT development, there’s a third flavour, namely a KEXT-enabled Developer ID Application signing identity. For more details, see KEXT Code Signing Problems. This post focuses on traditional signing identities, where you manage the private key. Xcode Cloud introduced cloud signing, where signing identities are “stored securely in the cloud”. These identities have the Managed suffix in Certificates, Identifiers, and Profiles. For example, Developer ID Application Managed is the cloud signing equivalent of Developer ID Application. To learn more about cloud signing, watch WWDC 2021 Session 10204 Distribute apps in Xcode with cloud signing. To identify these certificates ‘in the wild’, see Identifying a Cloud Managed Signing Certificate. Limit Access to Developer ID Anyone with your Developer ID signing identity can sign code as you. Given that, be careful to limit access to these signing identities. This is true both for large organisations and small developers. In a large organisation, ensure that only folks authorised to ship code on behalf of your organisation have access to your Developer ID signing identities. Most organisations have some sort of release process that they use to build, test, and authorise a release. This often involves a continuous integration (CI) system. Restrict CI access to only those folks involved in the release process. Even if you’re a small developer with no formal release process, you can still take steps to restrict access to Developer ID signing identities. See Don’t Leak Your Private Key, below. In all cases, don’t use your Developer ID signing identities for day-to-day development. That’s what Apple Development signing identities are for. Create Developer ID Signing Identities as the Account Holder Because Developer ID signing identities are precious, the Developer website will only let the Account Holder create them. For instructions on how to do this, see Developer Account Help > Create certificates > Create Developer ID certificates. For more information about programme roles, see Developer > Support > Program Roles. IMPORTANT In an Organization team it’s common for the Account Holder to be non-technical. They may need help getting this done. For hints and tips on how to avoid problems while doing this, see Don’t Lose Your Private Key and Don’t Leak Your Private Key, both below. Limit the Number of Developer ID Signing Identities You Create Don’t create Developer ID signing identities unnecessarily. Most folks only need to create one. Well, one Developer ID Application and maybe one Developer ID Installer. A large organisation might need more, perhaps one for each sub-unit, but that’s it. There are two reasons why this is important: The more you have, the more likely it is for one to get into the wrong hands. Remember that anyone with your Developer ID signing identity can sign code as you. The Developer website limits you to 5 Developer ID certificates. Note I can never remember where this limit is actually documented, so here’s the exact quote from this page: You can create up to five Developer ID Application certificates and up to five Developer ID Installer certificates using either your developer account or Xcode. Don’t Lose Your Private Key There are two standard processes for creating a Developer ID signing identity: Developer website — See Developer Account Help > Create certificates > Create Developer ID certificates. Xcode — See Xcode Help > Maintaining signing assets > Manage signing certificates. Both processes implicitly create a private key in your login keychain. This makes it easy to lose your private key. For example: If you do this on one Mac and then get a new Mac, you might forget to move the private key to the new Mac. If you’re helping your Organization team’s Account Holder to create a Developer ID signing identity, you might forget to export the private key from their login keychain. It also makes it easy to accidentally leave a copy of the private key on a machine that doesn’t need it; see Don’t Leak Your Private Key, below, for specific advice on that front. Every time you create a Developer ID signing identity, it’s a good idea to make an independent backup of it. For advice on how to do that, see Back Up Your Signing Identities, below. That technique is also useful if you need to copy the signing identity to a continuous integration system. If you think you’ve lost the private key for a Developer ID signing identity, do a proper search for it. Finding it will save you a bunch of grief. You might be able to find it on your old Mac, in a backup, in a backup for your old Mac, and so on. For instructions on how to extract your private key from a general backup, see Recover a Signing Identity from a Mac Backup. If you’re absolutely sure that you previous private key is lost, use the Developer website to create a replacement signing identity. If the Developer website won’t let you create any more because you’ve hit the limit discussed above, talk to Developer Programs Support. Go to Apple > Developer > Contact Us and follow the path Development and Technical > Certificates, Identifiers, and Provisioning Profiles. Don’t Leak Your Private Key Anyone with your Developer ID signing identity can sign code as you. Thus, it’s important to take steps to prevent its private key from leaking. A critical first step is to limit access to your Developer ID signing identities. For advice on that front, see Limit Access to Developer ID, above. In an Organization team, only the Account Holder can create Developer ID signing identities. When they do this, a copy of the identity’s private key will most likely end up in their login keychain. Once you’ve exported the signing identity, and confirmed that everything is working, make sure to delete that copy of the private key. Some organisations have specific rules for managing Developer ID signing identities. For example, an organisation might require that the private key be stored in a hardware token, which prevents it from being exported. Setting that up is a bit tricky, but it offers important security benefits. Even without a hardware token, there are steps you can take to protect your Developer ID signing identity. For example, you might put it in a separate keychain, one with a different password and locking policy than your login keychain. That way signing code for distribution will prompt you to unlock the keychain, which reminds you that this is a significant event and ensures that you don’t do it accidentally. If you believe that your private key has been compromised, follow the instructions in the Compromised Certificates section of Developer > Support > Certificates. IMPORTANT Don’t go down this path if you’ve simply lost your private key. Back Up Your Signing Identities Given that Developer ID signing identities are precious, consider making an independent backup of them. To back up a signing identity to a PKCS#12 (.p12) file: Launch Keychain Access. At the top, select My Certificates. On the left, select the keychain you use for signing identities. For most folks this is the login keychain. Select the identity. Choose File > Export Items. In the file dialog, select Personal Information Exchange (.p12) in the File Format popup. Enter a name, navigate to your preferred location, and click Save. You might be prompted to enter the keychain password. If so, do that and click OK. You will be prompted to enter a password to protect the identity. Use a strong password and save this securely in a password manager, corporate password store, on a piece of paper in a safe, or whatever. You might be prompted to enter the keychain password again. If so, do that and click Allow. The end result is a .p12 file holding your signing identity. Save that file in a secure location, and make sure that you have a way to connect it to the password you saved in step 9. Remember to backup all your Developer ID signing identities, including the Developer ID Installer one if you created it. To restore a signing identity from a backup: Launch Keychain Access. Choose File > Import Items. In the open sheet, click Show Options. Use the Destination Keychain popup to select the target keychain. Navigate to and select the .p12 file, and then click Open. Enter the .p12 file’s password and click OK. If prompted, enter the destination keychain password and click OK. Recover a Signing Identity from a Mac Backup If you didn’t independently backup your Developer ID signing identity, you may still be able to recover it from a general backup of your Mac. To start, work out roughly when you created your Developer ID signing identity: Download your Developer ID certificate from the Developer website. In the Finder, Quick Look it. The Not Valid Before field is the date you’re looking for. Now it’s time to look in your backups. The exact details depend on the backup software you’re using, but the basic process runs something like this: Look for a backup taken shortly after the date you determined above. In that backup, look for the file ~/Library/Keychains/login.keychain. Recover that to a convenient location, like your desktop. Don’t put it in ~/Library/Keychains because that’ll just confuse things. Rename it to something unique, like login-YYYY-MM-DD.keychain, where YYYY-MM-DD is the date of the backup. In Keychain Access, choose File > Add Keychain and, in the resulting standard file panel, choose that .keychain file. On the left, select login-YYYY-MM-DD. Chose File > Unlock Keychain “login-YYYY-MM-DD“. In the resulting password dialog, enter your login password at the date of the backup. At the top, select My Certificates. Look through the list of digital identities to find the Developer ID identity you want. If you don’t see the one you’re looking for, see Further Recovery Tips below. Export it using the process described at the start of Back Up Your Signing Identities. Once you’re done, remove the keychain from Keychain Access: On the left, select the login-YYYY-MM-DD keychain. Choose File > Delete Keychain “login-YYYY-MM-DD”. In the confirmation alert, click Remove Reference. The login-YYYY-MM-DD.keychain is now just a file. You can trash it, keep it, whatever, at your discretion. This process creates a .p12 file. To work with that, import it into your keychain using the process described at the end of Back Up Your Signing Identities. IMPORTANT Keep that .p12 file as your own independent backup of your signing identity. Further Recovery Tips If, in the previous section, you can’t find the Developer ID identity you want, there are a few things you might do: Look in a different backup. If your account has more than one keychain, look in your other keychains. If you have more than one login account, look at the keychains for your other accounts. If you have more than one Mac, look at the backups for your other Macs. The login-YYYY-MM-DD keychain might have the private key but not the certificate. Add your Developer ID certificate to that keychain to see if it pairs with a private key. Revision History 2025-03-28 Excised the discussion of Xcode’s import and export feature because that was removed in Xcode 16. 2025-02-20 Added some clarification to the end of Don’t Leak Your Private Key. 2023-10-05 Added the Recover a Signing Identity from a Mac Backup and Further Recovery Tips sections. 2023-06-23 Added a link to Identifying a Cloud Managed Signing Certificate. 2023-06-21 First posted.

Hi, We have an app that is a default mail client, so it has this entry in its entitlements file: com.apple.developer.mail-client. This seems to create issues with ad-hoc distribution. We can distribute the app on App Store Connect without any issues and have been doing so for a while. We wanted to try using Xcode Cloud to manage our releases. The app export works fine for both App Store Distribution and Development Distribution. However, the ad-hoc distribution step fails. (We don't need ad-hoc distribution, but Xcode Cloud seems to prevent us from removing this step.) I tried building and releasing the app locally for ad-hoc distribution and encountered the same error as on Xcode Cloud. When Xcode tries to generate the profile, it outputs the following error: Provisioning profile "iOS Team Ad Hoc Provisioning Profile: com.infomaniak.mail" failed qualification checks: Profile doesn't support Default Mail App. Profile doesn't include the com.apple.developer.mail-client entitlement. Is it something broken with our config ? What are we missing ? Local error in Xcode Organizer: Remote error on Xcode cloud:

I’ve been working on a Catalyst version of my iOS apps. Finally everything is working apart from the custom intents the user user to configure the widgets. The config UI loads: And changing settings at this level works. But it can’t load the options for the other settings: “No options were provided for this parameter” I see this crash in the intent: Termination Reason: Namespace DYLD, Code 1 Library missing Library not loaded: @rpath/CocoaLumberjack.framework/Versions/A/CocoaLumberjack Referenced from: <E1BF4CC5-4181-3272-828C-86B1CD1A66BF> /Applications/my.app/Contents/PlugIns/Intents.appex/Contents/MacOS/Intents Reason: , (security policy does not allow @ path expansion) (terminated at launch; ignore backtrace) I have added the Hardened Runtime Capability to the Main App Target, the Widget Target and the Intents Target. I also allowed “Disable Library Validation” just in case. What am I missing?

I requested the Family Controls Entitlement last week and haven’t heard back at all. I’ve submitted the request three times now, but I haven’t received a confirmation, a case number, or even an acknowledgment that it was received. I called Apple Support, but they said they have no visibility into the entitlement request process, which leaves me completely in the dark. I just want to know if my request is under consideration or not. This is especially frustrating because I’ve had strong engagement on social media around my app, and I have stakeholders waiting for updates. Right now, I can’t send the app for review, and I can’t even distribute it via TestFlight to internal testers. Honestly, I didn’t expect this kind of radio silence from Apple. Has anyone else experienced this when requesting entitlements?

My app records the screen to use the audio for audio analysis for a music visualization. The app works perfectly in production but when uploaded to Transporter is rejected as below. What is the correct entitlement to use as the entitlement I am using seems deprecated. Validation failed (409) Invalid Code Signing Entitlements. Your application bundle's signature contains code signing entitlements that are not supported on macOS. Specifically, key 'com.apple.security.screen-capture' in 'com.boxedpandora.pulse.pkg/Payload/PuLsE.app/Contents/MacOS/PuLsE' is not supported. (ID: a1a436f5-925d-43bc-908d-0761064d589b) Many thanks for any input provided!

On MacOS, I know that App Groups (com.apple.security.application-groups) do not require a provisioning profile. I was wondering if it's possible to sign them "ad hoc" and have it work? So maybe use a random TEAMID prefix and have it work? I would only need the app to work locally (for testing), not be distributed in that fashion, of course.

My app designer cannot sign his code changes. He says the only way he can sign his code is for me to give him my Admin privileges. I have revoked and recreated my certificate, hoping to get a private passkey, but there was no private passkey issued with the certificate. Help, please?

Hi, I got the error: /usr/bin/codesign exited with code 1: Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "Apple Distribution: Q.A.C.F. - Quality Academy Consultoria E Formacao, Unipessoal, Lda (xxxxxx)" /Users/pedroramalho/Library/Caches/Xamarin/mtbs/builds/drBoxSaude.iOS/3bed3d51415af2e100a4d2bc57e1d36fb42d76ceb190de1db1c4d0dbccbff863/bin/iPhone/Release/drBoxSaude.iOS.app: errSecInternalComponent and /usr/bin/codesign exited with code 1: /Users/pedroramalho/Library/Caches/Xamarin/mtbs/builds/drBoxSaude.iOS/3bed3d51415af2e100a4d2bc57e1d36fb42d76ceb190de1db1c4d0dbccbff863/bin/iPhone/Release/drBoxSaude.iOS.app/Frameworks/libSkiaSharp.framework: replacing existing signature Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "Apple Distribution: Q.A.C.F. - Quality Academy Consultoria E Formacao, Unipessoal, Lda (xxxxx)" /Users/pedroramalho/Library/Caches/Xamarin/mtbs/builds/drBoxSaude.iOS/3bed3d51415af2e100a4d2bc57e1d36fb42d76ceb190de1db1c4d0dbccbff863/bin/iPhone/Release/drBoxSaude.iOS.app/Frameworks/libSkiaSharp.framework: errSecInternalComponent Some one can help please

I have been trying to notarize my application for about a month via this command - xcrun notarytool submit "Backlsh.zip" --apple-id "" --password "" --team-id "" but it throws error - { "logFormatVersion": 1, "jobId": "c8173ee6-edd2-4c51-a86b-8f3b8dea0a84", "status": "Rejected", "statusSummary": "Team is not yet configured for notarization. Please contact Developer Programs Support at developer.apple.com under the topic Development and Technical / Other Development or Technical Questions.", "statusCode": 7000, "archiveFilename": "Backlsh.zip", "uploadDate": "2025-03-06T05:33:56.287Z", "sha256": "b45e579f0c47070b55d74ac49e49c81d32f2315bd290ca5592f71f314018c44d", "ticketContents": null, "issues": null } I have raised ticket to apple support but i havent received any help yet ! I have tried to submit 5 times. Kindly help !

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

I'm getting this error when uploading a build of my macOS app to App Store Connect. It has always worked before, and nothing changed about my use of app groups, and the iOS build uploaded without any problems. Cleaning the build folder and derived data folder doesn't help. I'm using automatically managed signing in Xcode. Invalid code signing entitlements. Your application bundle’s signature contains code signing entitlements that aren’t supported on macOS. Specifically, the “[group.]” value for the com.apple.security.application-groups key in “.pkg/Payload/.app/Contents/MacOS/” isn’t supported. This value should be a string or an array of strings, where each string is the “group” value or your Team ID, followed by a dot (“.”), followed by the group name. If you're using the “group” prefix, verify that the provisioning profile used to sign the app contains the com.apple.security.application-groups entitlement and its associated value(s).