Can you please help us with the scenario below, including details and Apple’s recommendations? I've already read through the Notarization and Gatekeeper documentation. The installed version of our application is 1.2.3, located in /Applications/XYZSecurity.app. We created an upgrade package for version 1.2.4. As part of the pre-install script in the 1.2.4 installer, we explicitly deleted some obsolete .dylib files from /Applications/XYZSecurity.app/Contents/Frameworks and some executable files from /Applications/XYZSecurity.app/Contents/MacOS that were no longer needed in version 1.2.4. The installation of version 1.2.4 completed successfully, but we see the below error logs in installer.log: PackageKit: Failed to unlinkat file reference /Applications/XYZSecurity.app/Contents/Frameworks/libhelper.dylib PackageKit: Failed to unlinkat file reference /Applications/XYZSecurity.app/Contents/MacOS/helper-tool Our Key Questions: Is it the right practice to remove obsolete files in the pre-install script during an upgrade? Is this approach recommended by Apple? Can this cause any issues with Apple Gatekeeper? Is there a possibility of my application getting blocked by Gatekeeper as a result?

I'm trying to download a profile for a developer download for an app, but I get this error and can't install the profile. I've already registered the device and UDID and added it to the profile. Please let me know what I need to do.

Hey, when I try to launch my app it prompts me with a "Apple could not verify" popup. The thing is the app has been signed and stapled. xcrun stapler validate .app for my app returns "The validate action worked!" If I also run syspolicy_check distribution .app it returns: "App passed all pre-distribution checks and is ready for distribution" Any idea?

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"

Hi All, Really weird one here... I have two bundle ids with the same reverse dns name... com.company.app1 com.company.app2 app1 was installed on the device a year ago. app2 was also installed on the device a year ago but I released a new updated version and pushed it to the device via Microsoft InTunes. A year ago the vendor Id's matched as the bundle id's were on the same domain of com.company. Now for some reason the new build of app2 or any new app I build isn't being recognised as on the same domain as app1 even though the bundle id should make it so and so the Vendor Id's do not match and it is causing me major problems as I rely on the Vendor Id to exchange data between the apps on a certain device. In an enterprise environment, does anyone know of any other reason or things that could affect the Vendor Id? According to Apple docs, it seems that only the bundle name affects the vendor id but it isn't following those rules in this instance.

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.

note technically code-signing but related...... Why has there been no update to the documentation at: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appstorereceipts/validating_receipts_on_the_device To demonstrate how to validate an SHA256 app store hash ??? The January deadline is looming and I can find no working example code which sucessfully validates an SHA256 hash HELP !!!!

I am trying to notarize a simple app I made, but keep getting stuck on "In Progress". The app is a MacOS app, and I'm using XCode. I've tried all the steps listed in the links below: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing-macos-software-before-distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/resolving-common-notarization-issues I've had the same issue with another app, which got rejected after multiple hours. Never got to resolve this.

Hi, I am trying to make my app build on GitHub Action CI pipeline. App builds fine on xcode on my mac. For CI I am using command line xcode. I am getting following error: No profiles for 'com.snslocation.electricians-now' were found: Xcode couldn't find any iOS App Development provisioning profiles matching 'com.snslocation.electricians-now'. Automatic signing is disabled and unable to generate a profile. To enable automatic signing, pass -allowProvisioningUpdates to xcodebuild. (in target 'myapp' from project 'myapp') You can see full log of the build here: https://github.com/nbulatovi/ElectriciansNow/actions/runs/12603115423/job/35127512689 The provisioning profile is present, and verified in the previous steps in the pipeline, however xcode refuses to find it. If I add -allowProvisioningUpdates error stays. I tried manually mapping app id to profile name. Is there a way to get any debug log from xcode profile search, to see why is it not picking up the correct profile? Or can you maybe help in some other way? xcode version is 15.4, iOS SDK 17.5

Hello Colleagues, We have been seeing a delay in our Apple notarization submission that hangs for hours "in progress" without completing: This issue has been occurring since Friday, October 17th. We have also checked the Apple System Status page and there is no indication of any outage for Apple notarization.

I just made a TikTok account accidentally using my Apple ID I’m trying to delete the account and the only way to delete it is to put this code in I don’t know where to look for the code and apparently it was sent to my private relay.appleid.com.

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

I'm building an app that uses the Screen Time API and DeviceActivityMonitoring Framework. It works when I run the simulator build on iPhone 16 but when I try to launch it on my own iPhone, I get these errors. Provisioning profile "iOS Team Provisioning Profile: Kanso- Digital-Wellness.Kanso-v2" doesn't include the com.apple.developer.device-activity.monitoring entitlement. KansoMonitorExtension 1 issue x Provisioning profile "iOS Team Provisioning Profile: Kanso-Digital-Wellness.Kanso-v2.KansoMonitorExtension" doesn't include the com.apple.developer.device-activity.monitoring en... Read something online that said a reboot would fix this, but I tried and no luck. Any ideas? I'm not very technical, so would pay someone to fix this for me :)

We are developing a macOS application for distribution outside the Mac App Store. This application requires additional entitlements, including Keychain access groups, Network Extension, App Groups, and Sandbox. Both the app and the network extension import a custom framework. After creating the .app via Xcode, I ensured that a new Developer ID Application provisioning profile was generated. These profiles were then injected into the Contents folder of the .app and Plugins/.netappex as embedded.provisionprofile. Next, .entitlements files were created with the necessary "-systemextension" entitlement for the network extension and used for code signing. When inspecting the extracted entitlements from the .provisioningprofile as described in TN3125, everything appears correct. Code signing flow: codesign --force --options runtime --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <team>" <.app>/Contents/Frameworks/<sdk>.framework/ codesign --force --options runtime --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <team>" <.app>/Contents/PlugIns/vpn.appex/Contents/Frameworks/<sdk>.framework/Versions/A/<sdk> codesign --force --options runtime --entitlements <vpn-plist>.entitlements --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <team>" <.app>/Contents/PlugIns/vpn.appex/ codesign --force --options runtime --entitlements <app-plist>.entitlements --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: <team>" <.app> The .app is then zipped with ditto -c -k --keepParent and set off for notarization, which is succesful and the .app is stapled. After that, a .dmg or .pkg is created, which is then sent for notarization and subsequently stapled. The problem occurs when the app is distributed to the client. Opening the extracted .app fails, as Gatekeeper refuses to launch it with the following error message: 661 debug staticCode syspolicyd Security 0x88d68d818 done serializing <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!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><teamid.bundleid></string><key>com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension</key><array><string>packet-tunnel-provider-systemextension</string></array><key>com.apple.developer.team-identifier</key><string>team-id</string><key>com.apple.security.app-sandbox</key><true/><key>com.apple.security.application-groups</key><array><string>teamid.group.appgroup</string></array><key>com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write</key><true/><key>com.apple.security.network.client</key><true/><key>com.apple.security.network.server</key><true/><key>keychain-access-groups</key><array><string>teamid.group.appgroup</string></array></dict></plist> com.apple.securityd 22207 debug ProvisioningProfiles taskgated-helper ConfigurationProfiles entitlements: { "com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension" = ( "packet-tunnel-provider-systemextension" ); "com.apple.developer.team-identifier" = team-id; "keychain-access-groups" = ( “teamid.group.appgroup” ); } com.apple.ManagedClient 22207 error ProvisioningProfiles taskgated-helper ConfigurationProfiles <bundle-id>: Unsatisfied entitlements: com.apple.developer.team-identifier, com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension, keychain-access-groups com.apple.ManagedClient After encountering this problem every time, we tried using a different development team with a new bundle ID, app groups, developer ID, developer ID certificate, and provisioning profiles. The .entitlements file remained the same (with different IDs), as did the capabilities for the App IDs in App Store Connect. With this new development team, we were successful, and the gatekeeper did not block the launch job. From a configuration standpoint, everything appears identical. Updating the App Store Connect App ID capabilities and generating new provisioning profiles for the first development team did not resolve the issue. Thank you for your help.

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?

How should certificates and notarization be configured for a desktop application developed with Electron so that it can be used properly? The software is distributed via website download.

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.

I added a new device and it's not recognizing the device model. This causes a message saying "Unable to verify" when signing an app. Has anyone else encountered this issue? This only happens with this one device, not others.

Hello, we are currently encountering a similar issue. We need to inject our capabilities into a third-party app by re-signing it (not a full re-signing process—just requiring the provisioning profile and certificate to match). However, this seems to affect the functionality of universal links. We've found that this issue only occurs on iOS 18. We noticed that when re-signing the app, the entitlements related to associated domains are changed to a wildcard: [Key] com.apple.developer.associated-domains [Value] [Array] [String] * However, this doesn’t cause any issues on iOS 17. Through further testing, we discovered that in order for universal links to work properly, we need to restore the original value of com.apple.developer.associated-domains and use a provisioning profile that matches the app's bundle ID. This means our previous re-signing approach using a certificate and provisioning profile from another bundle will no longer work. We’d like to ask: is this a new restriction introduced in iOS 18? If we manually restore the original com.apple.developer.associated-domains entitlement and use a provisioning profile that matches the app’s bundle ID, will universal links function correctly going forward?

Hi, I was sent here by Apple developer account, it seems here is the only option for me, so your help is very much appreciated! Basically we are building a chromium based browser on iOS, we applied the "com.apple.developer.web-browser" entitlement, and it shows up in our identifier, profile etc. The app is signed with the new entitlement and published to the app store. However it is not listed as an option for default browser, doesn't matter which device I tried. I did verified that the Info.plist contains http/https urlschemes as required. In fact a few of us checked all available documents multiple times and still couldn't see why.