You can now easily request access to managed capabilities for your App IDs directly from the new Capability Requests tab in Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles > Identifiers. With this update, view available capabilities in one convenient location, check the status of your requested capabilities, and see any notes from Apple related to your requests. Learn more about capability requests.

General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums subtopics: Code Signing > General, Code Signing > Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles, Code Signing > Notarization, Code Signing > Entitlements Forums tags: Code Signing, Signing Certificates, Provisioning Profiles, Entitlements Developer Account Help — This document is good in general but, in particular, the Reference section is chock-full of useful information, including the names and purposes of all certificate types issued by Apple Developer web site, tables of which capabilities are supported by which distribution models on iOS and macOS, and information on how to use managed capabilities. Developer > Support > Certificates covers some important policy issues Bundle Resources > Entitlements documentation TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles — This includes links to the other technotes in the Inside Code Signing series. WWDC 2021 Session 10204 Distribute apps in Xcode with cloud signing Certificate Signing Requests Explained forums post --deep Considered Harmful forums post Don’t Run App Store Distribution-Signed Code forums post Resolving errSecInternalComponent errors during code signing forums post Finding a Capability’s Distribution Restrictions forums post Signing code with a hardware-based code-signing identity forums post New Capabilities Request Tab in Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles forums post Isolating Code Signing Problems from Build Problems forums post Investigating Third-Party IDE Code-Signing Problems forums post Determining if an entitlement is real forums post Code Signing Identifiers Explained forums post Mac code signing: Forums tag: Developer ID Creating distribution-signed code for macOS documentation Packaging Mac software for distribution documentation Placing Content in a Bundle documentation Embedding nonstandard code structures in a bundle documentation Embedding a command-line tool in a sandboxed app documentation Signing a daemon with a restricted entitlement documentation Defining launch environment and library constraints documentation WWDC 2023 Session 10266 Protect your Mac app with environment constraints TN2206 macOS Code Signing In Depth archived technote — This doc has mostly been replaced by the other resources linked to here but it still contains a few unique tidbits and it’s a great historical reference. Manual Code Signing Example forums post The Care and Feeding of Developer ID forums post TestFlight, Provisioning Profiles, and the Mac App Store forums post For problems with notarisation, see Notarisation Resources. For problems with the trusted execution system, including Gatekeeper, see Trusted Execution Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Hey all, I’m experiencing a consistent issue with notarizing a signed .pkg file that contains a macOS screen saver (.saver) bundle. Nothing online so far except 1 thread on the form from the altool time pre-2023 so i thought it worth another update. Here is what I did: I signed the .saver bundle using my Developer ID Application certificate. I packaged it into a .pkg using pkgbuild with my Developer ID Installer certificate: I submitted the resulting .pkg via xcrun notarytool: xcrun notarytool submit saver-name.pkg --apple-id email@email.com --password [app-specific-password] --team-id xxxxxxxxx The submission appears to be accepted and uploads successfully. However, the notarization status remains stuck at “In Progress” for hours (over 12h), with no update. I also tried: Repackaging the .pkg with a new name using a zip Resubmitting it under a new submission ID All attempts are stuck in the same “In Progress” state indefinitely. Did anyone solve this yet?

I am distributing a macOS application outside the App Store using Developer ID and need to provide provisioning profiles to customers for installation during the package installation process. I have two questions: How can I package and provide the provisioning profile(s) so that the customer can install them easily during the application installation process? Are there any best practices or tools that could simplify this step? In my case, there are multiple provisioning profiles. Should I instruct the customer to install each profile individually, or is there a way to combine them and have them installed all at once? Any guidance on the best practices for this process would be greatly appreciated.

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.

Hello all, I am attempting to notarize my newly made Mac OS application using the notarization command in VS Code. "/Users/teejgotit/Desktop/Cursor Workspace/Rust CutContour v2/cutcontour-app/src-tauri/target/release/bundle/dmg/CC Studio_0.1.0_aarch64.dmg" \ --key "/Users/teejgotit/AppleCerts/AuthKey_MATVLX3.p8" \ --key-id "MATVLX9" \ --issuer "887ba428-aa39-4fb3-a3dc-f83b9145cab0" \ --wait Only to be met with a continual "Current State: In Progress.." for what has been about 1 day and 16 hours now. Current status: In Progress........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ My app and project are rather small and was curious if this is a normal thing for this to day takes for a first time notarization? Would love any help or feedback.

I am developing and distributing an XCFramework, and I want to ensure that it remains valid for as long as possible. I have some questions regarding certificate expiration and revocation: I understand that if an XCFramework is signed with a timestamp, it remains valid even after the signing certificate expires. However, if the signing certificate is revoked, the XCFramework immediately becomes unusable. As far as I know, Apple allows a maximum of two active distribution certificates at the same time. I assume that once a certificate expires, it will eventually need to be revoked in order to issue a third certificate. Is this correct? If an expired certificate is later revoked, will the XCFrameworks signed with that certificate also become invalid, even though they were timestamped? I want to ensure that released XCFrameworks remain valid for as long as possible. What is the best approach to achieve this? If anyone has insights or official documentation references on how to manage signing certificates for long-term XCFramework validity, I would appreciate your guidance. Thank you!

I am trying to build/deploy app to my phone however I get this message: "provisioning profile doesn't include the currently selected device" My developer account is pretty old one and used to be one the paid-version one. My understanding is that I should be able to deploy apps using free account but I don't see where I can add or delete devices....stuck in the loop over here! :-) I've created support request via email but I don't know if that is being worked or not...four days since I put it in. I suppose my other options are new apple-id or pay $99 and hope apple pays attention then? Any other suggestions?

I will post my app xyz.app uses XY swift package this swift package is a wrapper for XYSDK.xcframework XYSDK.xcframework written in c++ and app running on arm64 macos and iphones succesfully. I got this error when i want to distribute it. Currently i sign .framework for ios with Apple Distribution Certificate and same certificate for macos framework there is no other signing step for swift package or xcframework other than that when i want to archive it validates succesfully. Exporting step shows that app has signed, has provisining profile. but .framework is only signed has no provisioning profile. Also one point i see: i have one target named xyz and its Frameworks, Lİbraries and Embedded Context has only XY package but Embed part has no option like embed and sign etc. Blank. I need more info about what am i doing wrong in which step ? I am stuck and can not move any further like weeks Error Detail: Invalid Signature. The binary with bundle identifier XYSDK at path “xyz.app/Frameworks/XYSDK.framework” contains an invalid signature. Make sure you have signed your application with a distribution certificate, not an ad hoc certificate or a development certificate. Verify that the code signing settings in Xcode are correct at the target level (which override any values at the project level). Additionally, make sure the bundle you are uploading was built using a Release target in Xcode, not a Simulator target. If you are certain your code signing settings are correct, choose “Clean All” in Xcode, delete the “build” directory in the Finder, and rebuild your release target. For more information, please consult https://developer.apple.com/support/code-signing. (90035)

Hi, we are sending MacOS apps packaged in a ZIP archive or DMG disk image to the Notary Service. Before we send the app for notarization, we check the code signature via command codesign -vvv --deep --strict /path/to/app_or_bundle The result is positive and it does not provide any gaps. (And yes, we are following the inside out code signing approach, mentioned at Using the codesign Tool's --deep Option Correctly) Unfortunately, the result of the Notary service provided that one file has no signature, which was not detected by the signature verification command. The path of the binary was in <app_name>.app.zip/<app_name>.app/Contents/Resources/inst/<binary> How I can be verify like a the Notary service does it on our side? Best regards, Stefan

Hi there, I am trying to build the Apple SimpleAudioDriver example but fail with codesign and/or provisioning. I would be ok for now with the local option, but XCode 16.4 doesn't show the option "build to run locally" (SIP is disabled). When using "Automatically manage signing" it ends in a "Please file a bug report". I found that having two different development teams tripped it up, so I deleted all certificates and keys and made sure to be only signed into one account in Xcode. Can anyone give advice? Thanks a ton! Here is the URL to the sample: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coreaudio/building-an-audio-server-plug-in-and-driver-extension macOS: 15.6.1 XCode: 16.4 Hardware: MacBook Pro M2 Max SIP: disabled

Hi, I am developing a iOS app with Packet Tunnel Provider Network Extension. I manage signing manually. I created a distribution provisioning profile. Then when I archive and click "validate" I get this error: Your application bundle's signature contains code signing entitlements that are not supported on iOS. Specifically, value 'url-filter-provider' for key 'com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension' So I run security cms -D -i profiles/vpn_distribution.mobileprovision and I see there <key>Entitlements</key> <dict> <key>com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension</key> <array> <string>app-proxy-provider</string> <string>content-filter-provider</string> <string>packet-tunnel-provider</string> <string>dns-proxy</string> <string>dns-settings</string> <string>relay</string> <string>url-filter-provider</string> <string>hotspot-provider</string> </array> Where are those coming from. My entitlement file has <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>com.apple.developer.networking.networkextension</key> <array> <string>packet-tunnel-provider</string> </array> <key>com.apple.security.application-groups</key> <array> <string>group.my-app-group</string> </array> </dict> </plist> What is happening here. How can I get a provisioning profile that only has the entitlements that I actually need?

I followed the instruction on Preparing your app to be the default browser or email client. I have acquired the permission from Apple. The entitlement is included in the provisioning profile. mailto is specified in URL Schemes. But I downloaded my app from TestFlight and enter Setting &gt; MyApp, the switch that could enable my app to be the default email app was not there. I have no clue what I did it wrong. Does anyone know how to configure the app properly?

Hi everyone, After I recently changed my Apple ID (iCloud) password, my Developer ID certificate stopped working for signing macOS apps. Symptoms: Signing fails with the Developer ID certificate that was previously working fine. I tried re-downloading the certificate from my Apple Developer account and importing it into the Keychain, but the issue persists. It seems that the Developer ID identity is no longer trusted or properly linked to my system since the password change. Attempts: Re-downloaded and installed the certificate from the developer portal. Verified that the private key is present and linked. Checked keychain access and code-signing identity — everything appears normal, but the signed apps are rejected or the signing process fails. Blocking issue: I am unable to delete or revoke the Developer ID certificate on my account (Apple Support says it's not possible). Also, I can't create a new one due to the certificate limit. Questions: Is it expected for a Developer ID certificate to become invalid after changing the Apple ID password? Is there a recommended way to refresh or restore the certificate trust on macOS? How can I invalidate the current certificate and generate a new one if I'm stuck? Any insights or official guidance would be really appreciated. Thanks in advance!

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.

we have organization account I'm the admin of team. and i have additional resources: Additional Resources Access to Reports Access to Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles. Access to Cloud Managed Distribution Certificate Create Apps Generate Individual API Keys Issues: i can't find my team certificate in Xcode I don't have access to https://developer.apple.com/account/resources/

Hey everyone, I’m wondering if anyone has run into any issues with this. Before I uploaded, I guess maybe 20 assets of 1080 x 720, my notarization was taking around 2-3 minutes almost instant. Now I’m looking at 30 minutes. I have no idea when the notarization is going to end. I’m wondering if asset size has any impact on notarization speed, and if so, is this going to be a one-time thing or is this going to happen with all my following builds? Let me know if anyone has run into anything similar or if the notarization service is just down right now. ⁠

I am a new macOS developer, and the codesign issue is persistent. I've been trying to resolve it for days. There are two issues: 1.) When downloading and installing frameworks, they are not showing up in Xcode templates. 2.) Regarding codesigning, even though I've installed it on my external drive and placed it in various locations (Library, Templates, Frameworks, Application Contents, macOS Templates and Frameworks) and added through General Libraries in Xcode, persistently encountering issues. I'm experiencing a codesign problem. I've cleaned the build, cleared derived data, downloaded certificates, added them to the access key, and linked the binary. However, the issue persists. Please help me, as this is making the process much more difficult. I've been stuck on this for weeks.

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.

In Xcode, under Signing & Capabilities (Release) for our bundle ID the selected provisioning profile does include the entitlement: com.apple.developer.payment-pass-provisioning However, when we upload a new build to TestFlight, the Build Metadata → Entitlements section for the same bundle ID does not include com.apple.developer.payment-pass-provisioning. Because of this, PKAddPaymentPassViewController does not open in TestFlight builds. This suggests that while the entitlement is enabled for the App ID and visible in Xcode, it may not yet be propagated to App Store Connect’s signing service for TestFlight/App Store builds. Please Note: The Wallet Entitlements team had confirmed that they had granted entitlements for our team and the apple IDs Xcode : 26.0.1 Profile being used: Distribution Profile

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"