Gatekeeper

RSS for tag

Gatekeeper on macOS helps protect users from downloading and installing malicious software by checking for a Developer ID certificate from apps distributed outside the Mac App Store.

Posts under Gatekeeper tag

38 Posts

Post

Replies

Boosts

Views

Activity

Trusted Execution Resources
Trusted execution is a generic name for a Gatekeeper and other technologies that aim to protect users from malicious code. General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums tag: Gatekeeper Developer > Signing Mac Software with Developer ID Apple Platform Security support document Safely open apps on your Mac support article Hardened Runtime document WWDC 2022 Session 10096 What’s new in privacy covers some important Gatekeeper changes in macOS 13 (starting at 04: 32), most notably app bundle protection WWDC 2023 Session 10053 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 14 (starting at 17:46), namely, app container protection WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 15 (starting at 12:23), namely, app group container protection Updates to runtime protection in macOS Sequoia news post Testing a Notarised Product forums post Resolving Trusted Execution Problems forums post App Translocation Notes (aka Gatekeeper path randomisation) forums post Most trusted execution problems are caused by code signing or notarisation issues. See Code Signing Resources and Notarisation Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"
0
0
3.5k
Jan ’26
Developer ID Application certificate creation
Hello, We are currently in the process of creating our Developer ID Application certificate which is due to expire. While creating the certificate, we were posed with the option of choosing a Developer ID Certificate Intermediary G2 Sub CA which is supported by Xcode 11.4.1 and later Previous Sub CA We currently build our application out of Xcode using Make or CMake files and perform the codesign and productsign using the codesign commands. We also use 2 different build machines, Ventura with Xcode 14.3 for our latest releases High Sierra (10.13) with Xcode 10.1 for legacy releases to support some customers. Can you please let us know which Developer ID Certificate Intermediary we should choose for generating the new Developer ID Application certificate?
0
0
51
6h
Notarized and stapled PKG installer rejected by Gatekeeper on macOS Sequoia (Team ID: 3888L7DV3P)
Dear Apple Developer Support, We are experiencing an issue where our properly signed, notarized, and stapled PKG installer is being blocked by Gatekeeper on macOS Sequoia (15.3), despite passing all notarization checks. Team ID: 3888L7DV3P Organization: SKY GATE TECHNOLOGYS K.K. Certificate: Developer ID Installer: SKY GATE TECHNOLOGYS K.K. (3888L7DV3P) Issue Details: Our PKG installer is signed with "Developer ID Installer" certificate, notarized (status: Accepted, issues: null), and stapled successfully. pkgutil --check-signature confirms: "signed by a developer certificate issued by Apple for distribution" and "Notarization: trusted by the Apple notary service" xcrun stapler validate confirms: "The validate action worked!" However, spctl --assess --type install returns "rejected" with assessment:verdict = false and assessment:remote = true The system log shows: meetsDeveloperIDLegacyAllowedPolicy = 0 When users download and open the PKG (even from within a notarized DMG), Gatekeeper displays: "Apple could not verify [app] is free of malware" Notably, our .app bundles signed with "Developer ID Application" (same Team ID) pass Gatekeeper without issues. Only PKG installers are affected. Our software is a legitimate enterprise security product (VPN/Zero Trust client) distributed to corporate customers. Could you please: Investigate why our Team ID's PKG installers are being rejected by Gatekeeper's online assessment despite valid notarization Advise on any steps we can take to resolve the meetsDeveloperIDLegacyAllowedPolicy = 0 status for our Team ID Confirm whether there is a trust establishment process for new Developer ID Installer certificates with the Gatekeeper service Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, Riku Ogura Skygate Technologies K.K.
2
0
400
4d
macOS ARM64 App Killed with SIGKILL - Gatekeeper Error -67062
Problem My ARM64 macOS application is being immediately killed with SIGKILL when launched. No crash report is generated, and the process terminates instantly. Environment macOS Version: 15.x (Sequoia) Architecture: ARM64 (Apple Silicon) Certificate: Mac Developer certificate (development signing) App Type: Native ARM64 application with embedded Java runtime Symptoms ./MacOS/myapp Immediately returns: zsh: killed ./MacOS/myapp Investigation Results System Logs Show Security Policy Rejection kernel: (AppleSystemPolicy) ASP: Security policy would not allow process: 92850, /path/to/myapp syspolicyd: (Security) MacOS error: -67062 Error Code Analysis Error -67062 = errSecCSReqFailed (Code signature requirement failed) This is a Gatekeeper enforcement issue, not a code signing problem 3. Code Signature is Valid codesign -dvvv myapp Shows valid signature with Mac Developer certificate Authority=Mac Developer: Name (TEAMID) Authority=Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA What We Tried (That Didn't Help) ✅ Removed hardened runtime flag from Java components ✅ Added JIT entitlements (com.apple.security.cs.allow-jit) ✅ Verified Mach-O structure is correct ✅ Confirmed all libraries are ARM64 ✅ Re-signed with proper entitlements None of these fixed the issue because the problem is Gatekeeper policy enforcement. Question How can I allow this development-signed ARM64 app to run on macOS 15 without full notarization? I've tried: Removing quarantine attributes Various code signing approaches Different entitlements But Gatekeeper still blocks it with error -67062. Is there a way to add a security exception for development builds, or do I need to use a Developer ID certificate even for internal testing? Additional Context This is for internal development/testing. The app works fine when properly notarized, but we need a way to test development builds without going through the full notarization process each time. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
1
0
221
1w
How to distribute an Input Method Engine
I have an IME for Indic languages that I currently distribute outside of the Mac App Store because it does not seem to be supported. IMEs needs to be installed under /Library/Input Methods/ which I believe is not allowed for App Store apps. I could distribute it as an embedded helper app within my larger distribution app that I then install on start up - but I believe even that is not allowed. Is there a sanctioned way to distribute IMEs via the Mac App Store? The iOS store has support which I was able to use effectively.
3
1
1.1k
3w
Tauri 2 macOS app cannot be opened: "contains malware" with Apple Development Certificate, or notarization blocked with Apple Distribution Certificate for IAP testing
Hi everyone, I'm developing a macOS app using Tauri 2. I need to test In-App Purchases (IAP), which requires running the actual built .app (it doesn't work properly in the development environment).I tried two approaches: Apple Development Certificate (free account): After cargo tauri build, the app "Mind Elixir.app" shows this error when I try to open it: “Mind Elixir.app” was not opened because it contains malware. This action did not harm your Mac. Apple Distribution Certificate: The app builds successfully, but because it is not notarized, Gatekeeper completely blocks it and I cannot open it at all. I just want to test IAP locally on my own Mac during development. Is there any other way to get a properly signed and runnable .app for testing IAP? Any help or workaround would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
1
0
587
3w
spctl --type install rejects notarized .pkg on macOS 26 Tahoe (26.3)
I'm distributing a macOS .pkg installer signed with Developer ID Installer and notarized via notarytool. On macOS 26.3 (Tahoe, Build 25D125), the package is rejected by Gatekeeper when downloaded from the internet. What works: pkgutil --check-signature → signed, Developer ID Installer, full chain (G2 intermediate + Apple Root CA) xcrun stapler validate → "The validate action worked!" xcrun notarytool info <id> → status: Accepted The .app inside the .pkg passes spctl -a -vvv → "accepted, source=Notarized Developer ID" What fails: spctl -a -vvv --type install mypackage.pkg → rejected, origin=Developer ID Installer Raw assessment: assessment:remote = true, assessment:verdict = false Double-clicking the downloaded .pkg shows only "Move to Trash" / "Done" (no "Open" option) syspolicyd log: meetsDeveloperIDLegacyAllowedPolicy = 0 (expected, since the cert is new), but no "notarized" match is logged Certificate details: Developer ID Installer, issued Feb 28, 2026, valid until 2031 OID 1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.14 (Developer ID Installer) — critical OID 1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.33 — timestamp 20260215000000Z Intermediate: Developer ID Certification Authority G2 (OID 1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6) security verify-cert → certificate verification successful Build process: productbuild --distribution ... --sign <SHA1> (also tried productsign) Both produce: Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root xcrun notarytool submit → Accepted xcrun stapler staple → worked Workaround: xattr -d com.apple.quarantine ~/Downloads/mypackage.pkg allows opening the installer. Question: Is spctl --type install assessment expected to work differently on macOS 26 Tahoe? The same signing and notarization workflow produces .app bundles that pass Gatekeeper, but .pkg installers are rejected. Is there a new requirement for .pkg distribution on macOS 26? Environment: macOS 26.3 (25D125), Xcode CLT 26.3
5
0
923
Mar ’26
XProtect makes app hang when running an AppleScript
I now had the second user with 26.2. complaining about a hang in my app. The hang occurs when the first AppleScript for Mail is run. Here is the relevant section from the process analysis in Activity Monitor: + 2443 OSACompile (in OpenScripting) + 52 [0x1b32b30f4] + 2443 SecurityPolicyTestDescriptor (in OpenScripting) + 152 [0x1b32a2284] + 2443 _SecurityPolicyTest(char const*, void const*, unsigned long) (in OpenScripting) + 332 [0x1b32a2118] + 2443 InterpreterSecurity_ScanBuffer (in libInterpreterSecurity.dylib) + 112 [0x28c149304] + 2443 -[InterpreterSecurity scanData:withSourceURL:] (in libInterpreterSecurity.dylib) + 164 [0x28c148db4] + 2443 -[XProtectScan beginAnalysisWithFeedback:] (in XprotectFramework) + 544 [0x1d35a1e58] + 2443 -[XPMalwareEvaluation initWithData:assessmentClass:] (in XprotectFramework) + 92 [0x1d359ada4] + 2443 -[XPMalwareEvaluation initWithRuleString:withExtraRules:withURL:withData:withAssessmentClass:feedback:] (in XprotectFramework) + 36 [0x1d359b2a8] My app is correctly signed and notarised. The first user had to completely uninstall/reinstall the app and the everything worked again. Why does this happen? How can the problem be fixed?
19
2
2.2k
Mar ’26
Mac App Store app triggers "cannot verify free of malware" alert when opening as default app
My app Mocawave is a music player distributed through the Mac App Store. It declares specific audio document types (public.mp3, com.microsoft.waveform-audio, public.mpeg-4-audio, public.aac-audio) in its CFBundleDocumentTypes with a Viewer role. When a user sets Mocawave as the default app for audio files and double-clicks an MP3 downloaded from the internet (which has the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute), macOS displays the alert: "Apple could not verify [filename] is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy." This does not happen when: Opening the same file via NSOpenPanel from within the app Opening the same file with Apple's Music.app or QuickTime Player The app is: Distributed through the Mac App Store Sandboxed (com.apple.security.app-sandbox) Uses com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write entitlement The file being opened is a regular audio file (MP3), not an executable. Since the app is sandboxed and distributed through the App Store, I expected it to have sufficient trust to open quarantined data files without triggering Gatekeeper warnings — similar to how Music.app and QuickTime handle them. Questions: Is there a specific entitlement or Info.plist configuration that allows a sandboxed Mac App Store app to open quarantined audio files without this alert? Is this expected behavior for third-party App Store apps, or could this indicate a misconfiguration on my end? Environment: macOS 15 (Sequoia), app built with Swift/SwiftUI, targeting macOS 13+.
2
0
208
Feb ’26
Notarized but Gatekeeper fails macOS 15 only?
Okay, I just pushed a release and notarized. Works great on my test laptop (macOS 26.2) and my test desktop (macOS 14.x) But it seems to fail for a friend who's running macOS 15. I've been using the same GitHub actions successfully for months. How can notarization work for macOS 14 and 26, but not for macOS 15? I think everything looks okay as far as the signing? I've checked codesign -dvv Executable=/Applications/Avogadro2.app/Contents/MacOS/Avogadro2 Identifier=cc.avogadro Format=app bundle with Mach-O thin (arm64) CodeDirectory v=20500 size=11607 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=352+7 location=embedded Signature size=8986 Authority=Developer ID Application: Geoffrey Hutchison (…..) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=Feb 5, 2026 at 8:47:21 PM Info.plist entries=24 TeamIdentifier=….. Runtime Version=15.5.0 Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=3306 Internal requirements count=1 size=172 And from spctl -a -vv /Applications/Avogadro2.app: accepted source=Notarized Developer ID origin=Developer ID Application: Geoffrey Hutchison (….)
1
0
453
Feb ’26
Testing a Notarised Product
To ship a product outside of the Mac App Store, you must notarise it. The notary service issues a notarised ticket, and the ultimate consumer of that ticket is Gatekeeper. However, Gatekeeper does not just check the ticket; it also applies a variety of other checks, and it’s possible for those checks to fail even if your notarised ticket is just fine. To avoid such problems showing up in the field, test your product’s compatibility with Gatekeeper before shipping it. To do this: Set up a fresh machine, one that’s never seen your product before. If your product supports macOS 10.15.x, x < 4, the best OS version to test with is 10.15.3 [1]. Download your product in a way that quarantines it (for example, using Safari). Disconnect the machine from the network. It might make sense to skip this step. See the discussion below. Install and use your product as your users would. If the product is signed, notarised, and stapled correctly, everything should work. If not, you’ll need to investigate what’s making Gatekeeper unhappy, fix that, and then retest. For detailed advice on that topic, see Resolving Trusted Execution Problems. Run this test on a fresh machine each time. This is necessary because Gatekeeper caches information about your product and it’s not easy to reset that cache. Your best option is to do this testing on a virtual machine (VM). Take a snapshot of the VM before the first test, and then restore to that snapshot when you want to retest. Also, by using a VM you can disable networking in step 3 without disrupting other work on your machine. The reason why you should disable networking in step 3 is to test that you’ve correctly stapled the notarised ticket on to your product. If, for some reason, you’re unable to do that stapling, it’s fine to skip step 3. However, be aware that this may cause problems for a user if they try to deploy your product to a Mac that does not have access to the wider Internet. For more background on this, see The Pros and Cons of Stapling. [1] macOS 10.15.4 fixes a bug that made Gatekeeper unnecessarily strict (r. 57278824), so by testing on 10.15.3 you’re exercising the worst case. The process described above is by far the best way to test your Gatekeeper compatibility because it accurately tests how your users run your product. However, you can also run a quick, albeit less accurate test, using various command-line tools. The exact process depends on the type of product you’re trying to check: App — Run syspolicy_check like this: % syspolicy_check distribution WaffleVarnish.app This tool was introduced in macOS 14. On older systems, use the older spctl tool. Run it like this: % spctl -a -t exec -vvv WaffleVarnish.app Be aware, however, that this check is much less accurate. Disk image — Run spctl like this: % spctl -a -t open -vvv --context context:primary-signature WaffleVarnish.dmg Installer package — Run spctl like this: % spctl -a -t install -vvv WaffleVarnish.pkg Other code — Run codesign like this: % codesign -vvvv -R="notarized" --check-notarization WaffleVarnish.bundle This command requires macOS 10.15 or later. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Revision history: 2024-12-05 Added instructions for using syspolicy_check. Made other minor editorial changes. 2023-10-20 Added links to Resolving Trusted Execution Problems and The Pros and Cons of Stapling. Made other minor editorial changes. 2021-02-26 Fixed the formatting. 2020-04-17 Added the section discussing spctl. 2020-03-25 First version.
0
0
7.4k
Feb ’26
Notarization taking 3.5–4.5 hours for large macOS apps — is this expected?
Hello, We are currently using Apple Notarization (notarytool) for distributing a macOS app, and we are experiencing very long notarization times for large app bundles. [Issue] For apps with large binary sizes, notarization consistently takes around 3.5 to 4.5 hours from submission to completion. This delay is causing practical issues in our release pipeline, especially when: A hotfix or urgent update is required Multiple builds must be notarized in a short time CI/CD-based distribution is expected to complete within a predictable timeframe [Environment] Platform: macOS Notarization method: notarytool Distribution: Outside Mac App Store App size: 100 GB~ (compressed ZIP) Signing: Hardened Runtime enabled, codesigned correctly Submission status: Successfully accepted, but processing time is very long [What we have confirmed] The notarization eventually succeeds (no failures) Re-submitting the same build shows similar processing times Network upload itself completes normally; the delay is in Apple-side processing Smaller apps complete notarization much faster [Questions] Is a 3–4+ hour notarization time expected behavior for large macOS apps? Are there recommended best practices to reduce notarization processing time for large binaries? For example, splitting components, adjusting packaging, or specific signing strategies Is there any official guidance or limitation regarding notarization queueing or processing based on app size? Are there known service-side delays or regional differences that could affect processing time? Any insight or confirmation would be greatly appreciated, as this directly impacts our production release workflow. Thank you.
4
2
1.2k
Feb ’26
Signed app can't be verified
I've signed an app, zipped it, and uploaded it to github. When I download it on another Mac, I get "it can't be opened because it could not be verified for malware". But on that computer, I can verify it with codesign, and it appears to be correct (as far as I can tell). I can copy/paste the app from my other Mac, and that copy will run without problem. sys_policy, however, gives: Notary Ticket Missing File: ReView.app Severity: Fatal Full Error: A Notarization ticket is not stapled to this application. Type: Distribution Error This is the same for the copy that runs, and the copy that doesn't. The difference between them appears to be a quarantine xattr. I can delete this, and the app launches without incident. Is this expected? Why should a signed app be quarantined just because it's been downloaded? The whole point of paying the fee is to avoid the security obstacles...! ;-)
3
0
1.1k
Feb ’26
"Application damaged and can't be opened' error prompt on 15.6.1 Sequoia
We have an application which keeps throwing the error "application is damaged and cannot be opened. You should move it to Trash" I have already referred to the documentation: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/706379 and https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/706442 I have checked the following possible root causes: Codesign of the application using the codesign command Notarization of the application using the spctl command Executable permissions Checked for the presence of "com.apple.quarantine" flag for the application using xattr -l <path to executables" Checked the bundle structure None of the above listed items seemed to be a problem and are as expected. Can you please help us understand what could cause this issue and how to resolve this without recommending an uninstall/reinstall of the application?
22
0
2.9k
Jan ’26
App Translocation Notes
App translocation, officially known as Gatekeeper path randomisation, comes up from time-to-time. The best resource to explain it, WWDC 2016 Session 706 What’s New in Security, is no longer available from Apple so I thought I’d post some notes here (r. 105455698 ). Questions or comments? Start a new thread here on DevForums, applying the Gatekeeper tag so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Translocation Notes Gatekeeper path randomisation, more commonly known as app translocation, is a security feature on macOS 10.12 and later. When you run a newly downloaded app, the system executes the app from a randomised path. This prevents someone from taking an app that loads code from an app-relative path and repackaging it to load malicious code. IMPORTANT The best way to prevent your app from being tricked into loading malicious code is to enable library validation. You get this by default once you enable the hardened runtime. Do not disable library validation unless your app needs to load in-process plug-ins from other third-party developers. If you have an in-process plug-in model, consider migrating to ExtensionKit. The exact circumstances where the system translocates an app is not documented and has changed over time. It’s best to structure your app so that it works regardless of whether it’s translocated or not. App Translocation Compatibility Most apps run just fine when translocated. However, you can run into problems if you load resources relative to your app bundle. For example, consider a structure like this: MyApp.app Templates/ letter.myapp envelope.myapp birthday card.myapp Such an app might try to find the Templates directory by: Getting the path to the main bundle Navigating from that using a relative path This won’t work if the app is translocated. The best way to avoid such problems is to embed these resources inside your app (following the rules in Placing Content in a Bundle, of course). If you need to make them easily accessible to the user, add your own UI for that. For a great example of this, run Pages and choose File > New. App Translocation Limits There is no supported way to detect if your app is being run translocated. If you search the ’net you’ll find lots of snippets that do this, but they all rely on implementation details that could change. There is no supported way to determine the original (untranslocated) path of your app. Again, you’ll find lots of unsupported techniques for this out there on the ’net. Use them at your peril! If you find yourself using these unsupported techniques, it’s time to sit down and rethink your options. Your best option here is to make your app work properly when translocated, as illustrated by the example in the previous section. App Translocation in Action The following steps explain how to trigger app translocation on macOS 13.0. Keep in mind that the specifics of app translocation are not documented and have changed over time, so you might see different behaviour on older or new systems: To see app translocation in action: Use Safari to download an app that’s packaged as a zip archive. My go-to choice for such tests is NetNewsWire, but any app will work. Safari downloads the zip archive to the Downloads folder and then unpacks it (assuming your haven’t tweaked your preferences). In Finder, navigate to the Downloads folder and launch the app. When Gatekeeper presents its alert, approve the launch. In Terminal, look at the path the app was launched from: % ps xw | grep NetNewsWire … /private/var/folders/wk/bqx_nk71457_g9yry9c_2ww80000gp/T/AppTranslocation/C863FADC-A711-49DD-B4D0-6BE679EE225D/d/NetNewsWire.app/Contents/MacOS/NetNewsWire Note how the path isn’t ~/Downloads but something random. That’s why the official name for this feature is Gatekeeper path randomisation. Quit the app. Use Finder to relaunch it. Repeat step 5: % ps xw | grep NetNewsWire … /private/var/folders/wk/bqx_nk71457_g9yry9c_2ww80000gp/T/AppTranslocation/C863FADC-A711-49DD-B4D0-6BE679EE225D/d/NetNewsWire.app/Contents/MacOS/NetNewsWire The path is still randomised. Quit the app again. Use the Finder to move it to the desktop. And relaunch it. And repeat step 5 again: % ps xw | grep NetNewsWire … /Users/quinn/Desktop/NetNewsWire.app/Contents/MacOS/NetNewsWire The act of moving the app has cleared the state that triggered app translocation.
0
0
5.3k
Jan ’26
Component package and notarization of helper executables
Hello, we have a product package which is structured like this: / Installer.pkg / Distribution / Main Component.pkg / Scripts / preinstall / postinstall / helper [ Mach-O executable ] / Payload / Application Bundle.app / Another Component.pkg ... The helper is our custom CLI helper tool which we build and sign and plan to use it in pre/post install scripts. I'd like to ask if we need to independently notarize and staple the helper executable or just the top level pkg notarization is sufficient in this case? We already independently notarize and staple the Application Bundle.app so it has ticket attached. But that's because of customers who often rip-open the package and pick only the bundle. We don't plan to have helper executable used outside of installation process. Thank you, o/
1
0
333
Jan ’26
Application has stopped verifying
We package a nightly build of our application for distribution. About 1 month ago, this package has started showing the "Apple could not verify 'Application' is free of malware" message. This only happens to our development branch package. We run the same pipeline with the same signature for our stable branch and the stable package does not show this message. $ codesign -dv --verbose=4 KiCad.app Executable=/Applications/KiCad/KiCad/KiCad.app/Contents/MacOS/kicad Identifier=org.kicad.kicad Format=app bundle with Mach-O universal (x86_64 arm64) CodeDirectory v=20500 size=51931 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=1612+7 location=embedded VersionPlatform=1 VersionMin=722432 VersionSDK=983552 Hash type=sha256 size=32 CandidateCDHash sha256=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d CandidateCDHashFull sha256=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d03cbe70641719fd1ced3395b Hash choices=sha256 CMSDigest=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d03cbe70641719fd1ced3395b CMSDigestType=2 Executable Segment base=0 Executable Segment limit=3915776 Executable Segment flags=0x1 Page size=4096 CDHash=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d Signature size=9002 Authority=Developer ID Application: KiCad Services Corporation (9FQDHNY6U2) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=Dec 19, 2025 at 5:21:05 AM Info.plist entries=17 TeamIdentifier=9FQDHNY6U2 Runtime Version=15.2.0 Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=37238 Internal requirements count=1 size=176 codesign --verify --verbose=4 KiCad.app <snipped all libs validated> KiCad.app: valid on disk KiCad.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement % spctl --assess --verbose=4 KiCad.app KiCad.app: accepted source=Notarized Developer ID We distribute this via dmg. The notarization ticket is stapled to the dmg and the dmg opens without warning. Any help would be appreciated
1
0
134
Jan ’26
App signed and notarized successfully, but macOS flags it as malicious on other machines
I’m facing an issue with my macOS app after code signing and notarization. The app is signed with my Developer ID and notarized using xcrun notarytool. Everything works fine on the machine where the signing was done — Gatekeeper accepts it, no warning appears, and codesign/spctl checks pass. However, when running the same .app on other Macs, users receive a Gatekeeper warning saying the app is "malicious software and cannot be opened". The signature is valid and the notarization log shows status: Accepted. What I've tried: Verified signature with codesign --verify --deep --strict --verbose=2 Checked notarization status via xcrun notarytool log Assessed Gatekeeper trust with spctl --assess --type execute Everything passes successfully on the development machine. Why would the app be treated as malicious on other systems even after notarization? I'm happy to share logs and technical details if needed.
6
0
947
Dec ’25
Malware warnings on properly notarized apps
Hello, I've been developing a mac app built with Electron Builder. In August, I was successfully notarizing my app and able to send it to testers without them receiving a malware warning. I took a two month break. When I came back in October, I am not able to distribute my app without the malware warning. I can't for the life of me figure out what I could be missing, unless my developer account was flagged by Apple for some reason. All the diagnostics I run on my app package show that it is properly signed, notarized, and stapled. Here are some diagnostics I have run on the app: Command: codesign -dv --verbose=4 "/Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app" Output: Executable=/Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app/Contents/MacOS/Form Identifier=co.Form.desktop Format=app bundle with Mach-O thin (arm64) CodeDirectory v=20500 size=763 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=13+7 location=embedded VersionPlatform=1 VersionMin=720896 VersionSDK=917504 Hash type=sha256 size=32 CandidateCDHash sha256=cedcaef933c003c01b4d9ef6925a413fe6b4a585 CandidateCDHashFull sha256=cedcaef933c003c01b4d9ef6925a413fe6b4a585bf61e19751e8158775600b00 Hash choices=sha256 CMSDigest=cedcaef933c003c01b4d9ef6925a413fe6b4a585bf61e19751e8158775600b00 CMSDigestType=2 Executable Segment base=0 Executable Segment limit=16384 Executable Segment flags=0x1 Page size=4096 CDHash=cedcaef933c003c01b4d9ef6925a413fe6b4a585 Signature size=8973 Authority=Developer ID Application: Jacob LEELAND (92D98F49FU) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=Nov 14, 2025 at 8:25:09 PM Notarization Ticket=stapled Info.plist entries=30 TeamIdentifier=92D98F49FU Runtime Version=14.0.0 Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=35090 Internal requirements count=1 size=176 RESULT: ✅ SIGNED WITH DEVELOPER ID ✅ NOTARIZATION TICKET STAPLED ✅ HARDENED RUNTIME ENABLED ---------------------------------------------------------------- Command: spctl --assess --verbose=4 --type execute "/Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app" Output: /Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app: accepted source=Notarized Developer ID RESULT: ✅ GATEKEEPER ACCEPTS APPLICATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- Command: xattr -l "/Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app" Output: (No extended attributes) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Command: stapler validate "/Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app" Output: Processing: /Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app The validate action worked! RESULT: ✅ NOTARIZATION TICKET VALID [signing-verification-report.txt](https://developer.apple.com/forums/content/attachment/45b41936-6e7a-4f4f-8e80-bc1e3136c84e) code-block I have attached a more complete diagnostic text file as well. I have tried notarizing the .dmg in addition to the app bundle, but no combination seems to work as far as I can tell. I appreciate any help or point in the right direction. I've wasted many days of development time on this, lol.
6
0
479
Nov ’25
Some of the apps I have developed are being flagged as malware
I have a free developer account, and I have been creating applications. When I tried to open one of them, it said that this app has been flagged as malware. It is not malware, so I don't know why it has been flagged as this. Not just this app, but suddenly a whole bunch of my apps have been flagged as malware as well! The app I have been developing is basically a windows Taskbar for my macbook air, and it has been working well until the latest update i made where it hides in full screen, suddenly it started taking up significant energy, so i reverted to an older version while i was fixing it. Then, when i try to open it another time, it starts to open, and it says "Malware Blocked and Moved to Bin" “Taskbar.app” was not opened because it contains malware. This action did not harm your Mac”. All versions of the taskbar now contain this message. I try opening some of my other apps, a shared storage client and a shared storage server (where i was testing with app groups), and they couldn't open either, the same malware message appeared. ProPermission couldn't open either (changes permissions on files for me so i don't have to use the terminal or finder). I can run these apps through the Xcode environment (attached process), but when I archieve it into an app bundle, the malware flag appears. Please note that I am certain that these apps do not contain malware, apparently XProtect has incorrectly flagged my apps as malware. Because I do not have the paid developer account, I cannot notarize my apps. I am using MacOS Tahoe 26.1 with Xcode 26.0, and I have tested it with a iMac Intel 2017 with MacOS Ventura.
1
1
358
Nov ’25
Trusted Execution Resources
Trusted execution is a generic name for a Gatekeeper and other technologies that aim to protect users from malicious code. General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums tag: Gatekeeper Developer > Signing Mac Software with Developer ID Apple Platform Security support document Safely open apps on your Mac support article Hardened Runtime document WWDC 2022 Session 10096 What’s new in privacy covers some important Gatekeeper changes in macOS 13 (starting at 04: 32), most notably app bundle protection WWDC 2023 Session 10053 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 14 (starting at 17:46), namely, app container protection WWDC 2024 Session 10123 What’s new in privacy covers an important change in macOS 15 (starting at 12:23), namely, app group container protection Updates to runtime protection in macOS Sequoia news post Testing a Notarised Product forums post Resolving Trusted Execution Problems forums post App Translocation Notes (aka Gatekeeper path randomisation) forums post Most trusted execution problems are caused by code signing or notarisation issues. See Code Signing Resources and Notarisation Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"
Replies
0
Boosts
0
Views
3.5k
Activity
Jan ’26
Developer ID Application certificate creation
Hello, We are currently in the process of creating our Developer ID Application certificate which is due to expire. While creating the certificate, we were posed with the option of choosing a Developer ID Certificate Intermediary G2 Sub CA which is supported by Xcode 11.4.1 and later Previous Sub CA We currently build our application out of Xcode using Make or CMake files and perform the codesign and productsign using the codesign commands. We also use 2 different build machines, Ventura with Xcode 14.3 for our latest releases High Sierra (10.13) with Xcode 10.1 for legacy releases to support some customers. Can you please let us know which Developer ID Certificate Intermediary we should choose for generating the new Developer ID Application certificate?
Replies
0
Boosts
0
Views
51
Activity
6h
Notarized and stapled PKG installer rejected by Gatekeeper on macOS Sequoia (Team ID: 3888L7DV3P)
Dear Apple Developer Support, We are experiencing an issue where our properly signed, notarized, and stapled PKG installer is being blocked by Gatekeeper on macOS Sequoia (15.3), despite passing all notarization checks. Team ID: 3888L7DV3P Organization: SKY GATE TECHNOLOGYS K.K. Certificate: Developer ID Installer: SKY GATE TECHNOLOGYS K.K. (3888L7DV3P) Issue Details: Our PKG installer is signed with "Developer ID Installer" certificate, notarized (status: Accepted, issues: null), and stapled successfully. pkgutil --check-signature confirms: "signed by a developer certificate issued by Apple for distribution" and "Notarization: trusted by the Apple notary service" xcrun stapler validate confirms: "The validate action worked!" However, spctl --assess --type install returns "rejected" with assessment:verdict = false and assessment:remote = true The system log shows: meetsDeveloperIDLegacyAllowedPolicy = 0 When users download and open the PKG (even from within a notarized DMG), Gatekeeper displays: "Apple could not verify [app] is free of malware" Notably, our .app bundles signed with "Developer ID Application" (same Team ID) pass Gatekeeper without issues. Only PKG installers are affected. Our software is a legitimate enterprise security product (VPN/Zero Trust client) distributed to corporate customers. Could you please: Investigate why our Team ID's PKG installers are being rejected by Gatekeeper's online assessment despite valid notarization Advise on any steps we can take to resolve the meetsDeveloperIDLegacyAllowedPolicy = 0 status for our Team ID Confirm whether there is a trust establishment process for new Developer ID Installer certificates with the Gatekeeper service Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, Riku Ogura Skygate Technologies K.K.
Replies
2
Boosts
0
Views
400
Activity
4d
macOS ARM64 App Killed with SIGKILL - Gatekeeper Error -67062
Problem My ARM64 macOS application is being immediately killed with SIGKILL when launched. No crash report is generated, and the process terminates instantly. Environment macOS Version: 15.x (Sequoia) Architecture: ARM64 (Apple Silicon) Certificate: Mac Developer certificate (development signing) App Type: Native ARM64 application with embedded Java runtime Symptoms ./MacOS/myapp Immediately returns: zsh: killed ./MacOS/myapp Investigation Results System Logs Show Security Policy Rejection kernel: (AppleSystemPolicy) ASP: Security policy would not allow process: 92850, /path/to/myapp syspolicyd: (Security) MacOS error: -67062 Error Code Analysis Error -67062 = errSecCSReqFailed (Code signature requirement failed) This is a Gatekeeper enforcement issue, not a code signing problem 3. Code Signature is Valid codesign -dvvv myapp Shows valid signature with Mac Developer certificate Authority=Mac Developer: Name (TEAMID) Authority=Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA What We Tried (That Didn't Help) ✅ Removed hardened runtime flag from Java components ✅ Added JIT entitlements (com.apple.security.cs.allow-jit) ✅ Verified Mach-O structure is correct ✅ Confirmed all libraries are ARM64 ✅ Re-signed with proper entitlements None of these fixed the issue because the problem is Gatekeeper policy enforcement. Question How can I allow this development-signed ARM64 app to run on macOS 15 without full notarization? I've tried: Removing quarantine attributes Various code signing approaches Different entitlements But Gatekeeper still blocks it with error -67062. Is there a way to add a security exception for development builds, or do I need to use a Developer ID certificate even for internal testing? Additional Context This is for internal development/testing. The app works fine when properly notarized, but we need a way to test development builds without going through the full notarization process each time. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
221
Activity
1w
How to distribute an Input Method Engine
I have an IME for Indic languages that I currently distribute outside of the Mac App Store because it does not seem to be supported. IMEs needs to be installed under /Library/Input Methods/ which I believe is not allowed for App Store apps. I could distribute it as an embedded helper app within my larger distribution app that I then install on start up - but I believe even that is not allowed. Is there a sanctioned way to distribute IMEs via the Mac App Store? The iOS store has support which I was able to use effectively.
Replies
3
Boosts
1
Views
1.1k
Activity
3w
Tauri 2 macOS app cannot be opened: "contains malware" with Apple Development Certificate, or notarization blocked with Apple Distribution Certificate for IAP testing
Hi everyone, I'm developing a macOS app using Tauri 2. I need to test In-App Purchases (IAP), which requires running the actual built .app (it doesn't work properly in the development environment).I tried two approaches: Apple Development Certificate (free account): After cargo tauri build, the app "Mind Elixir.app" shows this error when I try to open it: “Mind Elixir.app” was not opened because it contains malware. This action did not harm your Mac. Apple Distribution Certificate: The app builds successfully, but because it is not notarized, Gatekeeper completely blocks it and I cannot open it at all. I just want to test IAP locally on my own Mac during development. Is there any other way to get a properly signed and runnable .app for testing IAP? Any help or workaround would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
587
Activity
3w
spctl --type install rejects notarized .pkg on macOS 26 Tahoe (26.3)
I'm distributing a macOS .pkg installer signed with Developer ID Installer and notarized via notarytool. On macOS 26.3 (Tahoe, Build 25D125), the package is rejected by Gatekeeper when downloaded from the internet. What works: pkgutil --check-signature → signed, Developer ID Installer, full chain (G2 intermediate + Apple Root CA) xcrun stapler validate → "The validate action worked!" xcrun notarytool info <id> → status: Accepted The .app inside the .pkg passes spctl -a -vvv → "accepted, source=Notarized Developer ID" What fails: spctl -a -vvv --type install mypackage.pkg → rejected, origin=Developer ID Installer Raw assessment: assessment:remote = true, assessment:verdict = false Double-clicking the downloaded .pkg shows only "Move to Trash" / "Done" (no "Open" option) syspolicyd log: meetsDeveloperIDLegacyAllowedPolicy = 0 (expected, since the cert is new), but no "notarized" match is logged Certificate details: Developer ID Installer, issued Feb 28, 2026, valid until 2031 OID 1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.14 (Developer ID Installer) — critical OID 1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.33 — timestamp 20260215000000Z Intermediate: Developer ID Certification Authority G2 (OID 1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6) security verify-cert → certificate verification successful Build process: productbuild --distribution ... --sign <SHA1> (also tried productsign) Both produce: Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root xcrun notarytool submit → Accepted xcrun stapler staple → worked Workaround: xattr -d com.apple.quarantine ~/Downloads/mypackage.pkg allows opening the installer. Question: Is spctl --type install assessment expected to work differently on macOS 26 Tahoe? The same signing and notarization workflow produces .app bundles that pass Gatekeeper, but .pkg installers are rejected. Is there a new requirement for .pkg distribution on macOS 26? Environment: macOS 26.3 (25D125), Xcode CLT 26.3
Replies
5
Boosts
0
Views
923
Activity
Mar ’26
XProtect makes app hang when running an AppleScript
I now had the second user with 26.2. complaining about a hang in my app. The hang occurs when the first AppleScript for Mail is run. Here is the relevant section from the process analysis in Activity Monitor: + 2443 OSACompile (in OpenScripting) + 52 [0x1b32b30f4] + 2443 SecurityPolicyTestDescriptor (in OpenScripting) + 152 [0x1b32a2284] + 2443 _SecurityPolicyTest(char const*, void const*, unsigned long) (in OpenScripting) + 332 [0x1b32a2118] + 2443 InterpreterSecurity_ScanBuffer (in libInterpreterSecurity.dylib) + 112 [0x28c149304] + 2443 -[InterpreterSecurity scanData:withSourceURL:] (in libInterpreterSecurity.dylib) + 164 [0x28c148db4] + 2443 -[XProtectScan beginAnalysisWithFeedback:] (in XprotectFramework) + 544 [0x1d35a1e58] + 2443 -[XPMalwareEvaluation initWithData:assessmentClass:] (in XprotectFramework) + 92 [0x1d359ada4] + 2443 -[XPMalwareEvaluation initWithRuleString:withExtraRules:withURL:withData:withAssessmentClass:feedback:] (in XprotectFramework) + 36 [0x1d359b2a8] My app is correctly signed and notarised. The first user had to completely uninstall/reinstall the app and the everything worked again. Why does this happen? How can the problem be fixed?
Replies
19
Boosts
2
Views
2.2k
Activity
Mar ’26
Mac App Store app triggers "cannot verify free of malware" alert when opening as default app
My app Mocawave is a music player distributed through the Mac App Store. It declares specific audio document types (public.mp3, com.microsoft.waveform-audio, public.mpeg-4-audio, public.aac-audio) in its CFBundleDocumentTypes with a Viewer role. When a user sets Mocawave as the default app for audio files and double-clicks an MP3 downloaded from the internet (which has the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute), macOS displays the alert: "Apple could not verify [filename] is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy." This does not happen when: Opening the same file via NSOpenPanel from within the app Opening the same file with Apple's Music.app or QuickTime Player The app is: Distributed through the Mac App Store Sandboxed (com.apple.security.app-sandbox) Uses com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write entitlement The file being opened is a regular audio file (MP3), not an executable. Since the app is sandboxed and distributed through the App Store, I expected it to have sufficient trust to open quarantined data files without triggering Gatekeeper warnings — similar to how Music.app and QuickTime handle them. Questions: Is there a specific entitlement or Info.plist configuration that allows a sandboxed Mac App Store app to open quarantined audio files without this alert? Is this expected behavior for third-party App Store apps, or could this indicate a misconfiguration on my end? Environment: macOS 15 (Sequoia), app built with Swift/SwiftUI, targeting macOS 13+.
Replies
2
Boosts
0
Views
208
Activity
Feb ’26
Notarized but Gatekeeper fails macOS 15 only?
Okay, I just pushed a release and notarized. Works great on my test laptop (macOS 26.2) and my test desktop (macOS 14.x) But it seems to fail for a friend who's running macOS 15. I've been using the same GitHub actions successfully for months. How can notarization work for macOS 14 and 26, but not for macOS 15? I think everything looks okay as far as the signing? I've checked codesign -dvv Executable=/Applications/Avogadro2.app/Contents/MacOS/Avogadro2 Identifier=cc.avogadro Format=app bundle with Mach-O thin (arm64) CodeDirectory v=20500 size=11607 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=352+7 location=embedded Signature size=8986 Authority=Developer ID Application: Geoffrey Hutchison (…..) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=Feb 5, 2026 at 8:47:21 PM Info.plist entries=24 TeamIdentifier=….. Runtime Version=15.5.0 Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=3306 Internal requirements count=1 size=172 And from spctl -a -vv /Applications/Avogadro2.app: accepted source=Notarized Developer ID origin=Developer ID Application: Geoffrey Hutchison (….)
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
453
Activity
Feb ’26
Testing a Notarised Product
To ship a product outside of the Mac App Store, you must notarise it. The notary service issues a notarised ticket, and the ultimate consumer of that ticket is Gatekeeper. However, Gatekeeper does not just check the ticket; it also applies a variety of other checks, and it’s possible for those checks to fail even if your notarised ticket is just fine. To avoid such problems showing up in the field, test your product’s compatibility with Gatekeeper before shipping it. To do this: Set up a fresh machine, one that’s never seen your product before. If your product supports macOS 10.15.x, x < 4, the best OS version to test with is 10.15.3 [1]. Download your product in a way that quarantines it (for example, using Safari). Disconnect the machine from the network. It might make sense to skip this step. See the discussion below. Install and use your product as your users would. If the product is signed, notarised, and stapled correctly, everything should work. If not, you’ll need to investigate what’s making Gatekeeper unhappy, fix that, and then retest. For detailed advice on that topic, see Resolving Trusted Execution Problems. Run this test on a fresh machine each time. This is necessary because Gatekeeper caches information about your product and it’s not easy to reset that cache. Your best option is to do this testing on a virtual machine (VM). Take a snapshot of the VM before the first test, and then restore to that snapshot when you want to retest. Also, by using a VM you can disable networking in step 3 without disrupting other work on your machine. The reason why you should disable networking in step 3 is to test that you’ve correctly stapled the notarised ticket on to your product. If, for some reason, you’re unable to do that stapling, it’s fine to skip step 3. However, be aware that this may cause problems for a user if they try to deploy your product to a Mac that does not have access to the wider Internet. For more background on this, see The Pros and Cons of Stapling. [1] macOS 10.15.4 fixes a bug that made Gatekeeper unnecessarily strict (r. 57278824), so by testing on 10.15.3 you’re exercising the worst case. The process described above is by far the best way to test your Gatekeeper compatibility because it accurately tests how your users run your product. However, you can also run a quick, albeit less accurate test, using various command-line tools. The exact process depends on the type of product you’re trying to check: App — Run syspolicy_check like this: % syspolicy_check distribution WaffleVarnish.app This tool was introduced in macOS 14. On older systems, use the older spctl tool. Run it like this: % spctl -a -t exec -vvv WaffleVarnish.app Be aware, however, that this check is much less accurate. Disk image — Run spctl like this: % spctl -a -t open -vvv --context context:primary-signature WaffleVarnish.dmg Installer package — Run spctl like this: % spctl -a -t install -vvv WaffleVarnish.pkg Other code — Run codesign like this: % codesign -vvvv -R="notarized" --check-notarization WaffleVarnish.bundle This command requires macOS 10.15 or later. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Revision history: 2024-12-05 Added instructions for using syspolicy_check. Made other minor editorial changes. 2023-10-20 Added links to Resolving Trusted Execution Problems and The Pros and Cons of Stapling. Made other minor editorial changes. 2021-02-26 Fixed the formatting. 2020-04-17 Added the section discussing spctl. 2020-03-25 First version.
Replies
0
Boosts
0
Views
7.4k
Activity
Feb ’26
Notarization taking 3.5–4.5 hours for large macOS apps — is this expected?
Hello, We are currently using Apple Notarization (notarytool) for distributing a macOS app, and we are experiencing very long notarization times for large app bundles. [Issue] For apps with large binary sizes, notarization consistently takes around 3.5 to 4.5 hours from submission to completion. This delay is causing practical issues in our release pipeline, especially when: A hotfix or urgent update is required Multiple builds must be notarized in a short time CI/CD-based distribution is expected to complete within a predictable timeframe [Environment] Platform: macOS Notarization method: notarytool Distribution: Outside Mac App Store App size: 100 GB~ (compressed ZIP) Signing: Hardened Runtime enabled, codesigned correctly Submission status: Successfully accepted, but processing time is very long [What we have confirmed] The notarization eventually succeeds (no failures) Re-submitting the same build shows similar processing times Network upload itself completes normally; the delay is in Apple-side processing Smaller apps complete notarization much faster [Questions] Is a 3–4+ hour notarization time expected behavior for large macOS apps? Are there recommended best practices to reduce notarization processing time for large binaries? For example, splitting components, adjusting packaging, or specific signing strategies Is there any official guidance or limitation regarding notarization queueing or processing based on app size? Are there known service-side delays or regional differences that could affect processing time? Any insight or confirmation would be greatly appreciated, as this directly impacts our production release workflow. Thank you.
Replies
4
Boosts
2
Views
1.2k
Activity
Feb ’26
Signed app can't be verified
I've signed an app, zipped it, and uploaded it to github. When I download it on another Mac, I get "it can't be opened because it could not be verified for malware". But on that computer, I can verify it with codesign, and it appears to be correct (as far as I can tell). I can copy/paste the app from my other Mac, and that copy will run without problem. sys_policy, however, gives: Notary Ticket Missing File: ReView.app Severity: Fatal Full Error: A Notarization ticket is not stapled to this application. Type: Distribution Error This is the same for the copy that runs, and the copy that doesn't. The difference between them appears to be a quarantine xattr. I can delete this, and the app launches without incident. Is this expected? Why should a signed app be quarantined just because it's been downloaded? The whole point of paying the fee is to avoid the security obstacles...! ;-)
Replies
3
Boosts
0
Views
1.1k
Activity
Feb ’26
"Application damaged and can't be opened' error prompt on 15.6.1 Sequoia
We have an application which keeps throwing the error "application is damaged and cannot be opened. You should move it to Trash" I have already referred to the documentation: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/706379 and https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/706442 I have checked the following possible root causes: Codesign of the application using the codesign command Notarization of the application using the spctl command Executable permissions Checked for the presence of "com.apple.quarantine" flag for the application using xattr -l <path to executables" Checked the bundle structure None of the above listed items seemed to be a problem and are as expected. Can you please help us understand what could cause this issue and how to resolve this without recommending an uninstall/reinstall of the application?
Replies
22
Boosts
0
Views
2.9k
Activity
Jan ’26
App Translocation Notes
App translocation, officially known as Gatekeeper path randomisation, comes up from time-to-time. The best resource to explain it, WWDC 2016 Session 706 What’s New in Security, is no longer available from Apple so I thought I’d post some notes here (r. 105455698 ). Questions or comments? Start a new thread here on DevForums, applying the Gatekeeper tag so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" App Translocation Notes Gatekeeper path randomisation, more commonly known as app translocation, is a security feature on macOS 10.12 and later. When you run a newly downloaded app, the system executes the app from a randomised path. This prevents someone from taking an app that loads code from an app-relative path and repackaging it to load malicious code. IMPORTANT The best way to prevent your app from being tricked into loading malicious code is to enable library validation. You get this by default once you enable the hardened runtime. Do not disable library validation unless your app needs to load in-process plug-ins from other third-party developers. If you have an in-process plug-in model, consider migrating to ExtensionKit. The exact circumstances where the system translocates an app is not documented and has changed over time. It’s best to structure your app so that it works regardless of whether it’s translocated or not. App Translocation Compatibility Most apps run just fine when translocated. However, you can run into problems if you load resources relative to your app bundle. For example, consider a structure like this: MyApp.app Templates/ letter.myapp envelope.myapp birthday card.myapp Such an app might try to find the Templates directory by: Getting the path to the main bundle Navigating from that using a relative path This won’t work if the app is translocated. The best way to avoid such problems is to embed these resources inside your app (following the rules in Placing Content in a Bundle, of course). If you need to make them easily accessible to the user, add your own UI for that. For a great example of this, run Pages and choose File > New. App Translocation Limits There is no supported way to detect if your app is being run translocated. If you search the ’net you’ll find lots of snippets that do this, but they all rely on implementation details that could change. There is no supported way to determine the original (untranslocated) path of your app. Again, you’ll find lots of unsupported techniques for this out there on the ’net. Use them at your peril! If you find yourself using these unsupported techniques, it’s time to sit down and rethink your options. Your best option here is to make your app work properly when translocated, as illustrated by the example in the previous section. App Translocation in Action The following steps explain how to trigger app translocation on macOS 13.0. Keep in mind that the specifics of app translocation are not documented and have changed over time, so you might see different behaviour on older or new systems: To see app translocation in action: Use Safari to download an app that’s packaged as a zip archive. My go-to choice for such tests is NetNewsWire, but any app will work. Safari downloads the zip archive to the Downloads folder and then unpacks it (assuming your haven’t tweaked your preferences). In Finder, navigate to the Downloads folder and launch the app. When Gatekeeper presents its alert, approve the launch. In Terminal, look at the path the app was launched from: % ps xw | grep NetNewsWire … /private/var/folders/wk/bqx_nk71457_g9yry9c_2ww80000gp/T/AppTranslocation/C863FADC-A711-49DD-B4D0-6BE679EE225D/d/NetNewsWire.app/Contents/MacOS/NetNewsWire Note how the path isn’t ~/Downloads but something random. That’s why the official name for this feature is Gatekeeper path randomisation. Quit the app. Use Finder to relaunch it. Repeat step 5: % ps xw | grep NetNewsWire … /private/var/folders/wk/bqx_nk71457_g9yry9c_2ww80000gp/T/AppTranslocation/C863FADC-A711-49DD-B4D0-6BE679EE225D/d/NetNewsWire.app/Contents/MacOS/NetNewsWire The path is still randomised. Quit the app again. Use the Finder to move it to the desktop. And relaunch it. And repeat step 5 again: % ps xw | grep NetNewsWire … /Users/quinn/Desktop/NetNewsWire.app/Contents/MacOS/NetNewsWire The act of moving the app has cleared the state that triggered app translocation.
Replies
0
Boosts
0
Views
5.3k
Activity
Jan ’26
Component package and notarization of helper executables
Hello, we have a product package which is structured like this: / Installer.pkg / Distribution / Main Component.pkg / Scripts / preinstall / postinstall / helper [ Mach-O executable ] / Payload / Application Bundle.app / Another Component.pkg ... The helper is our custom CLI helper tool which we build and sign and plan to use it in pre/post install scripts. I'd like to ask if we need to independently notarize and staple the helper executable or just the top level pkg notarization is sufficient in this case? We already independently notarize and staple the Application Bundle.app so it has ticket attached. But that's because of customers who often rip-open the package and pick only the bundle. We don't plan to have helper executable used outside of installation process. Thank you, o/
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
333
Activity
Jan ’26
Application has stopped verifying
We package a nightly build of our application for distribution. About 1 month ago, this package has started showing the "Apple could not verify 'Application' is free of malware" message. This only happens to our development branch package. We run the same pipeline with the same signature for our stable branch and the stable package does not show this message. $ codesign -dv --verbose=4 KiCad.app Executable=/Applications/KiCad/KiCad/KiCad.app/Contents/MacOS/kicad Identifier=org.kicad.kicad Format=app bundle with Mach-O universal (x86_64 arm64) CodeDirectory v=20500 size=51931 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=1612+7 location=embedded VersionPlatform=1 VersionMin=722432 VersionSDK=983552 Hash type=sha256 size=32 CandidateCDHash sha256=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d CandidateCDHashFull sha256=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d03cbe70641719fd1ced3395b Hash choices=sha256 CMSDigest=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d03cbe70641719fd1ced3395b CMSDigestType=2 Executable Segment base=0 Executable Segment limit=3915776 Executable Segment flags=0x1 Page size=4096 CDHash=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d Signature size=9002 Authority=Developer ID Application: KiCad Services Corporation (9FQDHNY6U2) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=Dec 19, 2025 at 5:21:05 AM Info.plist entries=17 TeamIdentifier=9FQDHNY6U2 Runtime Version=15.2.0 Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=37238 Internal requirements count=1 size=176 codesign --verify --verbose=4 KiCad.app <snipped all libs validated> KiCad.app: valid on disk KiCad.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement % spctl --assess --verbose=4 KiCad.app KiCad.app: accepted source=Notarized Developer ID We distribute this via dmg. The notarization ticket is stapled to the dmg and the dmg opens without warning. Any help would be appreciated
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
134
Activity
Jan ’26
App signed and notarized successfully, but macOS flags it as malicious on other machines
I’m facing an issue with my macOS app after code signing and notarization. The app is signed with my Developer ID and notarized using xcrun notarytool. Everything works fine on the machine where the signing was done — Gatekeeper accepts it, no warning appears, and codesign/spctl checks pass. However, when running the same .app on other Macs, users receive a Gatekeeper warning saying the app is "malicious software and cannot be opened". The signature is valid and the notarization log shows status: Accepted. What I've tried: Verified signature with codesign --verify --deep --strict --verbose=2 Checked notarization status via xcrun notarytool log Assessed Gatekeeper trust with spctl --assess --type execute Everything passes successfully on the development machine. Why would the app be treated as malicious on other systems even after notarization? I'm happy to share logs and technical details if needed.
Replies
6
Boosts
0
Views
947
Activity
Dec ’25
Malware warnings on properly notarized apps
Hello, I've been developing a mac app built with Electron Builder. In August, I was successfully notarizing my app and able to send it to testers without them receiving a malware warning. I took a two month break. When I came back in October, I am not able to distribute my app without the malware warning. I can't for the life of me figure out what I could be missing, unless my developer account was flagged by Apple for some reason. All the diagnostics I run on my app package show that it is properly signed, notarized, and stapled. Here are some diagnostics I have run on the app: Command: codesign -dv --verbose=4 "/Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app" Output: Executable=/Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app/Contents/MacOS/Form Identifier=co.Form.desktop Format=app bundle with Mach-O thin (arm64) CodeDirectory v=20500 size=763 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=13+7 location=embedded VersionPlatform=1 VersionMin=720896 VersionSDK=917504 Hash type=sha256 size=32 CandidateCDHash sha256=cedcaef933c003c01b4d9ef6925a413fe6b4a585 CandidateCDHashFull sha256=cedcaef933c003c01b4d9ef6925a413fe6b4a585bf61e19751e8158775600b00 Hash choices=sha256 CMSDigest=cedcaef933c003c01b4d9ef6925a413fe6b4a585bf61e19751e8158775600b00 CMSDigestType=2 Executable Segment base=0 Executable Segment limit=16384 Executable Segment flags=0x1 Page size=4096 CDHash=cedcaef933c003c01b4d9ef6925a413fe6b4a585 Signature size=8973 Authority=Developer ID Application: Jacob LEELAND (92D98F49FU) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=Nov 14, 2025 at 8:25:09 PM Notarization Ticket=stapled Info.plist entries=30 TeamIdentifier=92D98F49FU Runtime Version=14.0.0 Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=35090 Internal requirements count=1 size=176 RESULT: ✅ SIGNED WITH DEVELOPER ID ✅ NOTARIZATION TICKET STAPLED ✅ HARDENED RUNTIME ENABLED ---------------------------------------------------------------- Command: spctl --assess --verbose=4 --type execute "/Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app" Output: /Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app: accepted source=Notarized Developer ID RESULT: ✅ GATEKEEPER ACCEPTS APPLICATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- Command: xattr -l "/Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app" Output: (No extended attributes) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Command: stapler validate "/Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app" Output: Processing: /Volumes/Form Desktop 1/Form.app The validate action worked! RESULT: ✅ NOTARIZATION TICKET VALID [signing-verification-report.txt](https://developer.apple.com/forums/content/attachment/45b41936-6e7a-4f4f-8e80-bc1e3136c84e) code-block I have attached a more complete diagnostic text file as well. I have tried notarizing the .dmg in addition to the app bundle, but no combination seems to work as far as I can tell. I appreciate any help or point in the right direction. I've wasted many days of development time on this, lol.
Replies
6
Boosts
0
Views
479
Activity
Nov ’25
Some of the apps I have developed are being flagged as malware
I have a free developer account, and I have been creating applications. When I tried to open one of them, it said that this app has been flagged as malware. It is not malware, so I don't know why it has been flagged as this. Not just this app, but suddenly a whole bunch of my apps have been flagged as malware as well! The app I have been developing is basically a windows Taskbar for my macbook air, and it has been working well until the latest update i made where it hides in full screen, suddenly it started taking up significant energy, so i reverted to an older version while i was fixing it. Then, when i try to open it another time, it starts to open, and it says "Malware Blocked and Moved to Bin" “Taskbar.app” was not opened because it contains malware. This action did not harm your Mac”. All versions of the taskbar now contain this message. I try opening some of my other apps, a shared storage client and a shared storage server (where i was testing with app groups), and they couldn't open either, the same malware message appeared. ProPermission couldn't open either (changes permissions on files for me so i don't have to use the terminal or finder). I can run these apps through the Xcode environment (attached process), but when I archieve it into an app bundle, the malware flag appears. Please note that I am certain that these apps do not contain malware, apparently XProtect has incorrectly flagged my apps as malware. Because I do not have the paid developer account, I cannot notarize my apps. I am using MacOS Tahoe 26.1 with Xcode 26.0, and I have tested it with a iMac Intel 2017 with MacOS Ventura.
Replies
1
Boosts
1
Views
358
Activity
Nov ’25