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 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"

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

Hi everyone, I'm trying to add the Side Button Access entitlement to my voice-based conversational app following the documentation, but I'm unable to find it in Xcode. Steps I followed: Selected my app target in Xcode project navigator Went to the Signing & Capabilities tab Clicked the + Capability button Searched for "Side Button Access" Problem: The "Side Button Access" option does not appear in the capabilities list at all. Environment: I'm developing and testing in Japan (where this feature should be available) Xcode version: Xcode 26.2 beta 3 iOS deployment target: iOS 26.2 Questions: Is there any pre-registration or special approval process required from Apple before this entitlement becomes available? Are there any additional requirements or prerequisites I need to meet? Is this feature already available, or is it still in a limited beta phase? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

This issue keeps cropping up on the forums and so I decided to write up a single post with all the details. If you have questions or comments: If you were referred here from an existing thread, reply on that thread. If not, feel free to start a new thread. Use whatever topic and subtopic is appropriate for your question, but also add the Entitlements tag so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Determining if an entitlement is real In recent months there’s been a spate of forums threads involving ‘hallucinated’ entitlements. This typically pans out as follows: The developer, or an agent working on behalf of the developer, changes their .entitlements file to claim an entitlement that’s not real. That is, the entitlement key is a value that is not, and never has been, supported in any way. Xcode’s code signing machinery tries to find or create a provisioning profile to authorise this claim. That’s impossible, because the entitlement isn’t a real entitlement. Xcode reports this as a code signing error. The developer misinterprets that error [1] in one of two ways: As a generic Xcode code signing failure, and so they start a forums thread asking about how to fix that problem. As an indication that the entitlement is managed — that is, requires authorisation from Apple to use — and so they start a forums thread asking how to request such authorisation. The fundamental problem is step 1. Once you start claiming entitlements that aren’t real, you’re on a path to confusion. Note If you’re curious about how provisioning profiles authorise entitlement claims, read TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. There are a couple of ways to check whether an entitlement is real. My preferred option is to create a new test project and use Xcode’s Signing & Capabilities editor to add the corresponding capability to it. Then look at what Xcode did. You might find that Xcode claimed a different entitlement, or added an Info.plist key, or did nothing at all. IMPORTANT If you can’t find the correct capability in the Signing & Capabilities editor, it’s likely that this feature is available to all apps, that is, it’s not gated by an entitlement or anything else. Another thing you can do is search the documentation. The vast majority of real entitlements are documented in Bundle Resources > Entitlements. IMPORTANT When you search for documentation, focus on the Apple documentation. If, for example, you search the Apple Developer Forums, you might be mislead by other folks who are similarly confused. If you find that you’re mistakenly trying to claim a hallucinated entitlement, the fix is trivial: Remove it from your .entitlements file so that your app starts to build again. Then add the capability using Xcode’s Signing & Capabilities editor. This will do the right thing. If you continue to have problems, feel free to ask for help here on the forums. See the top of this post for advice on how to do that. [1] Xcode 26.2, currently being seeded as Release Candidate, is much better about this (r. 155327166). Give it a whirl! Commonly Hallucinated Entitlements This section lists some of the more commonly hallucinated entitlements: com.apple.developer.push-notifications — The correct entitlement is aps-environment (com.apple.developer.aps-environment on macOS), documented here. There’s also the remote-notification value in the UIBackgroundModes property. com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase — There’s no entitlement for in-app purchase. Rather, in-app purchase is available to all apps with an explicit App ID (as opposed to a wildcard App ID). com.apple.InAppPurchase — Likewise. com.apple.developer.storekit — Likewise. com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase.non-consumable — Likewise. com.apple.developer.in-app-purchase.subscription — Likewise. com.apple.developer.app-groups — The correct entitlement is com.apple.security.application-groups, documented here. And if you’re working on the Mac, see App Groups: macOS vs iOS: Working Towards Harmony. com.apple.developer.background-modes — Background modes are controlled by the UIBackgroundModes key in your Info.plist, documented here. UIBackgroundModes — See the previous point. com.apple.developer.voip-push-notification — There’s no entitlement for this. VoIP is gated by the voip value in the UIBackgroundModes property. com.apple.developer.family-controls.user-authorization — The correct entitlement is com.apple.developer.family-controls, documented here. IMPORTANT As explained in the docs, this entitlement is available to all developers during development but you must request authorisation for distribution. com.apple.developer.device-activity — The DeviceActivity framework has the same restrictions as Family Controls. com.apple.developer.managed-settings — If you’re trying to use the ManagedSettings framework, that has the same restrictions as Family Controls. If you’re trying to use the ManagedApp framework, that’s not gated by an entitlement. com.apple.developer.callkit.call-directory — There’s no entitlement for the Call Directory app extension feature. com.apple.developer.nearby-interaction — There’s no entitlement for the Nearby interaction framework. com.apple.developer.secure-enclave — On iOS and its child platforms, there’s no entitlement required to use the Secure Enclave. For macOS specifically, any program that has access to the data protection keychain also has access to the Secure Enclave [1]. See TN3137 On Mac keychain APIs and implementations for more about the data protection keychain. com.apple.developer.networking.configuration — If you’re trying to configure the Wi-Fi network on iOS, the correct entitlement is com.apple.developer.networking.HotspotConfiguration, documented here. com.apple.developer.musickit — There is no MusicKit capability. Rather, enable MusicKit via the App Services column in the App ID editor, accessible from Developer > Certificates, Identifiers, and Profiles > Identifiers. com.apple.mail.extension — Creating an app extension based on the MailKit framework does not require any specific entitlement. com.apple.security.accessibility — There’s no entitlement that gates access to the Accessibility APIs on macOS. Rather, this is controlled by the user in System Settings > Privacy & Security. Note that sandboxed apps can’t use these APIs. See the Review functionality that is incompatible with App Sandbox section of Protecting user data with App Sandbox. com.apple.developer.adservices — Using the AdServices framework does not require any specific entitlement. [1] While technically these are different features, they are closely associated and it turns out that, if you have access to the data protection keychain, you also have access to the SE. Revision History 2025-12-09 Updated the Xcode footnote to mention the improvements in Xcode 26.2rc. 2025-11-03 Added com.apple.developer.adservices to the common hallucinations list. 2025-10-30 Added com.apple.security.accessibility to the common hallucinations list. 2025-10-22 Added com.apple.mail.extension to the common hallucinations list. Also added two new in-app purchase hallucinations. 2025-09-26 Added com.apple.developer.musickit to the common hallucinations list. 2025-09-22 Added com.apple.developer.storekit to the common hallucinations list. 2025-09-05 Added com.apple.developer.device-activity to the common hallucinations list. 2025-09-02 First posted.

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

I am writing to follow up on my request for Family Control permission, which I submitted through the appropriate form over a week ago. Unfortunately, I have not yet received any response or access to the requested permissions. Could you kindly provide an update on the status of my request? If any further information or action is needed from my end, please let me know.

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

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

Hello, I sent this in as a feedback several weeks ago about watchOS 26.2 beta 2 but since the issue is still active now that watchOS 26.2 is in production I'm reposting here for the community. I would also like to submit a DTS about this issue but honestly don't know the best way to go about it and would appreciate advice about that. There seems to be an issue with VPP distribution for our app on watchOS 26.2. When our watchOS companion app is launched after being installed through VPP to a supervised iPhone, it encounters a dyld error before main() or any application code is even called. The same app launches correctly in every other circumstance we could imagine and test: – Installed through VPP on supervised devices running watchOS 26.1. – Installed from the app store (using an apple id) on a supervised iPhone and paired watch running iOS 26.2 / watchOS 26.2. – Installed through Testflight on a supervised iPhone and paired watch running iOS 26.2 / watchOS 26.2. – Installed through the app store on unsupervised devices running watchOS 26.1 and 26.2. This strongly appears to be a VPP signing issue because we even did the following experiment: Install iPhone and Watch apps through the App Store on a supervised device pair running public iOS 26.2 beta 2 / watchOS 26.2 beta 2. Verify that both apps launch successfully. Use an MDM command to install from VPP over the existing installations Verify that the watch app fails to launch (the iOS app is unaffected) My feedback included some crash logs which I won't be reposting publicly here. Any feedback or ideas appreciated.

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

I help a lot of developers with macOS trusted execution problems. For example, they might have an app being blocked by Gatekeeper, or an app that crashes on launch with a code signing error. If you encounter a problem that’s not explained here, start a new thread with the details. Put it in the Code Signing > General subtopic and tag it with relevant tags like Gatekeeper, Code Signing, and Notarization — so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Resolving Trusted Execution Problems macOS supports three software distribution channels: The user downloads an app from the App Store. The user gets a Developer ID-signed program directly from its developer. The user builds programs locally using Apple or third-party developer tools. The trusted execution system aims to protect users from malicious code. It’s comprised of a number of different subsystems. For example, Gatekeeper strives to ensure that only trusted software runs on a user’s Mac, while XProtect is the platform’s built-in anti-malware technology. Note To learn more about these technologies, see Apple Platform Security. If you’re developing software for macOS your goal is to avoid trusted execution entanglements. You want users to install and use your product without taking any special steps. If, for example, you ship an app that’s blocked by Gatekeeper, you’re likely to lose a lot of customers, and your users’ hard-won trust. Trusted execution problems are rare with Mac App Store apps because the Mac App Store validation process tends to catch things early. This post is primarily focused on Developer ID-signed programs. Developers who use Xcode encounter fewer trusted execution problems because Xcode takes care of many code signing and packaging chores. If you’re not using Xcode, consider making the switch. If you can’t, consult the following for information on how to structure, sign, and package your code: Placing content in a bundle Embedding nonstandard code structures in a bundle Embedding a command-line tool in a sandboxed app Creating distribution-signed code for macOS Packaging Mac software for distribution Gatekeeper Basics User-level apps on macOS implement a quarantine system for new downloads. For example, if Safari downloads a zip archive, it quarantines that archive. This involves setting the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute on the file. Note The com.apple.quarantine extended attribute is not documented as API. If you need to add, check, or remove quarantine from a file programmatically, use the quarantinePropertiesKey property. User-level unarchiving tools preserve quarantine. To continue the above example, if you double click the quarantined zip archive in the Finder, Archive Utility will unpack the archive and quarantine the resulting files. If you launch a quarantined app, the system invokes Gatekeeper. Gatekeeper checks the app for problems. If it finds no problems, it asks the user to confirm the launch, just to be sure. If it finds a problem, it displays an alert to the user and prevents them from launching it. The exact wording of this alert varies depending on the specific problem, and from release to release of macOS, but it generally looks like the ones shown in Apple > Support > Safely open apps on your Mac. The system may run Gatekeeper at other times as well. The exact circumstances under which it runs Gatekeeper is not documented and changes over time. However, running a quarantined app always invokes Gatekeeper. Unix-y networking tools, like curl and scp, don’t quarantine the files they download. Unix-y unarchiving tools, like tar and unzip, don’t propagate quarantine to the unarchived files. Confirm the Problem Trusted execution problems can be tricky to reproduce: You may encounter false negatives, that is, you have a trusted execution problem but you don’t see it during development. You may also encounter false positives, that is, things fail on one specific Mac but otherwise work. To avoid chasing your own tail, test your product on a fresh Mac, one that’s never seen your product before. The best way to do this is using a VM, restoring to a snapshot between runs. For a concrete example of this, see Testing a Notarised Product. The most common cause of problems is a Gatekeeper alert saying that it’s blocked your product from running. However, that’s not the only possibility. Before going further, confirm that Gatekeeper is the problem by running your product without quarantine. That is, repeat the steps in Testing a Notarised Product except, in step 2, download your product in a way that doesn’t set quarantine. Then try launching your app. If that launch fails then Gatekeeper is not the problem, or it’s not the only problem! Note The easiest way to download your app to your test environment without setting quarantine is curl or scp. Alternatively, use xattr to remove the com.apple.quarantine extended attribute from the download before you unpack it. For more information about the xattr tool, see the xattr man page. Trusted execution problems come in all shapes and sizes. Later sections of this post address the most common ones. But first, let’s see if there’s an easy answer. Run a System Policy Check macOS has a syspolicy_check tool that can diagnose many common trusted execution issues. To check an app, run the distribution subcommand against it: % syspolicy_check distribution MyApp.app App passed all pre-distribution checks and is ready for distribution. If there’s a problem, the tool prints information about that problem. For example, here’s what you’ll see if you run it against an app that’s notarised but not stapled: % syspolicy_check distribution MyApp.app App has failed one or more pre-distribution checks. --------------------------------------------------------------- Notary Ticket Missing File: MyApp.app Severity: Fatal Full Error: A Notarization ticket is not stapled to this application. Type: Distribution Error … Note In reality, stapling isn’t always required, so this error isn’t really Fatal (r. 151446728 ). For more about that, see The Pros and Cons of Stapling forums. And here’s what you’ll see if there’s a problem with the app’s code signature: % syspolicy_check distribution MyApp.app App has failed one or more pre-distribution checks. --------------------------------------------------------------- Codesign Error File: MyApp.app/Contents/Resources/added.txt Severity: Fatal Full Error: File added after outer app bundle was codesigned. Type: Notary Error … The syspolicy_check isn’t perfect. There are a few issues it can’t diagnose (r. 136954554, 151446550). However, it should always be your first step because, if it does work, it’ll save you a lot of time. Note syspolicy_check was introduced in macOS 14. If you’re seeing a problem on an older system, first check your app with syspolicy_check on macOS 14 or later. If you can’t run the syspolicy_check tool, or it doesn’t report anything actionable, continue your investigation using the instructions in the following sections. App Blocked by Gatekeeper If your product is an app and it works correctly when not quarantined but is blocked by Gatekeeper when it is, you have a Gatekeeper problem. For advice on how to investigate such issues, see Resolving Gatekeeper Problems. App Can’t Be Opened Not all failures to launch are Gatekeeper errors. In some cases the app is just broken. For example: The app’s executable might be missing the x bit set in its file permissions. The app’s executable might be subtly incompatible with the current system. A classic example of this is trying to run a third-party app that contains arm64e code on systems prior to macOS 26 beta. macOS 26 beta supports arm64e apps directly. Prior to that, third-party products (except kernel extensions) were limited to arm64, except for the purposes of testing. The app’s executable might claim restricted entitlements that aren’t authorised by a provisioning profile. Or the app might have some other code signing problem. Note For more information about provisioning profiles, see TN3125 Inside Code Signing: Provisioning Profiles. In such cases the system displays an alert saying: The application “NoExec” can’t be opened. [[OK]] Note In macOS 11 this alert was: You do not have permission to open the application “NoExec”. Contact your computer or network administrator for assistance. [[OK]] which was much more confusing. A good diagnostic here is to run the app’s executable from Terminal. For example, an app with a missing x bit will fail to run like so: % NoExec.app/Contents/MacOS/NoExec zsh: permission denied: NoExec.app/Contents/MacOS/NoExec And an app with unauthorised entitlements will be killed by the trusted execution system: % OverClaim.app/Contents/MacOS/OverClaim zsh: killed OverClaim.app/Contents/MacOS/OverClaim In some cases running the executable from Terminal will reveal useful diagnostics. For example, if the app references a library that’s not available, the dynamic linker will print a helpful diagnostic: % MissingLibrary.app/Contents/MacOS/MissingLibrary dyld[88394]: Library not loaded: @rpath/CoreWaffleVarnishing.framework/Versions/A/CoreWaffleVarnishing … zsh: abort MissingLibrary.app/Contents/MacOS/MissingLibrary Code Signing Crashes on Launch A code signing crash has the following exception information: Exception Type: EXC_CRASH (SIGKILL (Code Signature Invalid)) The most common such crash is a crash on launch. To confirm that, look at the thread backtraces: Backtrace not available For steps to debug this, see Resolving Code Signing Crashes on Launch. One common cause of this problem is running App Store distribution-signed code. Don’t do that! For details on why that’s a bad idea, see Don’t Run App Store Distribution-Signed Code. Code Signing Crashes After Launch If your program crashes due to a code signing problem after launch, you might have encountered the issue discussed in Updating Mac Software. Non-Code Signing Failures After Launch The hardened runtime enables a number of security checks within a process. Some coding techniques are incompatible with the hardened runtime. If you suspect that your code is incompatible with the hardened runtime, see Resolving Hardened Runtime Incompatibilities. App Sandbox Inheritance If you’re creating a product with the App Sandbox enabled and it crashes with a trap within _libsecinit_appsandbox, it’s likely that you’re having App Sandbox inheritance problems. For the details, see Resolving App Sandbox Inheritance Problems. Library Loading Problem Most library loading problems have an obvious cause. For example, the library might not be where you expect it, or it might be built with the wrong platform or architecture. However, some library loading problems are caused by the trusted execution system. For the details, see Resolving Library Loading Problems. Explore the System Log If none of the above resolves your issue, look in the system log for clues as to what’s gone wrong. Some good keywords to search for include: gk, for Gatekeeper xprotect syspolicy, per the syspolicyd man page cmd, for Mach-O load command oddities amfi, for Apple mobile file integrity, per the amfid man page taskgated, see its taskgated man page yara, discussed in Apple Platform Security ProvisioningProfiles You may be able to get more useful logging with this command: % sudo sysctl -w security.mac.amfi.verbose_logging=1 Here’s a log command that I often use when I’m investigating a trusted execution problem and I don’t know here to start: % log stream --predicate "sender == 'AppleMobileFileIntegrity' or sender == 'AppleSystemPolicy' or process == 'amfid' or process == 'taskgated-helper' or process == 'syspolicyd'" For general information the system log, see Your Friend the System Log. Revision History 2025-08-06 Added the Run a System Policy Check section, which talks about the syspolicy_check tool (finally!). Clarified the discussion of arm64e. Made other editorial changes. 2024-10-11 Added info about the security.mac.amfi.verbose_logging option. Updated some links to point to official documentation that replaces some older DevForums posts. 2024-01-12 Added a specific command to the Explore the System Log section. Change the syspolicy_check callout to reflect that macOS 14 is no longer in beta. Made minor editorial changes. 2023-06-14 Added a quick call-out to the new syspolicy_check tool. 2022-06-09 Added the Non-Code Signing Failures After Launch section. 2022-06-03 Added a link to Don’t Run App Store Distribution-Signed Code. Fixed the link to TN3125. 2022-05-20 First posted.

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"

I have 14 total devices, from way back. I am currently in a financial bind and can't renew just yet. BUT I am at past my time to reset the device list back to zero. But the screen to do that is behind the paid account. Catch 22 Can we fix it? As it stands I must email tech support, but this is a bug so I posted

如果你的 App 执行设备端收据验证，请确保你的 App 支持 SHA-256 算法。 我的APP接入了apple内购，我需要如何验证我的app支持 SHA-256 算法呢？

This post is a ‘child’ of Resolving errSecInternalComponent errors during code signing. If you found your way here directly, I recommend that you start at the top. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Fixing an untrusted code-signing certificate If your code-signing identity is set up correctly, selecting its certificate in Keychain Access should display a green checkmark with the text “This certificate is valid”. If it does not, you need to fix that before trying to sign code. There are three common causes of an untrusted certificate: Expired Missing issuer Trust settings overrides Check for an expired certificate If your code-signing identity’s certificate has expired, Keychain Access shows a red cross with the text “… certificate is expired”. If you try to sign with it, codesign will fail like so: % codesign -s "Apple Development" -f "MyTrue" error: The specified item could not be found in the keychain. If you use security to list your code-signing identities, it will show the CSSMERR_TP_CERT_EXPIRED status: % security find-identity -p codesigning Policy: Code Signing Matching identities 1) 4E587951B705280CBB8086325CD134D4CDA04977 "Apple Development: …" (CSSMERR_TP_CERT_EXPIRED) 1 identities found Valid identities only 0 valid identities found The most likely cause of this problem is that… yep… your certificate has expired. To confirm that, select the certificate in Keychain Access and look at the Expires field. Or double click the certificate, expand the Details section, and look at the Not Valid Before and Not Valid After fields. If your code-signing identity’s certificate has expired, you’ll need to renew it. For information on how to do that, see Developer Account Help. If your certificate hasn’t expired, check that your Mac’s clock is set correctly. Check for a missing issuer In the X.509 public key infrastructure (PKI), every certificate has an issuer, who signed the certificate with their private key. These issuers form a chain of trust from the certificate to a trusted anchor. In most cases the trusted anchor is a root certificate, a certificate that’s self signed. Certificates between the leaf and the root are known as intermediate certificates, or intermediates for short. Your code-signing identity’s certificate is issued by Apple. The exact chain of trust depends on the type of certificate and the date that it was issued. For example, in 2022 Apple Development certificates are issued by the Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority — G3 intermediate, which in turn was issued by the Apple Root CA certificate authority. If there’s a missing issuer in the chain of trust between your code-signing identity’s certificate and a trusted anchor, Keychain Access shows a red cross with the text “… certificate is not trusted”. If you try to sign with it, codesign will fail like so: % codesign -s "Apple Development" -f "MyTrue" MyTrue: replacing existing signature Warning: unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer "Apple Development: …" MyTrue: errSecInternalComponent The message unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer is key. If you use security to list your identities, it will not show up in the Valid identities only list but there’s no explanation as to why: % security find-identity -p codesigning Policy: Code Signing Matching identities 1) 4E587951B705280CBB8086325CD134D4CDA04977 "Apple Development: …" 1 identities found Valid identities only 0 valid identities found IMPORTANT These symptoms can have multiple potential causes. The most common cause is a missing issuer, as discussed in this section. Another potential cause is a trust settings override, as discussed in the next section. There are steps you can take to investigate this further but, because this problem is most commonly caused by a missing intermediate, try taking a shortcut by assuming that’s the problem. If that fixes things, you’re all set. If not, you have at least ruled out this problem. Apple publishes its intermediates on the Apple PKI page. The simplest way to resolve this problem is to download all of the certificates in the Apple Intermediate Certificates list and use Keychain Access to add them to your keychain. Having extra intermediates installed is generally not a problem. If you want to apply a more targeted fix: In Keychain Access, find your code-signing identity’s certificate and double click it. If the Details section is collapsed, expand it. Look at the Issuer Name section. Note the value in the Common Name field and, if present, the Organizational Unit field. For example, for an Apple Development certificate that’s likely to be Apple Worldwide Developer Relations Certification Authority and G3, respectively. Go to the Apple PKI and download the corresponding intermediate. To continue the above example, the right intermediate is labelled Worldwide Developer Relations - G3. Use Keychain Access to add the intermediate to your keychain. Sometimes it’s not obvious which intermediate to choose in step 4. If you’re uncertain, download all the intermediates and preview each one using Quick Look in the Finder. Look in the Subject Name section for a certificate whose Common Name and Organizational Unit field matches the values from step 3. Finally, double check the chain of trust: In Keychain Access, select your code-signing identity’s certificate and choose Keychain Access > Certificate Assistant > Evaluate. In the resulting Certificate Assistant window, make sure that Generic (certificate chain validation only) is selected and click Continue. It might seem like selecting Code Signing here would make more sense. If you do that, however, things don’t work as you might expect. Specifically, in this case Certificate Assistant is smart enough to temporarily download a missing intermediate certificate in order to resolve the chain of trust, and that’ll prevent you from seeing any problems with your chain of trust. The resulting UI shows a list of certificates that form the chain of trust. The first item is your code-signing identity’s certificate and the last is an Apple root certificate. Double click the first item. Keychain Access presents the standard the certificate trust sheet, showing the chain of trust from the root to the leaf. You should expect to see three items in that list: An Apple root certificate An Apple intermediate Your code-signing identity’s certificate If so, that’s your chain of trust built correctly. Select each certificate in that list. The UI should show a green checkmark with the text “This certificate is valid”. If you see anything else, check your trust settings as described in the next section. Check for a trust settings override macOS allows you to customise trust settings. For example, you might tell the system to trust a particular certificate when verifying a signed email but not when connecting to a TLS server. The code-signing certificates issued by Apple are trusted by default. They don’t require you to customise any trust settings. Moreover, customising trust settings might cause problems. If code signing fails with the message unable to build chain to self-signed root for signer, first determine the chain of trust per the previous section then make sure that none of these certificates have customised trust settings. Specifically, for each certificate in the chain: Find the certificate in Keychain Access. Note that there may be multiple instances of the certificate in different keychains. If that’s the case, follow these steps for each copy of the certificate. Double click the certificate to open it in a window. If the Trust section is collapsed, expand it. Ensure that all the popups are set to their default values (Use System Defaults for the first, “no value specified” for the rest). If they are, move on to the next certificate. If not, set the popups to the default values and close the window. Closing the window may require authentication to save the trust settings. Another way to explore trust settings is with the dump-trust-settings subcommand of the security tool. On a stock macOS system you should see this: % security dump-trust-settings SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. % security dump-trust-settings -d SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. That is, there are no user or admin trust settings overrides. If you run these commands and see custom trust settings, investigate their origins. IMPORTANT If you’re working in a managed environment, you might see custom trust settings associated with that environment. For example, on my personal Mac I see this: % security dump-trust-settings -d Number of trusted certs = 1 Cert 2: QuinnNetCA Number of trust settings : 10 … because my home network infrastructure uses a custom certificate authority and I’ve configured my Mac to trust its root certificate (QuinnNetCA). Critically, this custom trust settings are nothing to do with code signing. If you dump trust settings and see an override you can’t explain, and specifically one related to code-signing certificate, use Keychain Access to remove it. Revision History 2025-09-29 Added information about the dump-trust-settings command to Check for a trust settings override. Made other minor editorial changes. 2022-08-10 First posted.

Even if I recreate everything and register it, it does not register in xcode as shown below. No matter how many times I regenerate the certificate and profile, the same thing happens.

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

We've been trying to get the CarPlay Navigation Entitlement for a couple years now without much luck. Did you have a similar experience? How did you succeed getting the entitlement? Part of the form requires us to submit Screenshots. Did you provide screenshots of your on-device experience or wireframe for CarPlay? How was your experience?

Since around September (iOS 26 release), i'm unable to test my app normally. It says "internet connection is required to verify [my certificate id]", or just crashing. All terms and conditions accepted, everything is valid, certificates are OK. Reinstallation via xcode does not help. Removal of provisioning profile, generating new does not help. Revoking of certificate and generating new does for around week, then it happens again, but do i need to do it every week now? In logs i see the following: default amfid validation failed because of missing trust and/or authorization (0xe8008026) error amfid not valid: 0xe8008026: The provisioning profile requires online authorization. error amfid Unexpected MISError (0xe8008026): The provisioning profile requires online authorization. default +0300 amfid /private/var/containers/Bundle/Application/5B8E560E-75B2-46EF-8606-02072D99E9CF//Frameworks/oss.dylib not valid: Error Domain=AppleMobileFileIntegrityError Code=-400 "An unknown error was encountered" UserInfo={NSURL=file:///private/var/containers/Bundle/Application/5B8E560E-75B2-46EF-8606-02072D99E9CF//Frameworks/oss.dylib, NSLocalizedDescription=An unknown error was encountered} default kernel AMFI: code signature validation failed. It looks like apple validation servers are not working, or is it iOS bug? All provisioning profiles are showing like "valid" in apple developer center. My network is not behind a proxy, connection is direct. If use EXACTLY the same app, signed with the same provisioning, same signature, on another test device, it works! When i reset current device to default settings and installing the EXACTLY same app after it, it works as well. Looking for a help from apple developer support

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.