In the LightweightCodeRequirements framework, there is a LaunchCodeRequirement object which can be used as a requirement object for a Process for example. What I don't understand (I admit my macOS low-level knowledge is limited) is that how can this be used in a secure way that doesn't fall victim of a Time-of-Check/Time-of-Use issue. e.g. I specify a LaunchCodeRequirement via Process.launchRequirement for my process, let's say /usr/local/bin/mycommandlinetool. The LaunchCodeRequirement specifies my development team and a developer ID certificate. The process must be started in some form, before a SecCode/SecTask object can be created, rather than a SecStaticCode object (which only guarantees its validity checks to be intact as long as the file is not modified). But if the process was started, then I have no tools in my set to prevent it from executing its initialization code or similar. Then, by the time I'm able to check via SecCode/SecTask functions the LaunchCodeRequirement, I might have already ran malicious code - if mycommandlinetool was maliciously replaced. Or does the operating system use a daemon to copy the executable specified for Process to a secure location, then creates the SecStaticCode object, assesses the LaunchCodeRequirement and if passed, launches the executable from that trusted location (which would make sure it is immutable for replacement by malicious actors)? I have a hard time understanding how this works under the hood - if I remember correctly these are private APIs.

In Swift I'm using unzip by launching a Process to unzip a file. I added a launchRequirement to the process in order to make sure the executable is code signed by Apple and the identifier is com.apple.unzip. After testing out my code on another machines (both physical and virtual), I found out that in some the identifier is actually com.apple.zipinfo, which broke the SigningIdentifier requirement. It's safe to assume that /usr/bin/unzip can be trusted since it's in a System Integrity Protection (SIP) location, but I'm wondering why this executable has different identifiers?

I made a macOS application using Swift Package and distributed it in dmg format through Apple Notary service. However, we received a report from a user that it can be launched from a disk image mounted from dmg, but when copied to /Applications, the app is broken and does not start. I looked into why this happened, I noticed that the codesign command returned different results when copying the application bundle and /Applications on the volume mounted dmg with Finder. Mounted dmg: OK ❯ codesign --verify --deep --verbose /Volumes/azoo-key-skkserv/azoo-key-skkserv.app /Volumes/azoo-key-skkserv/azoo-key-skkserv.app: valid on disk /Volumes/azoo-key-skkserv/azoo-key-skkserv.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement Copied by Finder: Bad codesign reports that there are 148 added/missing files. ❯ codesign --verify --deep --verbose /Applications/azoo-key-skkserv.app /Applications/azoo-key-skkserv.app: a sealed resource is missing or invalid file added: /Applications/azoo-key-skkserv.app/Contents/Resources/AzooKeyKanakanjiConverter_KanaKanjiConverterModuleWithDefaultDictionary.bundle/Contents/Resources/Dictionary/louds/グ1.loudstxt3 (skip...) file missing: /Applications/azoo-key-skkserv.app/Contents/Resources/AzooKeyKanakanjiConverter_KanaKanjiConverterModuleWithDefaultDictionary.bundle/Contents/Resources/Dictionary/louds/グ1.loudstxt3 (skip...) Copied by ditto: OK ❯ ditto /Volumes/azoo-key-skkserv/azoo-key-skkserv.app /Applications/azoo-key-skkserv.app ❯ codesign --verify --deep --verbose /Applications/azoo-key-skkserv.app /Applications/azoo-key-skkserv.app: valid on disk /Applications/azoo-key-skkserv.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement I made a simple macOS application to explain this problem in an easy-to-understand way. You can download dmg in github releases, mount dmg, copy it in the Finder, and check if there is a problem by running the codesign command. https://github.com/mtgto/example-utf8-mac-notarization As a result, I learned the following two things. Occurs only with resources with file names whose values change due to NFC/NFD normalization No problems occur with the resources of the application itself. Generated by the Swift Package resources that the application depends on I think this is a problem with Finder or Gatekeeper.

Hey, Just recently I realized something I have been overlooking in my build pipelines. I thought that by adding the the "hardened runtime", I disable 3rd-party library injection (I do not have the disable-library-validation entitlement added). However, I was using some checks on my code and I noticed that the "library validation" code signature check fails on my applications (e.g. adding the .libraryValidation requirement via the LightweightCodeRequirements framework) - with codesign -dvvvv /path/to/app I can check it doesn't have the CS_REQUIRE_LV flag: [...] CodeDirectory v=20500 size=937 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=18+7 location=embedded [...] then I used in Xcode the "Other Code Signing Flags" setting and added the -o library option, which added the flag: [...] CodeDirectory v=20500 size=937 flags=0x12000(library-validation,runtime) hashes=18+7 location=embedded [...] Is this flag something I should be explicitly setting? Because I was under the impression enabling hardened runtime would be enough. Popular Developer ID distributed applications (e.g. Google Chrome, Parallels Desktop, Slack) all have this flag set.

Coming from Windows, I'm finding Mac app packaging farcically complicated, to the level of a Python sketch. I mastered Windows packaging, via Inno, in an hour or so, but it has taken me, on and off, the best part of a week to get to the point I am at with the Mac OS, and I'm nowhere near finished (rather, it hasn't finished with me). Every time I surmount one hurdle, another pops up, seemingly just for the jollies. I'm currently stuck at: 'Error: HTTP status code: 403. A required agreement is missing or has expired. This request requires an in-effect agreement that has not been signed or has expired. Ensure your team has signed the necessary legal agreements and that they are not expired.' My account lists no agreements in this category. I understand the need for security, but not the labyrinthine nature of the process. An inner-party member in the former Soviet Union overheard a drunken Stalin say, “I trust no one; not even myself". Apple trusts no one, but has true contempt for developers. Is there a simple way to work through the packaging process? Let me rephrase that: please God, let there be a simpler way of working through the process! Regards, in extremis, Richard

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.

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...! ;-)

I have been trying to package a FileMaker 18 runtime app* for Mac distribution for - oh - a year and a half on and off (the Windows version was packaged in an afternoon). I succeeded - or thought I had - until I updated to Tahoe. Now my packaging process does everything it did formerly (creates the DMG, etc.), but when opened, fails to see/load a third-party plugin (BaseElements.fmplugin). Does anyone know why this should be? I have attached 4 of my build files in the hope that someone can point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance for any advice you may provide. Regards, L *Claris deprecated the runtime feature years ago, but it still runs and is useful for proof of concept. P.S. A contributor to an earlier query kindly suggested I go down the zip file or pkg installer route, rather than the DMG route. I tried doing as much but found both as susceptible to Mac spaghetti signage. build_all.txt repair_and_sign.txt build_dmg.txt notarize_dmg.txt

Is there a way to check your app signature to verify if any one has tampered with the ipa file. I want to know specifically how to determine and handle this type of situation. How can i do a check for this in code(swift).

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?

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.

I suddenly started to receive the following email with the error in it stating that my uploaded app is not available to be used in TestFlight: ITMS-90886: 'Cannot be used with TestFlight because the signature for the bundle at “MyApp.app/Contents/PlugIns/MyAppWidgetExtension.appex” is missing an application identifier but has an application identifier in the provisioning profile for the bundle. Bundles with application identifiers in the provisioning profile are expected to have the same identifier signed into the bundle in order to be eligible for TestFlight.' It was all working fine and now I am not sure even where to start looking. Signing, provisioning and everything else is managed automatically.

We are using an app distributed via an iOS enterprise certificate. There is an exceptional user who could normally use the app signed with this certificate before upgrading to iOS 18. However, after updating to iOS 18 (currently on version 18.3), the app crashes immediately upon launch. Real-time logs indicate that the application fails to start. This issue is unique to this user, as other users on the same iOS 18.3 system do not experience the problem. console log

Hello, We use automatic signing and Fastlane on our CI. Fastlane uses xcodebuild to create an archive. xcodebuild -workspace ourApp.xcworkspace -scheme app-dev -destination generic/platform=iOS -archivePath app-dev.xcarchive -skipPackagePluginValidation -allowProvisioningUpdates -authenticationKeyID OurAppStoreConnectAuthKey -authenticationKeyIssuerID OurAppStoreConnectAuthKeyIssuerId -authenticationKeyPath /path/to/OurAppStoreConnectKey.p8 clean archive All works fine, but .... Why does Xcode 16 log out logged Apple ID and create a new every build? As a result, we have more and more Unknown Apple IDs in Xcode, and for each of them an error appears in log. Error: xcodebuild[3174:1804334] DVTDeveloperAccountManager: Failed to load credentials for 0A1DF15C-ETC-ETC: Error Domain=DVTDeveloperAccountCredentialsError Code=0 "Invalid credentials in keychain for 0A1DF15C-ETC-ETC, missing Xcode-Username" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Invalid credentials in keychain for 0A1DF15C-ETC-ETC, missing Xcode-Username} Of course, the originally logged-in Apple ID has an error corresponding to his non-logged-in state. xcodebuild[3174:1804334] DVTDeveloperAccountManager: Failed to load credentials for originally_logged-in_user: Error Domain=DVTDeveloperAccountCredentialsError Code=0 "Invalid credentials in keychain for originally_logged-in_user, missing Xcode-Token" UserInfo={NSLocalizedDescription=Invalid credentials in keychain for originally_logged-in_user, missing Xcode-Token} Why does this happen and how can it be fixed? Why does Xcode 16 log out its logged Apple ID?