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

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

From time to time I see folks run into error 65 when stapling a ticket to their notarised Mac software. This post explains the two common causes of that error. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread here on the forums. Put it in the Code Signing > Notarization topic area so that I see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" Resolving Error 65 When Stapling If you directly distribute Mac software, you must sign and notarise your product so that it passes Gatekeeper. For information on how to do this, see: Notarizing macOS software before distribution, if you use Xcode Creating distribution-signed code for macOS, Packaging Mac software for distribution, and Customizing the notarization workflow otherwise The last step of that process is to staple a ticket to your notarised product. This can fail with error 65. There are two common causes of that failure: No appropriate ticket Trust issues The following sections explain how to recognise and resolve these issues. Note You are not absolutely required to staple your product. See The Pros and Cons of Stapling for more on that topic. No Appropriate Ticket Consider the following stapling error: % stapler staple "TestError65.dmg" Processing: /Users/quinn/Desktop/TestError65 2025-03-03 22-12-47/TestError65.dmg CloudKit query for TestError65.dmg (2/d812985247c75e94fd603f026991f96144a031af) failed due to "Record not found". Could not find base64 encoded ticket in response for 2/d812985247c75e94fd603f026991f96144a031af The staple and validate action failed! Error 65. Note the Record not found message. This indicates that the stapling operation failed because there’s no appropriate ticket. To investigate this, look at the notary log: % notarytool-log b53042b6-4cbb-4cef-ade4-dae034a69947 { … "status": "Accepted", … "sha256": "f012735a6d53b17082c088627da4249c9988111d17e7a90c49aa64ebc6bae22e", "ticketContents": [ { "path": "TestError65.dmg/TestError65.app", "digestAlgorithm": "SHA-256", "cdhash": "abc27b0f2daee77b9316de3c6844fbd9e234621c", "arch": "x86_64" }, { "path": "TestError65.dmg/TestError65.app", "digestAlgorithm": "SHA-256", "cdhash": "9627c72e53d44ae77513613e2ce33314bd5ef41e", "arch": "arm64" }, { "path": "TestError65.dmg/TestError65.app/Contents/MacOS/TestError65", "digestAlgorithm": "SHA-256", "cdhash": "abc27b0f2daee77b9316de3c6844fbd9e234621c", "arch": "x86_64" }, { "path": "TestError65.dmg/TestError65.app/Contents/MacOS/TestError65", "digestAlgorithm": "SHA-256", "cdhash": "9627c72e53d44ae77513613e2ce33314bd5ef41e", "arch": "arm64" }, { "path": "TestError65.dmg", "digestAlgorithm": "SHA-256", "cdhash": "01a553c91ee389764971767f5082ab8c7dcece02" } ], "issues": null } First, make sure that the status field is Accepted. If there’s some other value, the notary service didn’t generate a ticket at all! To understand why, look at the rest of the notary log for errors and warnings. Assuming that your notarisation request was successful, look through the log for cdhash values. These represent the contents of the ticket generated by the notary service. Compare that list to the cdhash values of the code being signed: % hdiutil attach "TestError65.dmg" … … /Volumes/Install TestError65 % codesign -d -vvv --arch arm64 "/Volumes/Install TestError65/TestError65.app" … CDHash=9627c72e53d44ae77513613e2ce33314bd5ef41e … % codesign -d -vvv --arch x86_64 "/Volumes/Install TestError65/TestError65.app" … CDHash=abc27b0f2daee77b9316de3c6844fbd9e234621c … Those are all present in the ticket. However, consider the cdhash of the disk image itself: % codesign -d -vvv "TestError65.dmg" … CDHash=d812985247c75e94fd603f026991f96144a031af … That’s the cdhash that stapler is looking for: CloudKit query for TestError65.dmg (2/d812985247c75e94fd603f026991f96144a031af) failed due to "Record not found". But it’s not present in the notarised ticket. Note The term cdhash stands for code directory hash. If you’re curious what that’s about, see TN3126 Inside Code Signing: Hashes and the Notarisation Fundamentals DevForums post. What happened here is: I built the app. I signed it with my Developer ID code-signing identity. I created a disk image from that app. I signed that with my Developer ID code-signing identity. I notarised that. I then re-signed the disk image. This changes the cdhash in the code signature. Now the disk image’s cdhash doesn’t match the cdhash in the ticket, so stapling fails. To resolve this problem, make sure you’re stapling exactly the file that you submitted to the notary service. One good option is to compare the SHA-256 hash of the file you’re working on with the sha256 field in the notary log. Trust Issues Now consider this stapling error: % stapler staple "TestError65.dmg" Processing: /Users/quinn/TestError65.dmg Could not validate ticket for /Users/quinn/TestError65.dmg The staple and validate action failed! Error 65. Note how it’s different from the previous one. Rather than saying that the ticket was not found, it says Could not validate ticket. So, stapler found the ticket for the file and then tried to validate it before doing the staple operation. That validation failed, and thus this error. The most common cause of this problem is folks messing around with trust settings. Consider this: % security dump-trust-settings SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. % security dump-trust-settings -d SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. Contrast it with this: % security dump-trust-settings SecTrustSettingsCopyCertificates: No Trust Settings were found. % security dump-trust-settings -d Number of trusted certs = 1 Cert 0: Apple Root CA - G3 Number of trust settings : 10 … Someone has tweaked the trust settings for the Apple Root CA - G3 anchor. In fact, I used Keychain Access to mark the certificate as Always Trust. You’d think that’d avoid problems, but you’d be wrong. Our code signing machinery expects Apple’s anchor and intermediate certificates to have the default trust settings. IMPORTANT Some trust settings overrides are fine. For example, on my main work Mac there are trust settings overrides for Apple internal anchors. This problem occurs when there are trust settings overrides for Apple’s standard anchor and intermediate certificates. To fix this: In Terminal, run the dump-trust-settings commands shown above and build a list of Apple certificates with trust settings overrides. In Keychain Access, find the first problematic certificate in your list. 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, close the window and move on to step 8. If not, set the popups to the default values and close the window. Closing the window may require authentication to save the trust settings. Repeat steps until 2 through 7 for each of the problematic certificates you found in step 1. When you’re done, run the dump-trust-settings commands again to confirm that your changes took effect.

I'm submitting my first macOS app (a native SwiftUI menu bar app, signed with Developer ID Application certificate, Hardened Runtime enabled) for notarization using xcrun notarytool submit with keychain profile authentication. All 9 of my submissions have been stuck at "In Progress" for up to 16 hours. None have transitioned to "Accepted" or "Invalid." Logs are unavailable for all of them (notarytool log returns "Submission log is not yet available"). Environment macOS: 26.2 (25C56) Xcode: 26.1.1 (17B100) notarytool: 1.1.0 (39) App: Native SwiftUI, universal binary (x86_64 + arm64), ~2.2 MB DMG Bundle ID: com.gro.ask Team ID: 4KT56S2BX6 What I've verified Code signing is valid: $ codesign --verify --deep --strict GroAsk.app passes with no errors $ codesign -dvvv GroAsk.app Authority=Developer ID Application: Jack Wu (4KT56S2BX6) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA CodeDirectory flags=0x10000(runtime) # Hardened Runtime enabled Runtime Version=26.1.0 Format=app bundle with Mach-O universal (x86_64 arm64) Entitlements are minimal: com.apple.security.app-sandbox com.apple.security.network.client Uploads succeed — each submission receives a valid submission ID and the file uploads to Apple's servers without error. Submission history Created (UTC): 04:40 ID: eeb12389-... File: GroAsk-1.6.0.dmg Status: Invalid (Hardened Runtime missing — since fixed) ──────────────────────────────────────── Created (UTC): 04:42 ID: 6e537a32-... File: GroAsk-1.6.0.dmg Status: In Progress (16+ hrs) ──────────────────────────────────────── Created (UTC): 07:52 ID: 5ee41736-... File: GroAsk-1.6.0.dmg Status: In Progress ──────────────────────────────────────── Created (UTC): 08:19 ID: f5c6b9a5-... File: GroAsk-1.6.0.dmg Status: In Progress ──────────────────────────────────────── Created (UTC): 08:27 ID: 0f1c8333-... File: GroAsk-1.6.0.dmg Status: In Progress ──────────────────────────────────────── Created (UTC): 08:29 ID: 77fd9cd4-... File: GroAsk-1.6.0.dmg Status: In Progress ──────────────────────────────────────── Created (UTC): 08:51 ID: db9da93e-... File: GroAsk-1.6.1.dmg Status: In Progress ──────────────────────────────────────── Created (UTC): 09:05 ID: 3c43c09f-... File: GroAsk.zip Status: In Progress ──────────────────────────────────────── Created (UTC): 12:01 ID: b2267a74-... File: GroAsk-1.6.3.dmg Status: In Progress ──────────────────────────────────────── Created (UTC): 12:15 ID: ae41e45c-... File: GroAsk.zip Status: In Progress The very first submission (eeb12389) came back as Invalid within minutes because Hardened Runtime wasn't enabled on the binary. I fixed the build configuration and confirmed flags=0x10000(runtime) is present on all subsequent builds. However, every submission after that fix has been stuck at "In Progress" with no state transition. What I've tried Submitting both .dmg and .zip formats — same result Verified notarytool log — returns "Submission log is not yet available" for all stuck submissions Apple Developer System Status page shows the Notary Service as "Available" I've also emailed Apple Developer Support but have not received a response yet Questions Is this the expected behavior for a first-time notarization account? I've seen other threads mentioning that new accounts may be held for "in-depth analysis," but 16+ hours with zero feedback seems excessive. 2. Is there any manual configuration Apple needs to do on their end to unblock my team for notarization? 3. Should I stop submitting and wait, or is there something else I can try? Any guidance from DTS would be greatly appreciated. This is blocking the release of my app.

Notarization submission has been stuck in "In Progress" status for over 15 hours with no resolution. Hi there, I am trying to roll out distribution to paid users who are unable to receive anything from me for quite some time now, and I've read that notarization is quick. But I've found myself to be under quite a delay. Wondering if I could please get some help. Submission Details: ID: e3dff14c-16ab-41a7-a81c-0d1774c66588 Submitted: 2026-02-08T16:42:07.377Z File: Resonant-0.1.0-arm64.dmg (~200MB) Status: In Progress (stuck) Evidence: Upload completed successfully within minutes Delay is entirely server-side processing Same app structure notarized successfully on Feb 5 (submission f5f4c241) Multiple other submissions stuck since Feb 5 (see history below) Stuck Submissions (all "In Progress" for days): e3dff14c (Feb 8, 16:42 UTC) - 15+ hours 3e6bdcb5 (Feb 8, 16:11 UTC) - 16+ hours 37fd1b9f (Feb 8, 12:53 UTC) - 20+ hours f21a1d9b (Feb 8, 12:31 UTC) - 20+ hours (different app, Clippa.zip) 417244e8 (Feb 8, 06:18 UTC) - 26+ hours 891f370f (Feb 7, 11:44 UTC) - 2+ days 1debba51 (Feb 7, 05:44 UTC) - 2+ days 6a06b87f (Feb 6, 14:16 UTC) - 3+ days 9867261c (Feb 6, 13:44 UTC) - 3+ days 1a7c3967 (Feb 6, 12:58 UTC) - 3+ days Last Successful Notarization: f5f4c241 (Feb 5, 18:24 UTC) - Accepted in normal timeframe Impact: Unable to distribute production release. This is blocking critical bug fixes from reaching users. Expected Behavior: Notarization should complete within 2-10 minutes as documented and as experienced prior to Feb 5. Request: Please investigate why submissions are not being processed and either: Clear the backlog and process pending submissions Provide guidance on how to proceed with distribution

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

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.

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"

My notarization submission been "In Progress" status for over 30 minutes now. I thought this process should be much faster.

Not accepted yet (all are still processing, none are rejected) 387af103-42d3-4d95-ae22-0289f90a8559 — In Progress 2d836594-9fb2-41a5-990c-7ea4e0870af0 — In Progress e61ba9e3-5ff1-4856-8e9d-39c08445ff63 — In Progress 1defdeec-50b4-45c5-b32d-53ca6e4538bb — In Progress 34e60b80-20c3-4ea7-93a7-2bb9e7c6f05c — In Progress 09222b71-eae1-4c5c-aca4-368f697b2a39 — In Progress eb5327e8-161e-4185-9920-3facf60b7b4b — In Progress 784fc210-d0bf-4924-b0a6-eb8bbac0f2c8 — In Progress 74bc8f31-b1b0-4bed-9142-0c03100a062a — In Progress 4739620c-894a-4283-a43b-df57b29a1771 — In Progress have created new certificate as well same result. waiting for apple support to give any answers.

I am making an iOS step counting app and I have included a widget in the design. I would like to get the widget to pull data from the main app to display step count etc so I created a bundle id for the widget and have been trying to use a group id to link them together. The group capabilities for both seem to be set up/enabled properly with the same App Groups id, but I've been getting an error in xcode which says, " 'Provisioning Profile: "BUNDLE_ID" doesn't include the com.apple.developer.security.application-groups entitlement.' Try Again But the identifiers do have the App Group id enabled. I have tried automatic signing, manual signing with generated profiles, unchecking and rechecking auto-signing, removing and re-adding the group capability. Creating a new bundle id from scratch, creating a new group id from scratch. Always I get the error. I've really pulled my hair out troubleshooting this and would appreciate support. I'm happy to answer and questions or share details. Thank you.

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

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

Hey all, I'm experiencing an error, when trying to upload my app to the App Store using Transporter. I build my app with fvm flutter build ipa --release. When I try to upload this, I get the following error: I have already done a rebuild and checked my Provision Profile and certificate

Hi, I read that notarization should be fairly quick. I thought that it was stuck, so I ended up sending a few submissions of the same app. I was wondering if you'd able to tell me the status of my latest submission (id: a094f93d-8bb2-47fe-a411-b6e357456ec7). It has been saying "In Progress" for over 3 hours now. If it is held for in-depth review, would you be able to tell me what's the wait period is like? Thanks!

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

I'm submitting a native macOS app (Swift/SwiftUI, arm64) that includes Sparkle.framework for auto-updates. All binaries are signed with a Developer ID Application certificate using --options runtime and --timestamp. I've submitted 12+ times over the past two days, both from local notarytool submit and from GitHub Actions CI. Every submission uploads successfully and returns a valid submission ID, but then stays at "In Progress" indefinitely — none have resolved to Accepted or Invalid. Two early submissions did eventually come back "Invalid" — Apple's rejection log showed the Sparkle nested binaries had ad-hoc signatures (they were being signed as individual Mach-O files instead of bundle directories). I fixed this with proper inside-out bundle signing. Since the fix, local codesign --verify --deep --strict passes cleanly, but all ~10 subsequent submissions remain stuck at "In Progress". 9UT54V24XG Would appreciate any guidance, or if someone from the notary team could check our queue. Happy to provide specific submission IDs.

Multiple notarization submissions have been stuck at "In Progress" status for over 2 days with no resolution or error: 4996643b-4512-4025-9648-028fbafca82f - submitted Jan 18 b6db6cd0-dad7-4a8e-b1fc-379467c1086d - submitted Jan 17 88f269c1-56ea-4404-98ba-edbe9a05b3d2 - submitted Jan 19 No logs available (notarytool log returns "not yet available"). The submissions were uploaded successfully and received submission IDs. Is there a known issue with the notarization service?

When completing signing on Xcode, it shows the following error message "No certificate for team '' matching 'Developer ID Application' found" I have already followed the steps to generate a certificate from keychain and made a new certificate on developer portal, along with its associated provisioning profile. Viewing "Manage Certificate" window shows the newly created certificate, but Xcode seems to not be able to locate it.

I have app developed in electron.js and python and it works in ios 15 after codesigning but not in ios 14 or below I need to understand if theres a specific instruction that we need to while building the app or do I need to codesign in lower version? what can I do solve this issue??

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.

App Notarization got stuck, showing In-Progress from last 24 hrs. This is really frustrating. Can anyone plz update on this?