Successfully received submission history. history ...... -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-10-19T18:34:47.472Z id: d3248896-7841-421e-9470-101df9d0da21 name: ... status: In Progress -------------------------------------------------- createdDate: 2025-10-19T18:12:45.325Z id: e5822fa0-5bcf-4610-81fc-9f541e8ad189 name: ... status: In Progress

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

*** Error: ERROR: [ContentDelivery.Uploader] Validation failed (409) Invalid Provisioning Profile. The provisioning profile included in the com.baiyun-shuniu.scss bundle [Payload/HBuilder.app] is invalid. [Missing code-signing certificate]. A distribution provisioning profile should be used when uploading apps to App Store Connect. (ID: e21c7a63-520f-49c5-8298-9afa3aa14dd5) 2025-05-13 09:23:20.382 INFO: [ContentDelivery.Uploader]

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.

Hello, I had a successful attempt at notarization earlier today in my build pipeline. I've been using the same system for building my macOS application for over a year now. However, subsequent builds seemed to fail. I found a couple similar topics which makes this seem not not an isolated incident: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/782950 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/783347 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/783283 In my case I use the following command to submit the notarization: xcrun notarytool submit FilePath.dmg --apple-id "myappleid@gmail.com" --password "redacted_obviously" --team-id "my-team-id" --wait I left a previous run go for over an hour and the "Current status: In Progress.................. etc" filled the whole terminal. I manually checked the progress of the submissions using the command below: xcrun notarytool log --apple-id "myappleid@gmail.com" --password "redacted_obviously_again" --team-id "my-team-id" [run id] And they all result in the following output: Submission log is not yet available or submissionId does not exist Is anyone else experiencing this? Are there any possible solutions?

Hi, I have some doubts about certificates expiration given this "new" requirement around signing for some common third party SDKs: https://developer.apple.com/support/third-party-SDK-requirements/ Use case: I build an SDK that will be distributed as an XCFramework and will be used in AppStore apps from different people. My SDK internally uses some other third party libraries that are integrated as binaries Let's assume some of those third party libraries are from the list above and therefore seem to be required to be signed. I distribute my SDK with all in order (third party SDKs from that list with valid signatures) People using my SDK over the time provide an update to their apps on the AppStore but by then some of the third party libraries of my SDK has an expired certificate. What would happen? People using my SDK won't have any issues as far as my SDK has a valid signature (despite third party libraries from the list have expired signatures) People using my SDK will get a warning about it but still will be able to submit to the AppStore. In that case, would AppStore Review process decline the update? People using my SDK will get an error, not being able to submit to the AppStore and will require me an update version of the SDK with those third party libraries re-signed. My understanding is that all would work as far as my SDK has a valid signature (after all is the one taking responsibility of the code inside), independently of what happens with the signature of those libraries themselves, am I correct?.

Hi everyone, I'm following up on this post I made earlier about an issue I'm having with FamilyControls and the DeviceActivityMonitor extension not working for external TestFlight testers. To briefly recap: I have official Apple approval for the com.apple.developer.family-controls entitlement (distribution) The entitlement is added to both my main app and the DeviceActivityMonitor extension The App Group is correctly configured for both targets On internal TestFlight builds, everything works as expected: app blocking works, the extension runs, and selected apps are shielded. On external TestFlight builds, users get the Screen Time permission prompt, can select apps to block, but nothing is blocked. Since that post, I submitted a Code Level Support request, and Apple asked me to file a bug report via Feedback Assistant. I did that almost a month ago. The only reply I’ve received since is that they can’t give a timeframe or guarantee it will be resolved. I'm stuck in limbo with no updates and no fix. This feature is critical to my app and I cannot launch without it. I’ve reached out to other developers who use app blocking, and none of them have run into this issue. My setup seems correct, and Apple has not said otherwise. If anyone has experienced something similar, found a workaround, or knows how to get real movement on a bug report like this, I would really appreciate any help. It’s been weeks, and I just want to launch my app. Thanks so much.

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.

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.

id: a6f37169-19a7-4abc-b086-3f298866f65d id: 596e3ca4-e8a6-4ba9-9ac7-cf07a430eebb In Progress from 2026-01-21T05:56:24.160Z、2026-01-21T05:55:45.032Z for 30 hours

Error in application:didFailToRegisterForRemoteNotificationsWithError: no valid aps-environment entitlement string found for application have tried out the below commands % codesign -d --entitlements - /path/to/your.app % security cms -D -i /path/to/your.app/embedded.mobileprovision and it seems both are working fine, Im currently developing react native app with expo and firebase for notifications this works fine when im running it via installing the app from testflight, but the issue occurs when i test in testflight or while the apple team reviewing my app My entitlements file <dict> <key>aps-environment</key> <string>production</string> </dict> </plist>

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

My notary service has been stuck for more than 5 hours. Is it because i am a new user or there is an notary service outage.

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.

the iOS app store package's entitlements file has an issue. After updating to a new version to fix the entitlements file, the app still crashes upon opening but can function normally after a restart. What methods can the app side use to resolve this entitlements file issue without requiring a restart to open and use the app properly?

I started the notarization process for my electron app (just a browser window loading a URL) yesterday (26/03/2025) at around 05:23 GMT. I noticed in a couple of posts here in the forum that it may sometimes take a day to notarize the first app submitted by a team, but it has been over 30 hours now. Here's the log from xcrun notarytool history. createdDate: 2025-03-26T05:23:11.102Z id: ddcb3fca-4667-4acb-8fd1-3298a7c244cc name: xolock-browser.zip status: In Progress Do help me out here, I have zero idea why this is taking so long. Thanks in advance!

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.

I've developed a Mac app distributed through the App Store that uses NSAppleScript to control Spotify and Apple Music. I'm experiencing inconsistent behavior with automation permission prompts that's affecting user experience. Expected Behavior: When my app first attempts to send Apple Events to Spotify or Apple Music, macOS should display the automation permission prompt, and upon user approval, the app should appear in System Preferences &gt; Security &amp; Privacy &gt; Privacy &gt; Automation. Actual Behavior: Initial permission prompts work correctly when both apps are actively used after my app download. If a user hasn't launched Spotify/Apple Music for an extended period, the permission prompt fails to appear when they later open the music app. The music app doesn't appear in the Automation privacy pane too. Once this happens, permission prompts never trigger again for that app Steps to Reproduce: Fresh install of my app Don't use Spotify for several days/weeks Launch Spotify Trigger Apple Events from my app to Spotify No permission prompt appears, app doesn't show in Automation settings If you're using Apple Music during this time it runs without any problems. Troubleshooting Attempted: Used tccutil reset AppleEvents [bundle-identifier] - no effect Verified target apps are fully launched before sending Apple Events Tried different AppleScript commands to trigger permissions Problem occurs inconsistently across different Macs Technical Details: macOS 13+ support Using standard NSAppleScript with simple commands like "tell application 'Spotify' to playpause" App Store distribution (no private APIs) Issue affects both Spotify and Apple Music but seems more prevalent with Apple Music Questions: Is there a reliable way to programmatically trigger the automation permission prompt? Are there timing dependencies for when macOS decides to show permission prompts? Could app priority/usage patterns affect permission prompt behavior? I use MediaManager to run the functions and initialize it on AppDidFinishLaunching method and start monitoring there. Any insights or workarounds would be greatly appreciated. This inconsistency is affecting user onboarding and app functionality.

Context: I am building an iOS productivity app using EAS Build. The project has 4 targets: the main app and 3 extensions (ShieldAction, ShieldConfiguration, ActivityMonitorExtension). The Issue: I have officially received approval from Apple for the Family Controls (Distribution) entitlement for my main Bundle ID. However, the build still fails during the Xcode phase. The Errors: Xcode reports that the generated provisioning profiles do not include the com.apple.developer.family-controls entitlement. For example: Provisioning profile "*[expo] com.*.** AdHoc 177247892...." doesn't support the Family Controls capability. All 3 extensions are failing with the exact same error. What I've done: Confirmed approval from Apple for com.*.**. Enabled Family Controls and App Groups on the Apple Developer Portal for all 4 Identifiers. Cleared EAS local and remote cache using eas build --clear-cache. Deleted existing profiles on both Expo.dev and Apple Portal to force regeneration. The Question: Even with official approval, why does EAS continue to generate "empty" profiles for my Ad-Hoc development build? Do I need separate approval for each extension's Bundle ID, or is there a way to force EAS to sync these "Managed Capabilities" correctly?

General: Forums topic: Code Signing Forums subtopic: Code Signing > Notarization Forums tag: Notarization WWDC 2018 Session 702 Your Apps and the Future of macOS Security WWDC 2019 Session 703 All About Notarization WWDC 2021 Session 10261 Faster and simpler notarization for Mac apps WWDC 2022 Session 10109 What’s new in notarization for Mac apps — Amongst other things, this introduced the Notary REST API Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution documentation Customizing the Notarization Workflow documentation Resolving Common Notarization Issues documentation Notary REST API documentation TN3147 Migrating to the latest notarization tool technote Fetching the Notary Log forums post Q&A with the Mac notary service team Developer > News post Apple notary service update Developer > News post Notarisation and the macOS 10.9 SDK forums post Testing a Notarised Product forums post Notarisation Fundamentals forums post The Pros and Cons of Stapling forums post Resolving Error 65 When Stapling forums post Many notarisation issues are actually code signing or trusted execution issue. For more on those topics, see Code Signing Resources and Trusted Execution Resources. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"