Dear support team, is it possible to rename a notarized ZIP package and not to loose the notarized status? One of our ZIP package contains resources and binaries which are code signed. The archive itself is accepted after submitting and uploading during the notarization process (online notarization). Unfortunately, the ZIP cannot be stapled (offline verification). So, is the filename part of the notarized ZIP package or can a ZIP package be renamed? Best regards, Stefan

i encountered an error when i distributing my app on xcode 26.0.1. Below is error log. { "logFormatVersion": 1, "jobId": "ed2b622b-61f6-4c8a-90b7-7c3cdfbafc7a", "status": "Rejected", "statusSummary": "Team is not yet configured for notarization. Please contact Developer Programs Support at developer.apple.com under the topic Development and Technical / Other Development or Technical Questions.", "statusCode": 7000, "archiveFilename": "mychm.zip", "uploadDate": "2025-12-10T01:50:34.198Z", "sha256": "b61e224154823c8e06c3db904d67a78969f1564c7602f1fa77335fdd12a8d22b", "ticketContents": null, "issues": null }

I am trying to notarize a VS-Code Fork Electron based app for non-App store distribution. Its just same for more than 24hrs, it just says processing. Looking for someone who could help me. Thanks

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.

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"

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.

We package a nightly build of our application for distribution. About 1 month ago, this package has started showing the "Apple could not verify 'Application' is free of malware" message. This only happens to our development branch package. We run the same pipeline with the same signature for our stable branch and the stable package does not show this message. $ codesign -dv --verbose=4 KiCad.app Executable=/Applications/KiCad/KiCad/KiCad.app/Contents/MacOS/kicad Identifier=org.kicad.kicad Format=app bundle with Mach-O universal (x86_64 arm64) CodeDirectory v=20500 size=51931 flags=0x10000(runtime) hashes=1612+7 location=embedded VersionPlatform=1 VersionMin=722432 VersionSDK=983552 Hash type=sha256 size=32 CandidateCDHash sha256=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d CandidateCDHashFull sha256=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d03cbe70641719fd1ced3395b Hash choices=sha256 CMSDigest=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d03cbe70641719fd1ced3395b CMSDigestType=2 Executable Segment base=0 Executable Segment limit=3915776 Executable Segment flags=0x1 Page size=4096 CDHash=4f15435c1d3cc056a83432b78a2f6acae8fb0e6d Signature size=9002 Authority=Developer ID Application: KiCad Services Corporation (9FQDHNY6U2) Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority Authority=Apple Root CA Timestamp=Dec 19, 2025 at 5:21:05 AM Info.plist entries=17 TeamIdentifier=9FQDHNY6U2 Runtime Version=15.2.0 Sealed Resources version=2 rules=13 files=37238 Internal requirements count=1 size=176 codesign --verify --verbose=4 KiCad.app <snipped all libs validated> KiCad.app: valid on disk KiCad.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement % spctl --assess --verbose=4 KiCad.app KiCad.app: accepted source=Notarized Developer ID We distribute this via dmg. The notarization ticket is stapled to the dmg and the dmg opens without warning. Any help would be appreciated

Notarization Rejects Valid Developer ID Certificates - Apple Infrastructure Issue? Environment macOS: 15.6.1 Xcode: 26.0.1 Architecture: arm64 (Apple Silicon) Team ID: W---------- Certificate Status: Valid until 2030 (verified on developer.apple.com) Problem Apple's notarization service consistently rejected properly signed packages with error: "The binary is not signed with a valid Developer ID certificate." Despite: ✅ Valid certificates on developer.apple.com ✅ Local signing succeeds (codesign --verify passes) ✅ Proper certificate/key pairing verified ✅ Package structure correct Failed Submission IDs September 2025: adeeed3d-4732-49c6-a33c-724da43f9a4a 5a910f51-dc6d-4a5e-a1c7-b07f32376079 3930147e-daf6-4849-8b0a-26774fd92c3c b7fc8e4e-e03c-44e1-a68e-98b0db38aa39 d7dee4a1-68e8-44b5-85e9-05654425e044 da6fa563-ba21-4f9e-b677-80769bd23340 What I've Tried Re-downloaded fresh certificates from Apple Developer Portal Verified certificate chain locally Tested with multiple different builds Confirmed Team ID matches across all configurations Verified no unsigned nested components Waited 3 months for potential propagation delays Verified all agreements are current and accepted Re-tested with minimal test package - same error persists Local Verification # Certificates present and valid security find-identity -v -p codesigning | grep "Developer ID" 1) XXXXXXXXXX "Developer ID Application: <<REDACTED>> (W----------)" 2) XXXXXXXXXX "Developer ID Installer: <<REDACTED>> (W----------)" # Signing succeeds codesign --verify --deep --strict --verbose=2 [app] → Success Question This appears similar to thread #784184. After 3 months and ensuring all agreements are signed, the issue persists with identical error. The certificates work for local signing but Apple's notarization service rejects them. Could this be: Backend infrastructure issue with Team ID W----------? Certificate not properly registered in Apple's notarization database? Known issue requiring Apple Support intervention? Has anyone else experienced valid Developer ID certificates being rejected specifically by the notarization service while working locally?