I am porting a .NET application to OS X using the Mono Framework. The application works fine, and we have everything done except for packaging. I am packaging a standalone Mono build inside the bundle to avoid dependencies, and using this tool for the job: https://github.com/OutOfOrder/MonoKickstart
The bundle structure we are using is like this:
OurApp.app
\-Contents
+-Info.plist
+-MacOS
| +-osx - native libraries for osx
| +-mono - mono config files
| \ ... - the OS X kickstart binaries, the .exe file, C# .dlls
\-Resources/
\-icon.icns
The bundle runs fine when OS X's Gatekeeper functionality is set off, but when trying to sign it to get it run always, I run into problems...
$ codesign -s "3rd Party Mac Developer Application: Our Certificate" --force --deep --verbose OurApp.app
OurApp.app: bundle format unrecognized, invalid, or unsuitable
In subcomponent: OurApp.app/Contents/MacOS/mono/4.0
All right, I'll remove the mono directory temporarily just to see if it proceeds then:
$ codesign -s "3rd Party Mac Developer Application: Our Certificate" --force --deep --verbose OurApp.app
OurApp.app: signed bundle with Mach-O universal (i386) [org.ourcompany.ourapp]
Success! Or so do I think, but when I'll try to run the app, it still says it's still blocked by Gatekeeper. And when I run
spctl -a -v OurApp.app
OurApp.app/: rejected
So what gives? It says it signed the bundle, and using the --deep parameter, it should've signed all the libraries and such, if I understood right. What should I do to make this work?
Update:
Tried to sign the files one by one with this.
codesign -s "3rd Party Mac Developer Application: Our Certificate" --force --verbose OurAppExecutable.bin
But it refused to do it, because of the "subcomponents" (Even if I'm not using --deep).
I finally got it to sign it by moving everything else but the actual binary file to Resources folder, and then signing the binary file, and then the app bundle.
But yet, it says:
spctl -a -v OurApp.app
OurApp.app/: rejected
source=No Matching Rule
Any further insights?
I'm not sure if --deep is supposed to work or not, but it's not what we use in Xamarin Studio when codesigning Xamarin.Mac projects. What we do is codesign each native library individually and then codesign the app bundle itself.
Hope that helps.
Update: This may be the problem:
OurApp.app: bundle format unrecognized, invalid, or unsuitable
In subcomponent: OurApp.app/Contents/MacOS/mono/4.0
The problem might be that MonoKickStart is not generating correct Mac executables?
I got this to work afterwards. The trick was to keep just the one and only executable file in the MacOS dir, and have everything else in the Resources dir. This way we didn't need to sign all the other things.
Another blunder - not the source of this problem, but of an another one - was that we were trying to sign it with a wrong kind of certificate. "3rd Party Mac Developer Application" is apparently used for App Store submissions. The name is kind of misleading, so it's easy to mess that up. More info: Difference between “Mac Developer” and “3rd Party Mac Developer Application”
Related
We are currently trying to have our app verified in order to distribute it outside of the app store. We are including OpenSceneGraph libraries as well as Qt frameworks in the app bundle.
This is how we did it so far:
Signed executable in Contents/MacOS folder
Signed libraries and Qt frameworks
Signed App.app folder
zipped .app and submitted for Notarization
The executable, libraries and frameworks signing is done manually with the codesign command, and to sign the whole .app we do the following:
codesign --force --verify --verbose=3 --options runtime --timestamp --entitlements App.entitlements -s "Developer ID Application: Our Dev Id" App.app
When we send the zipped .app to be notarized we usually get a quick reply informing us that the notarization was successful, but if we try to run
spctl --verbose --assess --type execute -v App.app
we get the following error:
App.app: rejected (unsealed contents present in the root directory of an embedded framework)
Also inspecting the json file with the notarization output we notice the same error, but it is marked as a warning and checking it with codesign no error is returned.
After a bit of digging we realized that the issue is related to the Qt frameworks: as a counterproof, we tried to submit the same app without the Qt frameworks and this time when the bundle was successfully notarized spctl accepted it too.
Consequently, we eliminated the all symlinks in the root directory, moved the .prl files into the Resources/ folder, and created an alias to A/ in the Versions/ subfolder as suggested in several forum posts, but we have not been able to have spctl accept our bundle with the Qt frameworks. Now at the root of each framework there is just the Versions folder and nothing else (we checked with ls-lha to be sure)
What are we missing in this? Is there a way to at least get some hint on where is the unsealed content which is upsetting the verification tool?
Thank you in advance
In the end, turns out macdeployqt was the way to go, because it automatically arranges the Frameworks in a way that makes it possible to sign the bundle with no error.
Our problem with some framework not being added by macdeployqt disappeared when we upgraded from Qt 5.12.2 to Qt 5.14.1
I develop a Mac app with Qt5, so outside Xcode. I want GateKeeper to allow my app to run on clients' computers rather than issuing the "Can't be opened because the identity of the developer cannot be confirmed" warning.
I have successfully digitally signed the app but GateKeeper still comes with this complaint. I have an Apple developer certificate (I am the Team Agent) and my keychain says it is valid. I also have installed two Apple root certificates.
I use the command line utility codesign to digitally sign all the binaries inside the app folder and in addition I digitally sign the app folder itself. In all cases the response of codesign is informative and displays no error. With codesign I can check that indeed all the binaries are signed, running
$ codesign --verify --deep --verbose=2 MyApp.app
shows that all binaries are validated. And in addition it reports:
MyApp.app: valid on disk
MyApp.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement
Running:
$ codesign -v --verbose=4 --display MyApp.app
gives
Executable=/Users/xxx/trunk/yyy/deploy/release/MyApp.app/Contents/MacOS/MyApp
Identifier=aaaa.MyApp
Format=bundle with Mach-O thin (x86_64)
CodeDirectory v=20200 size=12461 flags=0x0(none) hashes=616+3 location=embedded
Hash type=sha1 size=20
CDHash=d1c12c783dac0e8d9a2b749fb896b11558cec8b6
Signature size=8532
Authority=Developer ID Application: XXXXX
Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority
Authority=Apple Root CA
Timestamp=29 jul. 2015 12;04:40
Info.plist entries=8
TeamIdentifier=YYYYY
Sealed Resources version=2 rules=12 files=10
Internal requirements count=1 size=180
which seems OK.
Running
$ spctl -a -t exec -vv MyApp.app
on all binaries gives as result
MyApp.app: accepted
source=Developer ID
origin=Developer ID Application: XXXX
which also seems OK
Running the XCode command line tool check-signature
on the app or on the binaries inside the app folder:
$ ./check-signature /Users/xxx/trunk/yyy/release/MyApp.app
gives as result
(c) 2014 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
YES
which in all cases is the desired result.
But GateKeeper still does not accept the app and complains about the fact that the developer cannot be confirmed.
[added by author on Friday July 17, 2015]
I think I have found the problem. I do not know whether it is a feature or an OSX bug. I was helped a lot by stackoverflow question 19551298.
Whenever a file is downloaded from the internet it gets an extended file attribute com.apple.quarantine associated with it. When double-clicking on this downloaded file in Finder, GateKeeper has two possibilities:
When the file is not signed it issues the "Unidentified developer etc" message
When the file is digitally signed it issues the "Developer cannot be confirmed etc" message
In both cases the MessageBox has only one button, an OK button. When this button is clicked nothing happens, apart from the MessageBox closing.
If the extended attribute is deleted (xattr -d) the applications runs, signed or not.
The behavior is different when the applications is started by right-mouse-button-clicking in Finder on the app and then click on the "open" menu action. Again one of the two messageboxes is shown, but now with an extra button to allow the user to open the app anyway. Again the only difference between signed and not signed is the "Unidentified" or the "Not confirmed" message. I do not expect my customers to be able to tell the differende. As a result signing the app is an exercise in futility.
On the basis of the Apple Support Documentation I expected another, much nicer behavior of GateKeeper when double clicking a downloaded app (perhaps the documentation is outdated, or I misread it):
if the app is signed GateKeeper should show a MessageBox with "Downloaded from the internet etc" and a button with "Proceed anyway?"
if the app is not signed a MessageBox with a single OK button and a text "Unidentified developer etc.."
Sorry for answering my own question, but I see no other way as editing the original question would lead to spaghetti text.
I finally solved my problem. First the credit: (i) The answer to my other stackoverflow question was very useful and (ii) I got very good (paid) advice from an official Apple developer, by filing a so-called Technical Support Incident (TSI).
On the basis of all this I am now able to give here a very concise recipe of how getting your Mac app successfully treated by GateKeeper. After detailing the recipe I will show what my original mistake was.
Goal: After having developed a Mac app outside Xcode to have GateKeeper issuing the warning "Downloaded from the Internet ..." with three buttons, one of which is "open".
Failure: When GateKeeper issues a warning with either the text ".. unidentified developer.." or the text ".. unconfirmed developer .. " with - in both cases - a messagebox with a single OK button.
Getting your app GateKeeper-ready involves three steps:
Make your app standalone with no unacceptable external dependencies. The only acceptable external dependences are system libraries. All other dependencies should have been copied to your MyApp.app folder. GateKeeper rejects any app that has non-system external dependencies
Binaries should not be located at illegal positions inside the MyApp.app folder. Libraries go into MyApp/Contents/Frameworks and the executable goes into MyApp/Contents/MacOS
All binaries inside MyApp should be digitally signed. Then the MyApp.app folder should be signed. For this signing an Apple "Developer ID Application ..." certificate is necessary
Our recipe is automatic. All the work is done by one script. In case of Qt Creator we use a qmake script where we access the system shell through the $$system command. When using either of the (Xcode) system commands codesign, spctl or check-signature we assume you have redirected stderr to stdout as outlined in answer to question . Otherwise you will not be able to catch the system response when running these utilities. In the following we will not explicitly show this redirection.
HERE IS OUR RECIPE
A. Making the app stand-alone:
copy (with a script) all the needed binaries to the MyApp.folder
run (with a script) install_name_tool -change and install_name_tool -id such that all dependences inside the app are of the relative type #executable_path/../MacOS.. or #executable_path/../Frameworks
run (with a script) otool -L on all binaries inside the MyApp.app folder and flag any illegal dependence, like "#rpath..." or absolute file paths not being system paths. Note that otool -L is not guaranteed to find all dependencies. Plugins are often beyond the horizon of otool. That is why you need the next check.
start a terminal at the location "MyApp.app/Contents/MacOS". Run export DYLD_PRINT_LIBRARIES=1. Then run inside the same terminal window ./MyApp. Your terminal will fill up with over hundred loaded libraries. Check this list again for forbidden libraries (libraries present on your computer, but not on the computer of your customers).
proof of the pudding is in the eating. We use the MacInCloud virtual machines and check whether or not our app runs there. Alternative solution could be the Mac of a relative who is not a developer. Or you could also create a new user ("test") on your own Mac and copy the app to its Download (or Desktop folder, or ...). In the latter case you must temporarily rename the root folder of your IDE as otherwise the user "test" will find the missing binaries there.
B Signing the app
Signing: With our script we run codesign --force --verify --verbose --sign \"Developer ID Application: ....\" \"/path/to/binary\" on all the binaries in the app and then on the app folder itself. In each case the system response is caught. It should contain in each case the string "signed Mach-O thin".
Verification: Run (with a script) command codesign --verify --verbose \"/path/to/binary\" on each binary in your app and on the app itself and catch the system response. It should in each case contain the strings "valid on disk" and "satisfies its Designated Requirement".
GateKeeper check: Run (with a script) spctl -a -t exec -vv /path/to/binary\" on each binary and on the app folder itself. The system response is caught. It should contain in all cases the string "accepted source".
check-signature: Run (with a script) check-signature \"/path/to/banary\" on each binary and on the app folder itself. The system response is caught. It should contain the string "YES" in each case.
C External check
zip your app into a single zip file. Upload to one of your cloud servers
GateKeepers keeps a long list (typically hundreds of items) of exceptions on its general gate-keeper role. Your app must not be in that list if you want to test GateKeeper. Rather than editing this list a much simpler trick is creating a new user on your Mac. Log in to that user and download the zip file from the Internet cloud server. Finder will automatically uncompress it. Click on it. If GateKeeper tells you that it can open the application but it warns you at the same time that it is downloaded from the Internet, it is time to grab a (white) beer.
Here the desired GateKeeper warning:
My mistake
I did much of the installing and signing without explicitly checking the result for each binary. After that I would use otool -L on a number of binaries but not on all. I missed the fact that upgrading to Qt 5.5 from an earlier Qt version the binary libqminimal.dylib has acquired an extra dependency, viz.: QtDBus. I had not noticed it, but GateKeeper did.
Qt developers might wonder why we not just use macdeployqt for deploying Qt application on a Mac. In the first place we do not like not to use ill-documented black-box utilities. On Internet fora there are quite a number of people reporting issues with macdeployqt. In addition the Qt libraries can have different install locations (as reported by otool-L) when comparing different Qt versions. When we have a new Qt version our script will immediately start to yell about forbidden dependencies. In this way we get information about what has changed in this new version.
adlag's question and self-answer was invaluable in helping me overcome the same issue. However, as good as his recipe is, some statements are not quite right, so I'd like to offer a few additional points.
It's not necessary to replace #rpath entries in your binaries and dynamic libraries with #executable_path statements. #rpath statements are fine so long as the actual rpath entries embedded in the binaries are not absolute. You can find plenty of valid Qt app bundles that use rpath. You can make it work doing what adlag said, but you may be making work for yourself.
See jil's comment above for how to use otool -l $file | grep -A2 LC_RPATH and install_name_tool -delete_rpath $path $file to inspect and remove the embedded paths in your binaries and libraries
See https://developer.apple.com/library/content/technotes/tn2206/_index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40007919-CH1-TNTAG207 for a clear explanation of why GateKeeper complains about paths in your binaries, and how you can see the specific complaint in syslog.
If you have a problem with absolute paths, you should first try to fix your build, rather than use install_name_tool after the fact.
If you're using cmake, this is likely helpful: https://cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_RPATH_handling#Mac_OS_X_and_the_RPATH
Don't run spctl -a -t exec -vv /path/to/binary on dylib files. You will get errors about the resource envelope. This is expected, and not a problem.
In my experience, macdeployqt works fine. I solved the problem by changing my build, such that the absolute paths did not get into the offending dylib file (libquazip). I still used install_name_tool to remove the absolute paths to the Qt installation. I then used macdeployqt to create the bundle, sign the bundle and create the DMG file.
My two bits:
To really verify codesigning, I had to either upload my DMG to a
server and download it using a browser or set the quarantine attribute manually:
APP_PATH="Any.app"
xattr -w com.apple.quarantine '0081;5a37dc6a;Google Chrome;F15F7E1C-F894-4B7D-91B4-E110D11C4858' "$APP_PATH"
xattr -l "$APP_PATH" # You should see the quarantine attribute here
open "$APP_PATH"
If your app is correctly signed, you should see a system dialog with
an "Open" button.
I found the value of the quarantine attribute by looking at another
.app downloaded from the internet. I don't know what the value
means.
I don't really understand why the spctl command says "accepted" even
if the Gatekeeper service denies opening the app.
I had the "unidentified developer" message box because my Qt frameworks were referenced as "#rpath/QtCore.framework". Changing it to "#application_path/../Frameworks/QtCore.framework" using the install_name_tool fixed the issue in my app.
Figured out the problem after lot of tries.
In my case:
The Pop Message - damaged application came due to libraries were missing.
I Had created .app file using QT.
To generate dmg i was using deploymacqt command tool.
deploymacqt tool creates dynamic libraries inside .app, so basically if we codesign before creating dmg, this alter will manipulate code sign.
So the proper fix is.
# Create dmg using
deploymacqt <yourapp.app> -dmg
# Open resulted dmg file, copy <yourapp.app> to different folder(let's say /Documents/<yourapp.app>)
# Codesign the /Documents/<yourapp.app> using
codesign --deep --force --verify --verbose --sign "Developer ID Application: <developerid>" <yourapp.app>
# Verify using
codesign --verify --verbose=4 <yourapp.app>
* you should see something like this
<yourapp.app>: valid on disk
<yourapp.app>: satisfies its Designated Requirement
# Now create again the dmg file using dropdmg(https://c-command.com/dropdmg/) application, download, install dropdmg. set the cofiguration preferences with your developer id certificate in signing option.
# drag and drop <yourapp.app> to dropdmg app, wait for creation of dmg to complete. voila you have now successfully created dmg with proper developer id certification.
# verify resulted dmg again using
codesign --verify --verbose=4 <yourapp.dmg>
# you can also verify with gatekeeper
spctl -a -t exec -vv <yourapp.dmg>
once you are done with these, you will not see pop message saying app is damaged or broken or unidentified developer.
You need to verify all your rpath with command line otool -l of your executable and yours Frameworks. If you have a local rpath (ex: /user/name/Qt/) in your executable delete it (with this command install_name_tool -delete_rpath).
Edit: Turns out this was not a codesigning issue, so I'm updating to help anyone who runs into the same problem.
After updating a MonoMac app to Xamarin.Mac, if I changed the name of the app, I would get the message "You can't open the application "XXXXX" because it may be damaged or incomplete." It looks like it could be a codesigning issue because when I would run codesign --verify I would get code object is not signed at all.
Original question:
I recently updated a MonoMac app to Xamarin.Mac. In the process, something in the codesigning step seems to have changed. Specifically, now when I rename the app bundle, I get codesigning signature errors, both from the GUI and from the command line tools. It seems that if the app bundle does not match CFBundleName, the signature isn't valid.
For example, if I run codesign --verify --deep -vvvv Program.app (where Program matches the CFBundleName, I get
Program.app: valid on disk
Program.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement
However if I change the name to Program2.app and run codesign --verify --deep -vvvv Program2.app, I get:
Program2.app: code object is not signed at all
Move it back, and I get a successful signature again.
From looking at the MonoMac app vs. the Xamarin.Mac app, there are a few differences:
archived-expanded-entitlements.xcent is now placed in Contents/Resources
Info.plist gets compiled to some binary-ish version.
Contents/MonoBundle now includes libMonoPosixHelper.dylib, which apparently needs signing.
PkgInfo is now included in Contents, with contents APPL????
Why do the codesigning tools care about the name of the app all of a sudden? How can I make it not care about the name?
It turns out that the problem was a change in the update from MonoMac to Xamarin.Mac that somehow set it to look for the executable to be named the same as the app bundle, so if you changed Program.app to Program2.app, OS X would look to run Contents/MacOS/Program2 instead of Contents/MacOS/Program. I'm still not sure why the MonoMac version worked when renamed, but clearly it had some other pointer to the correct executable file.
The solution for Xamarin.Mac is to add
<key>CFBundleExecutable</key>
<string>[Original app name]</string>
to Info.plist. This tells OS X where to look for the executable, and allows you to rename the app without issue.
I have a Qt (5.3.1) application that worked fine until the latest update in codesign, but now gatekeeper throws this error:
code has no resources but signature indicates they must be present
(the command I used to verify the app bundle is: spctl -at exec -vv path/to/.app)
The deployment script builds the app bundle, invokes macdeploy, copies all the missing qt info.plist files and then it invokes codesign:
codesign --force --deep --verify --verbose --no-legacy-signing --sign "signing authority string" /path/to/.app
The --no-legacy-signing was added because of the outdated resource envelope error. Nothing else was changed since it worked the last time.
Building and codesign are done on OS X Yosemite, Xcode 6.0.1 is installed. It's not the latest yosemite version, I'm not sure which one it actually is (I did not set up the machine, but I do see the update center is offering an upgrade to developer preview 8).
Has anyone encountered this error?
I have had the same issue that you had. This is what you need to do in order to fix the issue:
You need to correct the Framework structure after you call the macdeployqt utility. The required structure can be found here: Anatomy of Framework Bundles
Some of the Qt Frameworks contain bad CFBundleExecutable information. The executable name ends with _debug. (notably these framework: QtPrintSupport, QtPositioning, QtQml and QtQuick)
You can find my complete solution here: Unable to sign app bundle using Qt frameworks on OS X 10.10
I'am trying to code sign an app bundle on osx mavericks 10.9.5 with format v2. On previous testing the signing on 10.9.5 (13F12) all went well, all frameworks could be signed without error.
Now, on 13F34, the frameworks could not be signed any more. When i try to sign the first framework with:
codesign -f -v -s "Developer ID Application: MY AG" "My.app/Contents/Frameworks/4DJavaScript.framework"
then the error occurs:
My.app/Contents/Frameworks/4DJavaScript.framework: bundle format is ambiguous (could be app or framework)
When I try to code sign the only version (A) of the framework, the signing succeeds, but on signing the main app the error on the framework reappears.
On looking into the info.plist file of the framework there is (in my sense) the correct entry for the type set:
Bundle OS Type code FMWK
Any suggestions on how to code sign a framework correctly on 10.9.5-13F34?
Thanks, Peter
Your answer didn't work for me so I post mine.
If you previously copied frameworks with cp -r command you will have this problem. With cp -a this problem doesn't appear. That's happening because of different way of resolving symlinks in these two options.
Immediately after posting the bounty on this question, I figured it out. Signing the current version of the framework directly does the trick:
codesign -f -v -s "Developer ID Application: My Dev ID" MyFramework.framework/Versions/Current
I was using electron-packager and needed to use the --no-deref-symlinks flag and bam working for me
I ran into the same problem. In my case the problem was that the .app file I was trying to codesign was stroed in a dropbox folder.
Apparently, dropbox resolves symbolic links by default, i.e. symlinks are completely replaced by the data they point to. Read about it here.
The codesign command cannot recognize the format of the bundle after dropbox resolves the symlinks.
The solution is to not store the bundle you are trying to codesign in a dropbox folder.