Hi, I know my swiftui, but I'm completely new to macOS development. Using Xcode 16.2 I wrote a backup app that fits my needs. I got it to use iCloud Documents in its own container. It runs beautifully on my developing Mac. When I copy it over to my other Mac and try to open it, I just get a message that macOS can't open the app ("Das Programm kann nicht geöffnet werden") In terminal I get this message: "embedded provisioning profile not valid: file:///Users/niko/FlexBackup.app/Contents/embedded.provisionprofile error: Error Domain=CPProfileManager Code=-212 "Provisioning profile does not allow this device." I have "automatically manage signing" turned on and a Xcode Managed Profile. How can I run my app on all of y Macs?

Hi at all, is there a way to count how many files have been marked with the codesign? Thanks in advance

I'm having a problem with codesign for output from Pyinstaller The files are in ~/PycharmProjects/ALP_Document_Factory_II That folder contains the icon file, the entitlement file, and also contains a "dist" folder where Pyinstaller places the app file (ALP_Document_Factory_II.app) The generated app works and runs when I double click it. When I run codesign: codesign -s xxxxxxxx -f --entitlements entitlements.plist -o runtime dist/ALP_Document_Factory_II.app ("xxxxxxx" is where I place the hash of my credential) I get the following error message: No such file or directory Here is the Terminal copy... minus my Hash dickl45@Dicks-iMac3 ALP_Document_Factory_II % codesign -s xxxxxxxxxx -f --entitlements entitlements.plist -o runtime dist/ALP_Document_Factory_II.app dist/ALP_Document_Factory_II.app: No such file or directory Earlier I was able to use codesign and notarytool, but I must be doing something wrong that I can't see. Yours baffled MacOs 15.2

Hi, For the purposes of iteration speed in development builds, on an iPhone in development mode, I am attempting to use hot reloaded dylibs. The goal is that the app is rarely fully restarted and small code changes can be applied quickly, drastically reducing iteration speed. For this purpose I have a socket server on my Mac that sends changed dylibs to my app on my iPhone. This works great on Mac, however on iOS i am running into codesigning problems. I am using the following to codesign the dylib: codesign -f -s XXX --timestamp=none testlibrary-ios.dylib I am placing the downloaded dylib in this folder: const char* cachedirectoryPath = [NSSearchPathForDirectoriesInDomains(NSCachesDirectory, NSUserDomainMask, YES)[0] UTF8String]; dlopen gives me the following error: dlopen(/var/mobile/Containers/Data/Application/67A3D31B-6F72-4939-9E7F-665FC78CDC61/Library/Caches/testlibrary-ios.dylib, 0x000A): tried: '/usr/lib/system/introspection/testlibrary-ios.dylib' (no such file, not in dyld cache), '/var/mobile/Containers/Data/Application/67A3D31B-6F72-4939-9E7F-665FC78CDC61/Library/Caches/testlibrary-ios.dylib' (code signature invalid in <78A101AD-D756-3526-8754-8B7F4925DE90> '/private/var/mobile/Containers/Data/Application/67A3D31B-6F72-4939-9E7F-665FC78CDC61/Library/Caches/testlibrary-ios.dylib' (errno=1) sliceOffset=0x00000000, codeBlobOffset=0x0000C2E0, codeBlobSize=0x00004990), .... Is loading a dylib like this on iPhones in development mode possible? Any idea what is going wrong with codesigning or installing the dylib? (Obviously this code is never deployed in an app that goes on the AppStore)

I am trying to code sign an application which relies on many python libraries to run. For background knowledge, the .app was created with a —onefile command on Visual Studio. I code signed my application itself using codesign --deep --force --verify --timestamp --sign "Developer ID Application: Issey Yohannes (GL5BCCW69X)" /Users/isseyyohannes/Desktop/Automated\ ALGORA.app However, when I try to run the application the error shows in terminal as follows [PYI-16345:ERROR] Failed to load Python shared library '/var/folders/g9/2zbc7y_97xxbq7bnc301nnyc0000gn/T/_MEI6keRcA/Python': dlopen: dlopen(/var/folders/g9/2zbc7y_97xxbq7bnc301nnyc0000gn/T/_MEI6keRcA/Python, 10): no suitable image found. Did find: /var/folders/g9/2zbc7y_97xxbq7bnc301nnyc0000gn/T/_MEI6keRcA/Python: code signature in (/var/folders/g9/2zbc7y_97xxbq7bnc301nnyc0000gn/T/_MEI6keRcA/Python) not valid for use in process using Library Validation: mapped file has no Team ID and is not a platform binary (signed with custom identity or adhoc?) /var/folders/g9/2zbc7y_97xxbq7bnc301nnyc0000gn/T/_MEI6keRcA/Python: stat() failed with errno=1 Through some external tools, I was able to narrow the issue as follows Hardened Runtime Restriction: Your application is attempting to load a shared library (Python) at runtime, but the library is either: Not properly signed with the same Team ID as your app. Not marked as a valid platform binary. macOS requires all loaded libraries to comply with its code-signing and runtime security policies. Any insight is much appreciated.

I've noticed that NSTaks has this property as of macOS 14.4 @property (nullable, copy) NSData *launchRequirementData API_AVAILABLE(macos(14.4)) API_UNAVAILABLE(ios, watchos, tvos, visionos); It has no documentation whatsoever. Even google search has no clue. Does this have anything to do with code signature requirements validation? Any explanations and examples would be appreciated!

I am using matlab to create an application (.app) using matlab application compiler. Along with that, I use matlab to create an installer for that. Unfortunately, the installer is in (.app) format. So do some custom things to install the dependencies and copying my application to Applications folder. I am able to sign the original application with Developer ID application certificate. But I am not able to sign the installer in .app format with Developer ID installer certificate. Is there any flag in any signing executable that allows me to use Developer ID installer certificate to sign .app file instead of typical (.pkg/.dmg)? Any help would be much appreciated.

Hi, I have a project that integrates the Firebase SDK via SPM as a dependency of an internal Swift Package: My app ⟶ My Library ⟶ Firebase SDK The project builds successfully and can be archived locally ✅. The uploaded .ipa is valid and gets published 🚀. However, we are now trying to automate the release process using Xcode Cloud, but the iOS Archive action is failing ❌ on Xcode Cloud. The logs show the following error ⬇️: error: exportArchive codesign command failed (/Volumes/workspace/tmp/XcodeDistPipeline/XcodeDistPipeline.~~~oomCvM/Root/Payload/base-ios.app/Frameworks/FirebaseAnalytics.framework: replacing existing signature /Volumes/workspace/tmp/XcodeDistPipeline/XcodeDistPipeline.~~~oomCvM/Root/Payload/base-ios.app/Frameworks/FirebaseAnalytics.framework: invalid or corrupted code requirement(s) Requirement syntax error(s): line 1:178: unexpected token: <COMPANY_NAME> ) ** EXPORT FAILED ** I have been researching this issue for a while and have tried several solutions to fix it, but with no luck. Even though the error points to a specific library—the Firebase SDK—I don’t believe Firebase is the root cause. There were related issues in the past, but those were already fixed by the Firebase team, and as I mentioned, the project archives correctly when built locally. On the other hand, the error states: line 1:178: unexpected token: <COMPANY_ACRONYM> This makes me wonder if there’s an issue parsing our Team Name during the re-signing process, as it contains special characters ": "name": "Apple Distribution: Company Full Name "COMPANY_ACRONYM""

I have a .NET 6 application that runs in the background. The installer is a .pkg file built using a third-party tool called "Packages". All .dylib and executable files are codesigned before packaging. The resulting .pkg file is notarized. The app uses these entitlements: com.apple.security.cs.allow-jit com.apple.security.cs.allow-unsigned-executable-memory com.apple.security.cs.allow-dyld-environment-variables com.apple.security.cs.disable-library-validation The app is built on a macbook Air 2015 running macOS 12.6 and it works without issues on that machine. On a macbook Pro M3 running macOS 14.6.1 the app fails to run even though the installation itself is successful. The only logs that I was able to find are related to syspolicyd (4 warnings): Unable to apply protection to app: 45, PST: (vuid: A78FF6C2-08D5-4DCC-B946-8836251AA0E7), (objid: 1873967), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null)) Failed to register app bundle for protection: 45, PST: (vuid: A78FF6C2-08D5-4DCC-B946-8836251AA0E7), (objid: 1873967), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null)) scan failed, finishing evaluation : PST: (vuid: A78FF6C2-08D5-4DCC-B946-8836251AA0E7), (objid: 1873967), (team: (null)), (id: (null)), (bundle_id: (null)) Terminating process due to Gatekeeper rejection: 95158, Unfortunately, verification commands such as sudo codesign --verify --deep --strict -vvv MyApplication.App spctl -a -vvv -t install MyApplicationInstaller.pkg do not indicate any issues. Are there any additional steps that need to be performed in order for my app to work properly on newer machines?

Hello! I've just recently discovered LaunchCodeRequirement API and I'm exploring how it works compared to existing alternatives available for macOS versions below 14.4. Some questions I have with regards to safety of older and newer APIs examining the given example: func runProcess(executableURL: URL) throws { let process = Process() process.executableURL = executableURL if #available(macOS 14.4, *) { process.launchRequirement = try LaunchCodeRequirement.allOf { ValidationCategory(.developerID) SigningIdentifier("some-signing-identifier") TeamIdentifier("some-team-identifier") } } else { try secStaticCodeCheckValidity(executableURL) // Point #1 } do { try process.run() // Point #2 if #available(macOS 14.4, *) { // process.launchRequirement should take care of the process // and kill it if launchRequirement constraint is not satisfied } else { try secCodeCheckValidity(process.processIdentifier) // Point #3 } process.waitUntilExit() } catch { process.terminate() throw error } // Point #4 guard process.terminationReason == .exit else { throw SomeError() } } let requirement = """ anchor apple generic and identifier = "some-signing-identifier" and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] and certificate leaf [subject.OU] = "some-team-identifier" """ func secStaticCodeCheckValidity(_ executableURL: URL) throws { // Init SecStaticCode from `executableURL` // Init SecRequirement from `requirement` let flags = SecCSFlags(rawValue: kSecCSBasicValidateOnly) guard SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors(code, flags, secRequirement, nil) == errSecSuccess else { throw CodeSignError() } } func secCodeCheckValidity(_ processIdentifier: Int32) { // Init SecCode from `processIdentifier` // Init SecRequirement from `requirement` guard SecCodeCheckValidityWithErrors(code, [], secRequirement, nil) == errSecSuccess else { throw CodeSignError() } } Before macOS 14.4+ flow There's still a small chance that between checking executable binary codesign requirement (Point #1) and launched process' one (Point #3) the binary could be replaced with something malicious and even get some CPU between Points #2 and #3 so technically it can't be 100% safe. Is that a correct statement? Any advices on making it safer? macOS 14.4+ flow Now let's see how launchRequirement is better. I guess initialized launchRequirement gets evaluated on running the process (Point #2). What does it exactly check? Executable at URL before launching the process (as OnDiskConstraint) or launched process (as ProcessConstraint)? Is there any chance the process gets some CPU before it's killed in case of failed codesign check? Any way to distinguish between codesign requirement termination and other reasons at point #4? It returns SIGKILL (9) as terminationStatus but it's not precise enough to be sure it was killed due to failed requirement check. I guess newer SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithOnDiskRequirement & SecCodeCheckValidityWithProcessRequirement are the same as SecStaticCodeCheckValidityWithErrors & SecCodeCheckValidityWithErrors but a little simpler and can't be used as a 'more secure' way of validating codesign requirement. Thanks, Pavel

Hi, I'm doing Java 22 experiments with open source package "wgpu-macos-aarch64-release" on my Mac M3. This library contains a .dylib file and a .a file. In Java you can load native dynamic libraries using JNI. I used that in the past. Now in MacOS 15 this stopped working. Currently, I compile my Java file and run the binary file on the command line, including the library directory. The application would load the library from that directory. This should normally works but the library is not loaded. After some investigation it seems the .dylib is rejected by MacOS. Calling spctl --assess --verbose=4 libwgpu_native.dylib gives libwgpu_native.dylib: rejected without any extra reason message. Using sudo xattr -rd com.apple.quarantine libwgpu_native.dylib doesn't solve the problem. I also can't "accept" it in "Privacy & Security" because it's run as a command line call. I know that code signing should be done for "complete" applications. But these are just experiments and working with single dynamic libraries. How should this be done, to be able to load those libraries in a Java command line program? Or in general, how can you load an unsigned dylib in an application (apart from using Java as a tool). Kr, J

Can someone please describe what is necessary to perform signing using codesign in a system that runs as LaunchDaemon. All workarounds like placing the codesigning cert + private key a custom keychain and unlock it in the session of the LaunchDaemon doesn't work anymore on Sequoia. Or are there alternatives for signing MachO binaries without codesign?

Can you please revoke my developer id application and installer certs? So i may recreate. I deleted the private key by mistake before realizing i cannot recreate everything using the developer website portal. I dont have macos backup or did i backup my certs with attached pkey. I just did not realize this was important until now. Please help as Im now blocked. I opened a case too but i have not yet got a response. its been 3 days now. case id: 20000093632858

Background I've repeatedly run into codesigning (and missing provisioning profile) issues for my Ruby/Glimmer app and am looking for ways to troubleshoot this outside of Xcode. The app structure is as follows: PATHmanager.app └── Contents ├── Info.plist ├── MacOS │   └── PATHmanager ├── PkgInfo ├── Resources │   └── AppIcon.icns ├── _CodeSignature │   └── CodeResources └── embedded.provisionprofile Architecture I have a Mac mini Apple M2 Pro with macOS Ventura 13.4. Xcode is not used directly, but the underlying command line tools (e.g., codesign, productbuild, pkgutil, xcrun) are run from a custom Ruby script. xcodebuild -version Xcode 14.3.1 Build version 14E300c Questions Is the .app directory and file structure/naming sufficient? If not, can you point me in the direction of a minimal example that does not use Xcode? Info.plist is an XML text document (not binary), which I believe is in an acceptable format, but how do I lint this file and determine if it contains all of the necessary key/value pairs? <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>CFBundleDevelopmentRegion</key> <string>en</string> <key>CFBundleDisplayName</key> <string>PATH manager</string> <key>CFBundleExecutable</key> <string>PATHmanager</string> <key>CFBundleIconFile</key> <string>AppIcon.icns</string> <key>CFBundleIdentifier</key> <string>com.chipcastle.pathmanager</string> <key>CFBundleInfoDictionaryVersion</key> <string>6.0</string> <key>CFBundleName</key> <string>PATHmanager</string> <key>CFBundlePackageType</key> <string>APPL</string> <key>CFBundleShortVersionString</key> <string>1.15</string> <key>CFBundleSupportedPlatforms</key> <array> <string>MacOSX</string> </array> <key>CFBundleVersion</key> <string>1.15</string> <key>ITSAppUsesNonExemptEncryption</key> <false/> <key>LSApplicationCategoryType</key> <string>public.app-category.developer-tools</string> <key>LSMinimumSystemVersion</key> <string>12.0</string> <key>LSUIElement</key> <false/> <key>NSAppTransportSecurity</key> <dict> <key>NSAllowsArbitraryLoads</key> <true/> </dict> <key>NSHumanReadableCopyright</key> <string>© 2025 Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc.</string> <key>NSMainNibFile</key> <string>MainMenu</string> <key>NSPrincipalClass</key> <string>NSApplication</string> </dict> </plist> PATHmanager is a Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64 file created by using Tebako. Does this executable need to be codesigned, or is codesigning the .app folder sufficient? Does the .app directory need an entitlements file? Here's how I codesign it: codesign --deep --force --verify --verbose=4 --options runtime --timestamp --sign 'Apple Distribution: Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc. (BXN9N7MNU3)' '/Users/chip/Desktop/distribution/PATHmanager.app' Does the PATHmanager binary need an entitlements file? Here's how I codesign it: codesign --deep --force --verify --verbose=4 --options runtime --timestamp --entitlements '/Users/chip/Desktop/PATHmanager.entitlements' --sign 'Apple Distribution: Chip Castle Dot Com, Inc. (BXN9N7MNU3)' '/Users/chip/Desktop/distribution/PATHmanager.app/Contents/MacOS/PATHmanager' How can I verify what entitlements, if any, are required for codesigning the binary? The PATHmanager.entitlements file is an XML text file containing only the following: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>com.apple.security.app-sandbox</key> <true/> </dict> </plist> Is the embedded.provisionprofile necessary, and if so, how do I know determine if it matches the certificate or entitlements that I'm using? Additionally, is it named and located properly? I submitted this to the AppStore several weeks ago and the reviewer reported that the executable would not load on their machine (even though it worked on mine.) Is it better for me to release via TestFlight for testing, and if so, do I need to following a separate process for codesigning (i.e., using different entitlements, profiles, certs, etc) when doing so? I've been playing whack-a-mole with this for too long to mention and am hoping to nail down a better deployment flow, so any suggestions for improvement will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

I am trying to get a PKG installer through the Apple codesign and notarytool process. When I submit the PKG installer I get a status message of "Invalid" and when I review the log file it has 2 errors. For "status summary" it says: "Archive contains critical validation errors", and for "message" it says" "The binary is not signed". The installer contains a flat file that is installed in the "Users/Shared" folder via the PKG installer. Here are the steps I've taken to get the installer through the codesign and notarytool process. codesign the file that's placed in the "Users/Shared" folder: codesign --options=runtime --sign 'Developer ID Application: XYZ' -v /Users/.../Documents/folder/"flat file" which I get a message saying "signed generic". Create the PKG installer with the signed "flat file". Sign the PKG installer containing the signed "flat file": codesign --options=runtime --sign 'Developer ID Application: XYZ' -v /Users/.../Documents/folder/"flat file" which I get a message saying "signed generic". Submit the PKG file with notarytool: xcrun notarytool submit /Users/.../Documents/folder/"flat file" --verbose --apple-id username --password password --team-id ID# --progress It completes and provides the submission ID. I check the status and get the error message that it's invalid. When I check the full details via the log I get the error messages mentioned above. What am I missing or failing to do?

Hello, I have this simulator made in Unity that I want to distribute as Standalone. It consists of launcher which, when users download it, downloads the game. I've built the launcher, got Developer ID Application certificate, added entitlements from: https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/macoscodesigning.html#signing-identity I've signed the .app of the launcher and 2 dlls chatgpt recommended to sign, zipped it, notarized .zip successfully, stapled to .app and put it on Google Drive to test. I got my other MacBook Pro, downloaded the zip, tried to open it. It did open, but there is a black loading screen saying "0% progress, 0B/0B" indicating that it isn't downloading anything - no network calling. When checked using command xattr -l path/to/file.app I get the following output: com.apple.macl: @?????I???|???? com.apple.quarantine: 0083;67bf1a22;Safari;69764595-CA94-44D2-B679-A69DC4669382 There are some specifics I think are also important to mention. I tried to code-sign it, notarize it and staple it using only Terminal and I'd like to keep it that way because I am very unfamiliar with Mac so I've avoided using Xcode as much as possible I really want to avoid putting the simulator up on the App Store, so I must have Standalone solution and Standalone solution only I believe that there might be problem with needing right entitlements, but I don't know how to check which one's are needed for users to avoid using "xattr" command in terminal to allow the launcher to run because of GateKeeper I've been banging my head against the wall with this problem for over a month and I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I am developing a macOS app that requires the Associated Domains entitlement. The app will be distributed as a custom app. The app needs to be signed using Team A’s Developer ID Application certificate and packaged under Team A’s Team ID. Team A has a secure signing and packaging setup, but they do not provide access to their Developer ID Application Identity (cert) or their provisioning profile. I am part of Team B and have access to Team B’s Developer ID Application identity and provisioning profiles. I am thinking of doing the following: I create a provisioning profile under Team B that authorizes the Associated Domains entitlement. I sign the app using Team B’s Developer ID Application identity, ensuring the required entitlements are included. Then, I re-sign the app using Team A’s Developer ID Application identity, since Team A has also set up the same bundle ID with the Associated Domains entitlement and corresponding provisioning profile. Questions: Is this approach correct & does it have any drawback? Will the double signing process work without issues, given that Team A has the required provisioning profile for the same bundle ID? Are there better ways to handle this situation where signing must be done under Team A but access is limited? Thanks!

Hello, our app is non-sandboxed app, but we do want to support widget extension and safari extension. Those extensions require sandboxing. Is it possible to do this without sandboxing our app? Thank you!

I’ve been having problems with MacOS builds. I’m making a release Appstore build and uploading it to Testflight. However when running it instantly crashes, and report screen shows the following: Current flow: I sign all files in PlugIns/ (we have a number of .bundle), and I’ve tried combinations of signing with/without --entitlements, as well as with/without --deep. After this I sign Frameworks/GameAssembly.dylib and Frameworks/UnityPlayer.dylib. Again, I’ve tried combinations of with/without --entitlements and --deep, also not signing them at all. After signing PlugIns and frameworks, I sign the .app, also tried this with/without --deep (always with --entitlements). Finally I make a .pkg and upload to Testflight. It’s not the game, as I can make an enterprise version that runs fine. We have some restricted entitlements, such as Apple Arcade. Building from an M1 mac, and architecture is Universal (Intel + ARM). Unity documentation says to use --deep, but Apple documentation highly recommend against it. So basically, my question is, how and in what order should I sign the files? Much obliged!

Hello. I have an enterprise application that requires specific privileges to execute correctly on MacOS. One of these privileges is SystemPolicyAllFiles (aka Full Disk Access), as we use the endpoint security framework. When we distribute our application, we generate: A signed, notarized pkg consisting of our application binaries. An MDM-compatible .mobileconfig, which contains the SystemPolicyAllFiles setting. We expect our users to install both to get the application to function correctly. However, we have three environments we deploy to: Internal (local development on a developer's workstation), "development" (where features are integrated prior to release) and "production" (what our customers get). For local, our developers create an Apple account and use a Mac Development certificate for signing. They also generate their own embedded.provisionprofile and drop that into their local installation config. For development/production, we use our Developer ID certificate and Developer Installer certificate, with an endpoint security embedded.provisionprofile bound to those. However, when we generate a .mobileconfig, we need to include a CodeRequirement (CR) for SystemPolicyAllFiles. I've been retrieving this using codesign -dr - ... (i.e., the designated requirement aka DR). However, the designated requirement is very specific to the certificate, which is problematic specifically for local development, where each developer has their own Mac Development certificate. Here's what the relevant section of our generated mobileconfig looks like right now: &lt;dict&gt; &lt;key&gt;SystemPolicyAllFiles&lt;/key&gt; &lt;array&gt; &lt;dict&gt; &lt;key&gt;Allowed&lt;/key&gt; &lt;true/&gt; &lt;key&gt;CodeRequirement&lt;/key&gt; &lt;string&gt;identifier "com.example.app and anchor apple generic and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = &lt;TEAMID&gt;&lt;/string&gt; &lt;key&gt;Comment&lt;/key&gt; &lt;string&gt;app&lt;/string&gt; &lt;key&gt;Identifier&lt;/key&gt; &lt;string&gt;com.exmple.app&lt;/string&gt; &lt;key&gt;IdentifierType&lt;/key&gt; &lt;string&gt;bundleID&lt;/string&gt; &lt;key&gt;StaticCode&lt;/key&gt; &lt;false/&gt; &lt;/dict&gt; &lt;/array&gt; &lt;/dict&gt; That's in a format that works for our Developer ID cert, but the DR for the Mac Development certificate looks like: identifier "com.example.app" and anchor apple generic and certificate leaf[subject.CN] = "Mac Developer: John Doe (12ABC34567)" and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.1] /* exists */ Question: Is it possible to relax the code requirement so that it is generic enough to cover all Mac Developer certificates and Developer ID certificates we use? If not, is there a way to have one code requirement for our Mac Developer certificates and a separate CR for our Developer ID certificate? My use case is deploying a static "local" .mobileconfig using our internal company MDM (Apple Business Essentials) to all developer workstations so we don't have to have each developer manually configure their system for the software to run. Thanks! D