![]() ![]() The reason for the failure is that the “designated requirement” serves as a test of identity for your app. ![]() Worse, even if the user approves the access with “Always Allow,” the system will continue to prompt the user each and every time it tries to access the data. Even data placed in the keychain by the app itself will be denied to the app unless the user approves of the access. How bad? The most likely to affect your users if the app uses the system keychain at all to store secure data. The code is still signed by you, it just doesn’t identify itself to the code signing system in such a way that it will be considered trusted by the system as being “itself.” This is bad. This problem is pretty insidious, because the failure of an app to meet its designated requirement does not actually prevent you distributing it and having users run it. Your.app: does not satisfy its designated Requirement ![]() MACBOOK APP MARSEDIT VERIFICATIONIf you do any fine-tuned customization to your app’s code signing “designated requirement,” you may come across situations where the code appears to be signed correctly, but codesign verification nonetheless yields a cryptic, terse failure message: MACBOOK APP MARSEDIT MANUALUntil Apple fixes it, the only workarounds I know are to suck it up and wait out the code signing every build, stop modifying your ist, or go back to a manual code signing script that can take finer care about how and when to sign subsidiary code. If your target meets these criteria, then by my estimation Xcode will resign all the “Code Sign On Copy” files every time you build, regardless of whether they’ve changed. MACBOOK APP MARSEDIT UPDATEto update the build number for the bundle. Modifying the ist file in a build phase.The specific issue I discovered boils down to: This isn’t a big deal for one or two small frameworks, but for an app with dozens or hundreds of code objects, it becomes a noticeable time lag every time you rebuild to test a small fix. In fact in my projects, every single time I build, it re-signs every code object that had been copied, even though it hasn’t changed. The problem is that Xcode’s default code signing occurs too often. are aware of specific sandboxing rules that should be applied to them can sign themselves as part of their build process, and the “Code Sign On Copy” action later will only update the identity associated with the code signing.īut I noticed a problem which relates to my recent obsession with script phase performance. This means that subsidiary product that e.g. Xcode’s default code signing behavior gets some things right: for example, it takes care to preserve the metadata and entitlements of the original code signing, if any. ![]() For example if you’re copying files to a Frameworks, Plugins, or similarly obvious target for code resources, a friendly checkbox appears to offer code signing “as it’s copied in.” Recently I started looking at the possibility of switching to Apple’s relatively new “Code Sign On Copy” option for Copy Files build phases that involve code. made it difficult to be sure that subsidiary projects would be built with the same code signing identity. The idea behind this approach was to overcome limitations in Xcode’s built-in code signing flags, which e.g. For a long time I have used a custom script phase to deliberately code sign all the bundles, helper tools, frameworks, etc., that are bundled into a final shipping product. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |