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"

All my notarization submissions are rejected with statusCode 7000 ("Team is not yet configured for notarization"), even though my Apple Developer Program membership has been active since February 26, 2026. Error log: status: Rejected statusCode: 7000 statusSummary: "Team is not yet configured for notarization" My setup: Team ID: 9NL8W3646T Membership: Individual, ACTIVE (confirmed by Apple Support on Feb 26) Certificate: Developer ID Application — valid, signing works Hardened runtime: enabled Latest failed submission: ce6a4ca9-ccc2-4838-b96a-d9ed16557237 (March 6) I have support case 102832266798 open since March 4. Apple responded on March 6, but the email never arrived in my inbox and the portal doesn't let me view the response. Could DTS help enable notarization for my team? This is blocking distribution of my macOS app. Thank you.

I am trying to notarize my first macOS app for direct distribution outside the Mac App Store using Developer ID Application signing. Team ID: 32S6XVAQPY Environment: macOS app distributed via Developer ID notarytool with a saved keychain profile archive exported locally, app zipped with ditto What I already verified locally: The archived app is signed with: Developer ID Application: (32S6XVAQPY) codesign --verify --deep --strict passes spctl shows: source=Unnotarized Developer ID syspolicy_check distribution only reports the expected missing notary ticket Hardened runtime is enabled The app bundle and nested Sparkle executables were re-signed and now have valid Developer ID signatures with secure timestamps Important note: I previously had a real signing issue in nested Sparkle binaries, and Apple rejected that submission quickly as Invalid. I fixed those signatures, and now new submissions no longer fail quickly but remain stuck In Progress. Submission IDs currently stuck: bea6c4b3-b107-4c81-8042-6c58b1cf5087 5489e29c-d583-4779-a125-ca0fbd9cad0b Earlier invalid submission with a concrete Sparkle signing error: 10df648b-eca8-428f-98d6-4cb4096153ad Apple reported invalid Developer ID / missing secure timestamp on: Sparkle.framework/Versions/B/Updater.app/Contents/MacOS/Updater Sparkle.framework/Versions/B/Autoupdate Sparkle.framework/Versions/B/XPCServices/Downloader.xpc/Contents/MacOS/Downloader Sparkle.framework/Versions/B/XPCServices/Installer.xpc/Contents/MacOS/Installer That Sparkle issue has since been fixed locally and re-verified. Question: Is there currently a notarization backlog or any known issue affecting first-time macOS notarizations or Developer ID submissions? At this point the remaining submissions appear valid locally but sit In Progress for a very long time.