When you build a project in xcode, you specify the provisioning profile/certificate pair in the build settings, and when exporting an archive, you specify an additional provisioning profile to use. What is the reason for asking for this information twice?
Edit for clarification: I've gone through the contents of a bunch of my generated .ipa files, and there seem to be two locations that pertain to signing/provisioning. The document in the _CodeSign folder (which seems to contain encrypted hashes of the file contents, to verify contents/source), and the .mobileprovision file, which seems like it would be added when the build is exported. At this point in time, I don't see anything that would indicate the purpose of the provisioning profile selected in build settings.
You specify a provision profile in the build settings that Xcode uses to sign the app. This makes it possible for you to run your app on a device during development, for example. If I remember correct, in the past the project build settings was the only place where you could specify the profile to use, so you'd typically set the Debug build to use your development profile, and your Release build to use the distribution profile.
At some point (Xcode 4, I think), application archives were introduced to make things easier for developers. You create a single archive and then distribute the app it contains in different ways. You can do an ad hoc distribution to send out to your testers, and then you can use the very same archive to submit to the app store, or create a version for enterprise distribution, depending on the type of program you've joined. But since different distribution methods require different profiles, Xcode asks you for the profile you want to use when you distribute.
Xcode's Archive function is a huge convenience -- it takes a lot of the complexity out of submitting your app, and also takes care of saving the symbols file for each version you distribute so that you can make sense of any crash logs you might receive. It's a recognition of developers' need to use the very same build of an app in different ways. If it seems a little odd that you specify the provision profile to use in two different places, so be it -- that's a rough edge that might get cleaned up in a future Xcode version.
I don't know of any authoritative information on exactly how app signing works, but I think it goes like this:
the provision profile contains your certificate (which includes your public key), and is signed with Apple's private key
you sign your app with the private key that is the counterpart to the public key in your certificate
the device uses Apple's public key to authenticate the profile, and then uses your public key from the profile to authenticate the app signature
if everything matches up, the device will run the app; if not, the app will fail to install
Forget about the "app binary" and "ipa" being signed separately -- I think that's a red herring, and it's unlikely that iOS has to validate two different signatures.
Not sure, but think - First time xCode sign just binary app, and second time whole .ipa archive.
Related
I sign my iOS app in XCode's archive manager for Ad-Hoc distribution for beta testers.
Every time I release a new beta version by pressing the Distribute App / Ad Hoc it asks for a Distribution manifest information with URLs to fill.
It's quite tedious to fill these fields every time, although these values don't change. Is it possible to pre-fill these fields by doing something in xcode project settings?
When you select Ad-Hoc distribution, simply uncheck the "Include manifest for over-the-air installation" option and you won't be prompted.
You can use a previously generated manifest for the new version unless you want to change something; The version number in the manifest is purely informational and doesn't need to match the version number in your app bundle.
I know you decided to just not include the manifest for over-the-air installation. In my case, though, I did want to automate this a bit. So, I used a third party tool, TextExpander, so that I can just type otaqa or otaprod and it will populate these three fields for me. I just included the three strings with tab keys in between them:
Note, I am unaffiliated with this paid app, TextExpander. But, I just found this workaround to be a great time-saver when needing to repeatedly enter the same three values in three separate text fields.
I really wish Xcode handled this process better, saving these values for us.
I know how to sign an app with Appstore mobile provision, and how to re-sign an Adhoc-signed IPA with Appstore mobile provision. This is not my question.
My question is, can you submit Adhoc-signed IPA to Appstore / iTunesConnect, and have it pass Apple verification and eventually be distributed through Appstore. Why? So that I don't have to store a redundant Appstore-signed IPA along every Adhoc-signed release candidate IPA, and don't have to do the extra step of re-signing that requires a Mac machine.
When using Application Loader, it is able to find all the stupid little errors, like missing icons and launch images, but even when I upload Adhoc-signed IPA through Application Loader, it doesn't complain about non-appstore mobile provision (which is very easy to verify, just like icons).
I have also found out in my testing, that when you take an Appstore-signed IPA (which you are not supposed to be able to install on devices unless distributed through Appstore), it is possible to install it on testing devices, provided the device already has Adhoc provision profile on it (same AppID, same distribution cert).
So, this makes me think Apple just strips out mobile provision when distributing through Appstore.
There was a similar question (closed) from almost 3 years ago, but the OP never provided an answer if it had actually worked: Submitted app to appstore with adhoc profile.
I hope someone since then had actually tried with it confirmed results.
There are a few targeted inner questions within your main question, I'll call attention to each part as we go -- as always, I'll be happy to revise or clarify if I miss something. I suppose it is only a closely guarded secret because much of the reasoning for it working come back to cryptographic details as a function of the Public Key Infrastructure system that backs Apple's provisioning -- This stuff gets deep fast so it is considered by some to be [dark] magic. Hopefully this will shine some light on what is going on!
TL;DR Version
Yes you can, but it is technically an unsupported use case that may change at any time. This works because what information iTunes Connect chooses to validate does not include the single differentiating factor between an App Store and AdHoc distribution provisioning profile. Since this is technically not a permitted configuration, I'd advocate for at least having a backup plan since Apple may change iTunes Connect validation policy at any time breaking this submission edge case.
Now for the curious, the here is the rest of the story...
Can you submit Adhoc-signed IPA to Appstore / iTunesConnect, and have it pass Apple verification and eventually be distributed through Appstore[?]
As of this specific iteration of iTunesConnect and the Application Loader (4 Sept 2014 / Xcode 5.1.1), yes you can submit an AdHoc signed build and have it accepted through the pipeline. The eagle-eyed reader will note that my 'Yes' comes with a built-in escape hatch -- Because of the data encoded in AdHoc vs App Store provisioning profiles is nearly identical coupled with what parts of these files iTunesConnect is actually using for validation, an AdHoc provisioning profile presents to the delivery pipeline in the same manner as the AppStore version of the same app.
Should the provisioning format change between AdHoc and App Store files to explicitly differentiate the two types of Distribution provisioning profiles or should Apple iTunesConnect engineers change server-side validation rules, it is distinctly possible that this undocumented behavior will stop working. Of course we all know that we are supposed to use the App Store provisioning profile, as per Developer documentation in the App Distribution Guide > Submitting Your App > About Store Provisioning Profiles (https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/IDEs/Conceptual/AppDistributionGuide/SubmittingYourApp/SubmittingYourApp.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012582-CH9-SW32) [emphasis added]:
A store distribution provisioning profile contains a single App ID that matches one or more of your apps, and a distribution certificate. For iOS apps, you need a store provisioning profile to submit your app.
...but this other avenue works for now. If you do choose to use this avenue, you just need to be aware that it is not the documented behavior and thus would be subject to change at any point in time, likely without advanced notice. Since it is skirting the edges of submission requirements it would probably be good to at least have a backup plan setup for the case of Apple changing provisioning or iTC validation requirements -- Murphy's law would dictate that these validation changes would happen at the most inopportune time.
Stepping off the 'Best Practice' Soapbox and turning to the technical side of things...
Why [does this work]?
As you may or may not know, provisioning profiles are composed of exactly 1 appId, one or more signing certificates, and zero or more test devices.
Related Reading: I've got a longer answer to What are code signing identities? that speaks in more detail to the parts of the codesign process.
In this case the question is 'why do AdHoc profiles work when the documentation says you need to have an App Store profile?'
The guts of a provisioning profile contain a cryptographically signed .plist that includes the information identified above, plus some additional metadata. On an OS X machine you can open Terminal and run:
security cms -D -i path/to/AdHoc.mobileprovision
...and in a separate Terminal window run the App Store profile equivalent:
security cms -D -i path/to/AppStore.mobileprovison
These commands will dump out the plist portion of the provisioning profile to their respective Terminal windows. When you scroll through the contents of both windows you will note that the following sections are identical:
AppIDName
AppliationIdentifierPrefix
DeveloperCertificates
Entitlements
TeamIdentifier
Version
The profile's metadata are different, but those are entirely expected differences that only matter for validating profile validity, or for humans interrogating the profile:
CreationDate
ExpirationDate
Name
TimeToLive
UUID
The salient points to take away are:
The DeveloperCertificates blocks are identical between both profiles.
The AdHoc profile only adds information (ProvisionedDevices) to the structure and format of the App Store profile.
The contents of the DeveloperCertificates array is the DER encoded X.509 iPhone Distribution Certificate -- The exact same as the one in your keychain. Is is important to note that this DER data is only the public portion of your Distribution certificate public-private keypair, and it can only be used by others to authenticate the application's signature came from you -- It can not be used to resign a binary as you.
If you paste the contents of DeveloperCertificates:Array:Data element into an ASN.1 decoder (http://lapo.it/asn1js/) and compare the elements of the output to the information encoded in the Distribution certificate included in the Keychain, you'll find that it is an exact copy of the public Distribution certificate you downloaded from Apple after submitting your Certificate Signing Request though the Certificates, Identifiers, and Profiles tool.
Because both the AdHoc and App Store provisioning profiles use the same public key certificate as their signing identity, they are inherently using the same private key when generating the application's signature. This means that the signature generated when signing with an AdHoc profile is functionally identical to one generated when signing with the App Store profile
When Apple performs a signature validation on iTunes Connect during the submission process, both and AdHoc signed cryptographic signature and an App Store signed cryptographic signature will successfully validate against the Distribution Certificate Apple has on file as both provisioning profiles are backed by the same Distribution Certificate.
So the signatures match, but why doesn't the extra information in AdHoc profiles trip up the submission?
Your original question suggests that you have familiarity with iOS' app install policies. For the benefit of someone stumbling across this answer in the future I'll briefly summarize:
iOS operates on a 'deny-all unless specifically permitted' policy. That is, iOS assumes you are not allowed to install an app unless a specific 'grant' has been allowed. For devices coming from the App Store, the app's signature includes Apple's App Store identity for which iOS has a specific 'grant' privilege. AdHoc installs by default fall under the 'deny' policy and the ProvisionedDevices section of a Development or AdHoc profile are the specific 'grant' privileges. The app will install outside of the App Store if all of the following hold true:
The application's cryptographic signature is valid
The application's embedded provisioning profile's cryptographic signature is still valid (the profile hasn't been tampered with)
The application's embedded provisioning profile's ExpirationDate hasn't passed and the current time isn't before the CreationDate
The embedded profile or a profile installed to the device match the AppId being proposed for installation.
The embedded profile or a profile installed to the device contain an entry in ProvisionedDevices that exactly match the device's UDID.
As we saw above, the app identity and signing information is identical between an App Store profile and and Ad Hoc profile -- the addition of ProvisionedDevices serves only to add these 'grant' privileges for an external (outside of App Store) distribution mechanism. It turns out that iTunes Connect / Application Loader validation is currently only validating that a Distribution profile was used for the app's signature, not that the profile that was used was an App Store profile instead of an AdHoc profile.
This boils down to the fact that the as of Version 1 (ala Version block in the plist) the only differentiating factor between AdHoc and App Store distribution profiles is the presence or absence of the ProvisionedDevices block. It turns out that as of today, this is not a detail that Apple looks for when interrogating the profile that was used, thus the binary passes the automated portions of app verification. They definitely do check that the AppId in the profile matches what the App claims, that the signing identity matches what was used to sign the binary, expiration dates, and any entitlements used match what is found in the automated scan of the app, in addition to the items you highlighted in your original question (version checks between iTunes Connect and the info.plist, iconography presence, iconography sizes, etc.)
Hypothetically, in a subsequent iTunes Connect / Application Loader update, they could start checking for the absence of this key in the embedded.mobileprovision profile that exists within the submitted binary and auto-reject the submission on the grounds that an App Store profile was not used. Similarly, if the provisioning profile format was updated (ex. Version=2) they could add a new element that explicitly calls out the type of profile and auto-reject if it isn't an App Store type. It could perhaps look like this:
<key>ProfileType</key>
<integer>1</integer>
Where the integer value could be 1, 2 or, 3 depending on the type of profile in use, consistent with the formats used in things like Info.plist for identifying supported device families (iPhone-only, iPad-only, or Universal). This would clarify other questions that have been asked about identifying the type of build.
Related Reading:
How to detect that a provisioning profile is for development or distribution, programmatically
Check if app is ad-hoc|dev|app-store build at run time
So, this makes me think Apple just strips out mobile provision when distributing through Appstore.
Yes they do! If you look at archived versions of the apps you submitted you'll find that the contents of the app contain embedded.mobileprovision -- if you then go download the same version from the App Store, you'll find that file missing. Apple only uses embedded.mobileprovision to verify the contents of your app during the submission and review process. When the app is 'Processing for App Store' the final package is assembled and the embedded profile is removed.
I am a bit lost in all the certificates/provisioning profiles.
When I am doing ad-hoc distribution by first doing "archive" and then "distribute" in XCode and chose then my ad-hoc distribution profile, does it matter at all what I have set up in the Project->Target->Build Settings->Code Signing?
On one hand I read in different places that when you archive a build, you can (and really should) use that same archive both for beta testing with ad-hoc and then when ready just sign/distribute the same archive with an appstore profile and upload to app store. That kind of makes sense. It also tells me that I can really leave blank the provisioning profile in the project settings, the one that is chosen during "distribute" action is actually used, and the signing identity is actually the private key associated with the distribution certificate listed in that provisioning profile. Right?
On the other hand, testflight instructions (http://help.testflightapp.com/customer/portal/articles/1333914) clearly state that project settings should be set to use Ad-hoc profile as well, and the same profile must be used in the project settings and in "distribute". That means that I can not use the same archive both for ad-hoc and app-store distribution, can I? Do I need to change project settings every time I want to release for this or that distribution?
Also, if project settings are making any differences in archive/distribute scenario, it is not clear what Code Signing Identity should be used there. Testflight screenshots show iOS Developer is set both for debug and release, yet neither ad-hoc nor app store distribution have the individual iOS developer certificate associated with them, distribution profiles usually are associated with one and one only distribution certificate.
Can someone please shed some light and explain how is it actually supposed to be working?
Thanks
Yes, your build settings matter. Xcode picks up various entitlements from your initial code signing/provisioning profile configuration and it only makes minimal changes to them in the Distribute... phase.
So if Xcode chooses the incorrect profile during the Archive step you can end up with incorrect bundle seed ID, keychain groups, APN environment and iCloud entitlements.
The Distribute... button calls the PackageApplication script, which makes sure that get-task-allow is false (debuggers can't connect), embeds a provisioning profile, then re-signs and zips your app (although I may have the order wrong).
PackageApplication is worth reading. One could fault it for not being very smart, but I think it should be stricter and refuse to package an app whose entitlements differ from the provisioning profile it is using.
You can find it here Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform/Developer/usr/bin/PackageApplication
I think one stable workflow for distributing Ad Hoc builds is
remove all wildcard provisioning profiles from your system
select your App Store profile in Release Configuration (used in Archive phase)
in Distribute select your Ad Hoc profile
The reason for 1. is that wildcard profiles (profiles that match multiple BundleIDs, created either manually by you or automatically by Xcode) are not worth the trouble. Yes, they get you running code on a device quicker, but you soon have to abandon them if you want to use push notifications or any other interesting service and then they hang around on your system and sooner or later Xcode will silently pick one of them and sabotage your App Store submission.
As for point 2. (selecting the App Store provisioning profile), I'm a little hesitant of specifying profile in the project, but the App Store one only needs to change once a year when your certificate expires (unless you edit the App Identifier in the Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles portal, then you'll need to regenerate your profile & re-select it in your project settings).
Since the Ad Hoc and App Store profiles are based on the same App Identifier, their entitlements will always be in sync.
Point 2. should make point 1. unnecessary, but wildcard profiles will also happily screw up your dev builds too, so why give them the chance to stab you in the back?
Point 3. - you can change your Ad Hoc profile as much as you like - just remember to select the right one in Distribute; the entitlements are taken from the App Store profile which should change rarely. There's nothing stopping you distributing to the App Store from here. That's perfectly natural.
p.s. I don't know why TestFlight recommend selecting Ad Hoc in release instead of App Store.
We are developing an app that will be used by mobile operators and each will have their own version, for example there could be a T-Mobile version, an AT&T version and so on.
The app is the same in each case except things like the name and logos will be changed.
I have a workspace which contains a library which contains all the code, and then have created different projects within the workspace where the app can be renamed and have different icons and images etc. The library is unsigned, each project will sign with its own set of profiles.
I am planning on using an app id naming scheme such as com.OurCompanyName.NameOfApp.OperatorA, com.OurCompanyName.NameOfApp.OperatorB etc.
My question is are there any gotchas I should be aware of in terms of certificates, CSRs, profiles and build machines etc.
For example
- the apps use APN and therefore each needs its own push certificates using its own set of app ids. Can I use the same CSR with each push certificate or should a different CSR be created for each push certificate?
- are there going to be problems building all of apps on the same build machine, or will XCode and the keychain get confused if there are multiple sets of provisioning profiles and certificates etc.
You should be able to reuse the same CSR for different apps. I use the same CSR for all of my half-a-dozen apps in the App Store, and I don't see any reason that using APN would change that.
Before Xcode 4.3, I used this method to submit applications to the app store:
-- Compile the application with the appropriate signing certificate which was configured inside the application's build settings
-- Distribute the application into the app store or clients using Xcode's built in submission process. When I was asked to select the signing certificate with which to sign the app, I always selected "Don't Resign".
However, the "Don't Resign" option does not exist in Xcode 4.3. Therefore, my application is resigned, and I always end up with an error saying that the code sign verification failed.
Is there any way around this problem?
I have found out that the compilation errors about code signing are due to a bug in Xcode 4.3. As many other have pointed out in Apple's developer forums, and myself, there are many cases where Xcode will complain about code signing your application if your application contains an image bundle! So, I remove the bundle with the images, and re-imported the images as separate files. I was able to compile the application for Ad Hoc this way, whereas it wouldn't compile with the bundle.
Also, as far as "Don't Resign" is concerned, I noticed that even if the application is already code signed in another step, Xcode 4.3 became smart enough to not re-sign the application with the same certificate, even if it appears to not give you the chance to not to! That's what I have verified with Ad Hoc builds. I will soon try that with production builds.
So, Xcode 4.3 became smarter in one way, and dumber into the other. Apple needs to fix this problem with the bundles, SOON!
Yes, there is a way. Before it used to default to whatever code sign it could find and auto-embed it into your apps. Right now its bugged.
To solve it, you would have to go through the steps of obtaining a new certificate and its private/public key. 3 step process:
Make sure you completely delete your old certs and keys by going to Applications > Utilities > Keychain Access. Then Deleting the certificates and private keys associated with your Developer account.
After deleting all that info head Here to generate a new certificate for your app. Download and import to your login keychain
3.In Xcode open your project. Head to your root project folder > targets > build settings and attach the new correct certificates to code sign your app correctly.
If you are unsure about the code-signing process. Either go here or go to the dev provisioning profile under distribution you have some (REALLY OUTDATED) examples to point your way