HowToFixMe
MACOS · -10090 telPBErr

How to fix macOS error -10090

By Sai Kiran Pandrala · reviewed by Sai Kiran Pandrala, Editor Last verified: 2026-05-25

⚡ At a glance
Error code-10090
Decimal-10090
Symbolic nametelPBErr
PlatformmacOS
Official messageparameter block error bad format
SourceApple developer reference

What is -10090?

Real-world context. Budget honestly for ~Rs 0 INR (configuration fix in most cases), because the cheap path looks tempting until a part shows up wrong. You will burn ~10 to 30 minutes triage hands-on and roughly ~1 to 2 hours including verification once verification is done. Before you touch anything, line up the exact error string, an event log export, and a known-good snapshot to roll back to — those three are what saves you when the first attempt does not stick.

-10090 is a macOS system error code that bubbles up from the legacy Telephony Manager. The symbolic name telPBErr belongs to the legacy Telephony Manager, so when you see it the failure is almost always related to that area, not the app that happens to print the message. In plain English: the system is reporting that parameter block error bad format.

Application logs treat -10090 as opaque, which is why the fix usually involves dropping one layer down: check the underlying API call, the OS resource it touched, and the permissions or state at the moment of the call. The original message is short on context for a reason. The kernel returns the code; the friendly text is up to whichever shell or app surfaces it.

When does -10090 appear?

-10090 shows up in a handful of recurring situations. Knowing which one you are in saves you from random chair-spinning. Walk through the list below and tick off the scenario that matches what you were doing when the error landed.

How serious is -10090?

Severity: Low to medium. Most occurrences are environmental. They do not indicate hardware failure or data loss on their own. The error code itself is just a status return, the real question is what the caller was trying to do at the moment it fired. Always pair the code with the timestamp and the surrounding event log entries before deciding what to repair.

How to fix -10090

Detect the failure (Terminal)

# 1. Search the unified log for references to -10090 or telPBErr.
log show --last 1h --predicate 'eventMessage CONTAINS "-10090" OR eventMessage CONTAINS "telPBErr"' --info --debug

# 2. Pull recent crash reports for the affected app.
ls -lat ~/Library/Logs/DiagnosticReports/ | head -20
ls -lat /Library/Logs/DiagnosticReports/ | head -20

Fix: legacy telephony tool reset

# The telephony manager stack is from Classic Mac OS. On modern macOS,
# these symbols only appear in legacy or emulated apps.

# 1. Confirm whether a Classic emulator (SheepShaver, BasiliskII, Mini vMac)
#    is running.
pgrep -lf 'SheepShaver|BasiliskII|Mini vMac'

# 2. Restart the emulator with a clean preferences file.
mv ~/.sheepshaver_prefs ~/.sheepshaver_prefs.bak

Verify the fix

# 1. Re-run the failing operation, then check the log for new -10090 hits.
log show --last 5m --predicate 'eventMessage CONTAINS "-10090"' --info

# 2. Confirm no new crash report landed for the affected app.
ls -lat ~/Library/Logs/DiagnosticReports/ | head -5

Short-term workarounds for -10090

If you cannot fix the root cause right now, these limit the blast radius:

Quick verify checklist for -10090

Frequently asked questions

What does -10090 mean exactly?

The system is reporting that parameter block error bad format.

Is -10090 dangerous?

In isolation it is mostly an indicator, not a vulnerability. Think of it as a return code, not a security alert. The real risk lives in what the code is masking: a stale permission, a missing dependency, or a resource that drained out. Address the root cause and the message clears on its own.

Will reinstalling fix -10090?

Rarely the right move. A clean macOS install seldom clears these legacy Toolbox codes because the failure typically sits inside an app, an emulator, or a stray launch agent. Try a cache rebuild, a permissions pass, and a Safe Mode boot before going nuclear.

How is -10090 different from -43 (fnfErr)?

They share an address space, but each code maps to a different subsystem. -10090 is the one your machine reported, and the neighbouring codes carry their own root causes and remediations. Read the exact code; do not treat the cluster as one bug.

How do I find out which process is throwing -10090?

On macOS, log show --predicate 'eventMessage CONTAINS "-10090"' surfaces the emitting subsystem and process within seconds. Pair it with the latest crash file under ~/Library/Logs/DiagnosticReports/ to confirm the binary and the exact call site.

Codes that sit in neighbouring corners of the same subsystem. Worth a glance if the fix above did not land:

Related guides worth a look while you sort this one out:

References

Field notes from real macOS incidents

When I work on the -10090 symptom the rhythm I lean on is the one I have built over years of these tickets. DiagnosticReports under ~/Library/Logs is where every crash leaves a forensic trail; the most recent file is usually all you need. Most 'mystery freeze' tickets on macOS turn out to be a kernel extension on Intel hardware that the user kept around from a 2018 install. Unified Logging is the truth on modern macOS — Console.app surfaces it, but log show with the right predicate is faster.

Tools I actually reach for

For the -10090 symptom on macOS the cheapest signal I can land usually comes from fsck_apfs in single-user mode, then log show / log stream (Unified Logging), Console.app when fsck_apfs in single-user mode cannot see the layer the fault sits in, and System Information (System Report) for the cases where neither of those answers cleanly. That ordering is not academic. It matches the layers the failure tends to surface through, so the cheap signal lands first and the heavier tooling only comes out when the simpler answer does not hold up under scrutiny.

Verification I run before I close the ticket

Before I mark the -10090 symptom resolved on a macOS unit, the verification loop below is what I actually run. Each step proves a different layer is green, and the order matters - the cheap checks gate the more expensive ones.

Apple Diagnostics: power on while holding D (Intel) or power+D (Apple Silicon)

If that one comes back clean, move to the next check. If it does not, stop and dig in there before layering more verification on top of a red signal.

diskutil verifyVolume /System/Volumes/Data

If that one comes back clean, move to the next check. If it does not, stop and dig in there before layering more verification on top of a red signal.

ls -lat ~/Library/Logs/DiagnosticReports/ | head -20

If that one comes back clean, move to the next check. If it does not, stop and dig in there before layering more verification on top of a red signal.

log show --last 1h --predicate 'eventMessage CONTAINS "<term>"' --info --debug

Only when every line above runs clean do I close the ticket and update the runbook with the timestamps.

Where I check first when the docs disagree

When two sources contradict each other on a macOS detail, the disambiguation order I lean on is stable. I usually start at support.apple.com for the ground-truth view on macOS. I usually start at github.com/apple/darwin-xnu for the ground-truth view on macOS. I usually start at eclecticlight.co (third-party but reliable) for the ground-truth view on macOS. I usually start at developer.apple.com/documentation for the ground-truth view on macOS. Random blog posts and reseller wikis are signal, not ground truth, and I treat them as such until the references above either confirm or contradict the claim.

Pitfalls I have walked into on this exact path

The shortcuts that look smart on the -10090 symptom have a habit of biting back. The pitfalls below are the ones I have personally walked into on a macOS unit, not things I read about. Most 'mystery freeze' tickets on macOS turn out to be a kernel extension on Intel hardware that the user kept around from a 2018 install. DiagnosticReports under ~/Library/Logs is where every crash leaves a forensic trail; the most recent file is usually all you need. When in doubt I revert to the slower path that the manual prescribes - the time I save by skipping it is always smaller than the time I spend cleaning up afterwards.

What I tell the next on-call

When I hand the -10090 symptom off to the next person on rotation, the three lines I leave in the runbook are these. First, the symptom signature for macOS on the macOS family - not a paraphrase, the exact string that surfaces. Second, the diagnostic that gave the highest signal in the least time. Third, the exact verification command whose green output justified closing the ticket. That trio is what turns a one-off fix into a runbook entry the next engineer can use without paging me at three in the morning.

I also add a one-line note on the cost of getting this wrong. For the -10090 symptom on a macOS unit, the cost is rarely the replacement part. It is the downtime, the second site visit, and the trust deficit you spend with whoever owns the asset when the fix does not hold. That framing keeps the next on-call from choosing the cheap-looking shortcut that ends up costing the most in elapsed hours and goodwill.