# AI verification proposal

A proposal built with the Proposal Explorer of the AI Verification Tech Map (https://trustbutveri.fyi/), from its records of 2026-10-09. Interactive version: https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0017,M-0016,M-0014&chips=existing

How to read it: a claim is something one party wants to verify about another's AI hardware or software. A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims; it is "aimed at" a claim when that is its direct purpose, and "supporting" when it contributes without being aimed at it. A claim is addressed when a mechanism in the proposal is aimed at it and is not excluded by the filters; addressed does not mean verified, so check that mechanism's development status, security evidence and findings. Definitions: https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/methodology/ (roles, properties and findings) and https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/readiness/ (development status).

## Filters

Filters apply to mechanisms only and describe the setting the proposal is for.

- **Chips: Existing chips only.** "Existing chips only" removes mechanisms that need changes to future chip designs. New chip features take years to reach a deployed fleet and cover only chips made after they ship. Mechanisms that use shipping features, such as trusted execution environments or performance counters, stay.

23 of 25 mechanisms on the map pass these filters.

## Overview

One row per mechanism, read from its record. Open failures: critical / significant / minor. The last three columns are the editors' reading of what the verifier sees. Findings are grouped as known failures, scope limitations and open questions. Only known failures count as failures. Counts are an inventory of published findings, not a risk score.

| Mechanism | Development | Security evidence | Prover | Attack testing | Hardware | Open failures | Weights | Inputs and outputs | Training data |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Tamper evidence for verifier devices | Research demonstration | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 2 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |
| Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges | Research demonstration | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 1 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |
| Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization | Research demonstration | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 2 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Tamper evidence for verifier devices

Enclosures, seals and sensors that make physical interference with verification hardware visible, or that destroy the hardware's secrets when tampering occurs. ([Tamper evidence for verifier devices](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: partial. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Off-chip devices & sensors.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Protects verifier devices; it does not handle model data.

### Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges

A verifier times answers to unpredictable questions designed so that answering correctly and in time requires holding specified data locally or dedicating specified resources. ([Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/timed-challenge-response/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting whether a GPU is doing other work.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: none. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Cryptographic & computational.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Uses verifier-chosen challenges; it does not handle model data.

### Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

Capping or removing network links between groups of AI chips, so each group can serve models but large training runs across groups become far slower. ([Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for monitoring inter-node traffic with operator-run software on four GPUs.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Isolation & system architectures.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Caps traffic between groups of chips; it does not read the traffic's content.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Tamper evidence for verifier devices
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization

**No new hardware needed**

- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges


## Attack testing

Attack testing records published testing for this use. It does not by itself show independent review, a formal proof or that a deployed system is secure.

**Testing history**

- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: Analysis
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: Analysis
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant failures**

- Seals are often defeated with simple methods (known failure, demonstrated attack, in Tamper evidence for verifier devices; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/evidence/flaws/1/) [8][9]. Mechanism-class evidence. Published defeats of general security seals. They warn about proposed verifier-device seals, but do not demonstrate defeat of an AI verification enclosure or sensor. In 1996 a Los Alamos vulnerability assessment defeated all 94 security seals it examined, with 132 defeats in total, using rapid, inexpensive, low-tech methods. It found that seal cost did not predict security. In 2001 Johnston reported that high-tech seals are often easier to defeat than low-tech ones.
- Attack classes outside published models (known failure, open question, in Tamper evidence for verifier devices; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/evidence/flaws/3/) [1][2][10]. Mechanism-class evidence. The radio compensation result is emulated using measured channel data under a known-reference attacker model. It is not a physical bypass demonstration against an AI verifier enclosure. The authors of the batteryless cover say they cannot assess chemical-solvent attacks, which exceed their expertise, and deem cover removal impractical. Anti-Tamper Radio's reference can drift as the environment or measurement system ages; the authors suggest gradually renewing the reference. A 2025 follow-up by some of the same authors shows, by emulation on measured channel data, that an attacker who knows the reference channel and the needle's effect on it could inject a signal that cancels the change caused by a needle insertion. It proposes a reconfigurable intelligent surface that randomizes the channel as a countermeasure.
- Remote memory narrows the timing margin (known failure, theoretical argument, in Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/timed-challenge-response/evidence/flaws/2/) [7]. Data-centre remote memory access returns in about 1–2 µs, against about 70–200 ns for local DRAM. The MIRI overview says verification of memory saturation depends on ruling out remote access by latency or physical disconnection. It names pre-staging data into local memory as the remaining evasion and proposes an unpredictable, capacity-filling challenge to close it.

  Related mechanism: Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization (R2, in the proposal). Physical disconnection is proposed to exclude remote memory between the separated groups during a challenge. It depends on the isolation boundary being enforced.
- Operator control of pod routing collapses the bound (known failure, theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/evidence/flaws/2/) [20]. Lucid's analysis finds that if the operator can freely assign pods to routers, it could dedicate a whole cell of 100 or more pods to one pipeline stage. The bound then falls to about 90–220x uncompressed and as low as about 25x with compression. The proposed mitigation, auditor-controlled random assignment that is periodically re-randomized, has not been implemented.
- Parallel scale-up switches are hard enforcement points (known failure, theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/evidence/flaws/5/) [22]. In GB200 topologies, GPUs reach GPUs in other nodes through NVSwitches without a NIC on the path. Amodo notes that limits are hard to enforce there because many switches work in parallel, so compromising one or two would bypass the limit.

**Scope limitations**

- Security depends on inspection protocols (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Tamper evidence for verifier devices; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/evidence/flaws/2/) [6][9]. Mechanism-class evidence. An inspection and protocol requirement drawn from safeguards and enclosure studies, not a reported break of a deployed AI verifier. Johnston argues that a seal is no better than the protocols for using it, and that inspectors are usually given little useful information on how to detect tampering. The Sandia survey notes that larger enclosures are hard to inspect fully and that sensor data must be authenticated.
- Undeclared local storage raises per-pod capacity (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/evidence/flaws/3/) [20]. More memory or storage per pod helps an adversary. Lucid requires per-pod storage to be declared, capped and physically inspected.
- Training within one pod is not covered (scope limitation, open question, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/evidence/flaws/4/) [20]. Lucid's bounds concern pre-training models larger than the pods are sized for. Training models that fit in one pod, fine-tuning and reinforcement-learning post-training within one pod are outside the modelled threat.

**Open questions**

- Error rates not quantified (open question, open question, in Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/timed-challenge-response/evidence/flaws/3/) [12]. Monfared et al. show separable timing distributions. Their acceptance rule passes a GPU when its mean time per round stays at or below a chosen maximum, and an appendix outlines statistical tests for the proof-of-work puzzle. They leave hardware-specific threshold values to future work and report no false-positive or false-negative rates.
- Low-communication training reduces the bandwidth training needs (open question, theoretical argument, in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/evidence/flaws/1/) [20][23][24]. DiLoCo matched fully synchronous training on 8 workers while communicating 500 times less. Rahman writes that this family of methods theoretically allows large-scale training with less than 100 Mbps. Lucid includes these methods in its bounds, but notes that extreme activation compression, architectures with unusually small inter-layer widths, or modular paradigms could erode the margin.


## Possible additions

Mechanisms on the map, not in the proposal, that the records connect to an unaddressed or partly addressed claim, an open failure or a dependency. Pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and findings, and none is claimed to close a failure.

- **Network taps and certifiers** (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked)
  - Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization waits on it: The verifier must know that all traffic leaving a pod crosses the capped, monitored links.


## Dependencies

**Blockers**

- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: No tamper-evident enclosure has been designed for AI verifier hardware at retrofit scale. (hardware trust) [7]
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: Battery-backed designs add bulk, limit operating temperature (+10 °C to +35 °C for the IBM 4765) and complicate transport. (performance & compatibility) [2]
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: Active monitoring needs power, and visual inspection of large enclosures faces access limits. (access & governance) [6]
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: No evaluation has been published in the AI verification setting. (adversarial validation) [7]
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: No network-level memory challenge across data-centre servers has been demonstrated. (adversarial validation) [7]
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: Challenges that fill memory displace workloads; filling a pod's volatile memory takes tens of minutes and SSDs take hours. (performance & compatibility) [7][12]
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: Outside help, such as remote memory, must be excluded during challenges. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization) [7]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: No cap that a verifier can check has been implemented or red-teamed. (adversarial validation) [20]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: The verifier must know that all traffic leaving a pod crosses the capped, monitored links. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Network taps and certifiers) [7]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Shaping devices and routing assignments must be trusted by both parties; Amodo has not yet fully analysed resilience to a compromised DPU. (hardware trust; waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices) [20][22]
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: Advances in low-communication training could shrink the margin that the cap enforces. (capacity bounds) [20][23][24]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Tamper evidence for verifier devices, Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; unspecified for none.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Tamper evidence for verifier devices, Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; unspecified for none.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Tamper evidence for verifier devices, Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization; unspecified for none.

## Implementations

- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture)
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges: [Data-centre memory challenging](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/data-centre-memory-challenging/) (R1, proposed architecture); [GPU contention probes](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/gpu-contention-probes/) (R2, research prototype); [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/) (R1, proposed architecture); [SAGE](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/sage-gpu-attestation/) (R2, research prototype); [VRAM-residency challenge](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/vram-residency-challenge/) (R2, research prototype)
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture); [RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/) (R1, proposed architecture)

## Sources

1. Anti-Tamper Radio: System-Level Tamper Detection for Computing Systems, P. Staat et al. (2022). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9833631/
2. Secure Physical Enclosures from Covers with Tamper-Resistance, V. Immler et al. (2019). https://tches.iacr.org/index.php/TCHES/article/view/7334
3. ImpedanceVerif: On-Chip Impedance Sensing for System-Level Tampering Detection, T. Mosavirik et al. (2023). https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/946
4. IBM 4765 Cryptographic Coprocessor Security Module: Security Policy, IBM Corporation (2012). https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp1505.pdf
5. PHYSEC SEAL: Change detection for maximum safety, PHYSEC GmbH (2026). https://www.physec.de/en/solutions/physec-seal/
6. Tamper-Indicating Enclosures, A Current Survey, H. A. Smartt & Z. N. Gastelum (2015). https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1256541
7. A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). https://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/A-system-overview-for-near-term-low-trust-AI-compute-verification.pdf
8. Physical Security and Tamper-Indicating Devices, R. G. Johnston & A. R. E. Garcia (1996). https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/459707
9. Tamper Detection for Safeguards and Treaty Monitoring: Fantasies, Realities, and Potentials, R. G. Johnston (2001). https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/81john.pdf
10. Anti-Tamper Radio Meets Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface for System-Level Tamper Detection, M. S. Tabar et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14279
11. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan
12. Timing and Memory Telemetry on GPUs for AI Governance, S. K. Monfared et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09369
13. SAGE: Software-based Attestation for GPU Execution, A. Ivanov et al. (2023). https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc23/presentation/ivanov
14. SWATT: SoftWare-based ATTestation for Embedded Devices, A. Seshadri et al. (2004). https://netsec.ethz.ch/publications/papers/swatt.pdf
15. Proofs of Space, S. Dziembowski et al. (2015). https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/796
16. Secure Code Update for Embedded Devices via Proofs of Secure Erasure, D. Perito & G. Tsudik (2010). https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-15497-3_39
17. Software-Based Memory Erasure with Relaxed Isolation Requirements, S. Bursuc et al. (2024). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10664348/
18. On the Difficulty of Software-Based Attestation of Embedded Devices, C. Castelluccia et al. (2009). https://s3.eurecom.fr/docs/ccs09_Castelluccia.pdf
19. Refutation of "On the Difficulty of Software-Based Attestation of Embedded Devices", A. Perrig & L. van Doorn (2010). https://netsec.ethz.ch/publications/papers/perrig-ccs-refutation.pdf
20. Traffic Shaping for Workload Classification, Lucid Computing (2026). https://lucidcomputing.substack.com/p/traffic-shaping-for-workload-classification
21. De-risking Interconnect Limits for AI Verification, A. Scher et al. (2026). https://techgov.intelligence.org/blog/de-risking-interconnect-limits-for-ai-verification
22. The Tray as a Bandwidth Boundary, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-03-16-dpu-bandwidth-limiter/
23. DiLoCo: Distributed Low-Communication Training of Language Models, A. Douillard et al. (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08105
24. Does Distributed Training Undermine Compute Governance?, R. Rahman (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29359