Proposal Explorer

Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.

Built for an adversarial prover

Remote detection of data centres

No new hardware needed

Safeguard attestation and Remote detection of data centres

Not counted

Excluded by your filters: Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors

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.

• Safeguard attestation: Analysis
• Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors: Analysis · excluded by filters
• Remote detection of data centres: Analysis

Excluded by your filters

• Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors Needs changes to future chip designs; the filter allows existing chips only.

Open significant failures

5 failures in 2 mechanisms

• Components outside the attested boundary in Safeguard attestation

  In the proof-of-guardrail experiments, the guardrail model and the agent's backend model were both reached through external APIs, and the authors leave the decision to trust those APIs to the verifier. The measured wrapper must also have no vulnerability that lets the unmeasured agent bypass the guardrail, for example by executing arbitrary commands inside the enclave. The code's README states that the enclave does not currently restrict the agent's arbitrary command execution, which could be used to bypass guardrails. ^{1 2}

  Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

• Memory-bus interposition extracts attestation keys and forges attestations in Safeguard attestation

  Applies to variants using the affected Intel or AMD trust roots. PAL*M excludes physical attacks. A TDX-backed safeguard claim against a physical host attacker would be defeated, but these studies do not demonstrate a break of the AWS Nitro proof-of-guardrail prototype or of verifier-side recomputation.

  The TEE findings cover DDR5 attacks on Intel TDX, the H100 relay demonstration, DDR4 attacks on AMD SEV-SNP, and software-only SEV-SNP forgery before AMD's fixes. These are inherited hardware limits; a governance analysis explains why physical access matters in a treaty setting. ^{1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13}

  Response: Intel and AMD place the physical attack class outside their threat models, according to the researchers. AMD reports firmware fixes for RMPocalypse.

  Known failure · Demonstrated attack · Significant · Open · Inherited finding. On the record · Related finding in TEE remote attestation for AI workloads

  Related mechanism Proposed Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors: A tamper-protected enclosure around the chip is the proposed answer when the party that holds the hardware may attack it physically. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. In the proposal.

• State attackers can likely defeat current secure enclosures in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors

  The flexHEG authors write that "nation-state attackers can likely compromise the best current secure enclosures", and that the marginal cost of circumvention per device is hard to estimate. RAND similarly judges that anti-tamper measures "would not be insurmountable for a determined and well-resourced adversary", although they raise costs and can reveal tampering. ^{15 17}

  Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

• Firmware-only retrofits rely on Secure Boot, which fault injection can bypass in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors

  Part II notes that the most common attack on Secure Boot replaces the firmware and applies a voltage glitch while the signature is being checked. It also notes that sophisticated actors may use microprobing or laser voltage probing to read key registers. ¹⁵

  Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

• FLOP accounting can be laundered through external data in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors

  Results of earlier or parallel workloads could be hidden in the "external data" fed to a device, which would falsify the total FLOP count unless the inputs are explained or time delays are imposed. ¹⁵

  Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

Scope limitations

• Attestation shows a safeguard ran, not that it is effective in Safeguard attestation

  Proof of guardrail ensures that the guardrail executed, but the guardrail can still err or be jailbroken. Because the guardrail must be open source, a malicious developer can attack it with jailbreaks while still presenting a valid proof. In the authors' evaluation, Llama Guard 3 reached an F1 score of 0.56 on the unsafe class of the ToxicChat dataset. The authors state that proof of guardrail should not be interpreted or advertised as proof of safety. ¹

  Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

• Selective attestation leaves traffic uncovered in Safeguard attestation

  Attestations are issued per response. In the prototype, the agent offers them when it receives high-stakes questions, so nothing shows that unattested traffic went through the same path. PAL*M's authors note that a prover could cherry-pick favourable executions, and suggest verifier-published nonces or requesting only session-level proofs. A governance analysis notes that auditors also need assurance that all activity is accounted for, since a host could start a second confidential virtual machine that bypasses monitoring. ^{1 4 9}

  Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

  Related mechanism Research demo On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters: On-chip counters are a proposed route to evidence about everything a chip runs, including a second virtual machine that skips the safeguard. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

• Measurements may omit behaviour-relevant configuration or runtime changes in Safeguard attestation

  Every component that influences inference behaviour must be covered by the launch measurement, including feature flags, environment variables and invocation arguments. A launch measurement also does not show that a program keeps running as measured if the kernel is later compromised. ⁹

  Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

• Many important rules cannot be checked on-chip in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors

  Malicious intent "is not a technical property observable on-chip", and misuse depends on what is done with a computation's results. A guarantee processor cannot easily tell whether a network is the whole system or one expert in a mixture-of-experts system. Part III judges that a fully local ruleset "may not be entirely feasible" for the same reason. ^{14 16}

  Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

• Coverage stops at flexHEG-equipped chips in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors

  Motivated actors will always be able to use some compute that is not flexHEG-equipped. Recalling existing consumer GPUs would likely be impractical, and reaching perfect coverage, or conclusively proving that no secret government data centres exist, would be "practically quite difficult". ^{14 16}

  Scope limitation · Open question. On the record

  Related mechanism Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records: Accounts for which chips exist and who holds them. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

  Related mechanism Proposed Remote detection of data centres: Looks for undeclared facilities that hold other chips. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. In the proposal.

• Facilities can be disguised or hidden in Remote detection of data centres

  Halstead and Larsen discuss two ways to hide a facility. One is to disguise it as a legitimate industrial site. The other is to build it underground, with cooling that avoids visible heat plumes. They note that the underground option requires bespoke engineering. ²⁰

  Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

• Small sites may not be detectable in Remote detection of data centres

  Halstead and Larsen conclude that a sufficiently small covert project could not be ruled out with confidence. In their estimates, the chance of detection is lower for smaller sites. Krawec notes that small data centres in existing buildings may lack the distinctive features of large facilities. ^{20 22}

  Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record

  Related mechanism Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records: Accounts for chips from the fab onwards, which does not depend on a site being visible. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

Open questions

• Supply-chain diversion and hidden backdoors in Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors

  Components could be diverted before a guarantee processor is added, and backdoors could be introduced during design or manufacturing. Open-source designs and physical scans of randomly selected chips are proposed as countermeasures. Part III proposes international oversight of production and extensive testing of a random sample of finished devices. ^{15 16}

  Open question · Open question. On the record

  Related mechanism Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records: Records each chip's identity and owner from the fab onwards, which bears on diversion before a guarantee processor is fitted. It does not address hidden backdoors. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add

• Search for unknown sites is undemonstrated in Remote detection of data centres

  Krawec reports that telling data centres apart from other industrial facilities systematically is difficult. Automating detection would need large amounts of training imagery and a purpose-trained model. In Krawec's words, automated data-centre detection "remains primarily conceptual at present". ²²

  Open question · Open question. On the record

Not yet demonstrated

Proposed Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors and Proposed Remote detection of data centres

Need new chip designs

Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors

Mechanisms on the map that are not in the proposal. Pointers, not recommendations. ?

• Operational use Hardware-attested weight binding Add
  • Safeguard attestation waits on it. Safeguard evidence must be bound to the model actually served, which depends on model-identity attestation.
• Operational use TEE remote attestation for AI workloads Add
  • Safeguard attestation waits on it. Frontier model inference typically needs several GPUs, GPU confidential computing is less mature than CPU support, and CPU inference, which an enclave prototype had to use, ran about 100 times slower than GPU inference.
  • Safeguard attestation waits on it. Trust rests on a small number of hardware vendors, and a per-CPU Intel attestation key has been extracted by physical attack.
  • Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors depends on it.
• Research demo Tamper evidence for verifier devices Add
  • Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors waits on it. State-level attackers who hold the hardware can likely compromise the best current secure enclosures.
• Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records Add
  • Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors waits on it. Governing all relevant chips depends on knowing where they are, through chip registries and detection of undeclared facilities.

Missing prerequisites

• Operational use TEE remote attestation for AI workloads needed by Safeguard attestation and Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors Add
• Operational use Hardware-attested weight binding needed by Safeguard attestation Add
• Proposed Chip registries and manufacturing records needed by Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors Add

Shared foundations

• TEE remote attestation for AI workloads relied on by Safeguard attestation and Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors

Blockers

13 blockers recorded

• Safeguard attestation
  • No published design shows that all of a provider's traffic passes through the attested safeguard path; current evidence covers individual attested responses. Coverage & hidden compute ^{1 9}
  • Frontier model inference typically needs several GPUs, GPU confidential computing is less mature than CPU support, and CPU inference, which an enclave prototype had to use, ran about 100 times slower than GPU inference. Performance & compatibility. Waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads ^{9 25}
  • Trust rests on a small number of hardware vendors, and a per-CPU Intel attestation key has been extracted by physical attack. Hardware trust. Waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads ^{7 9}
  • Safeguard evidence must be bound to the model actually served, which depends on model-identity attestation. Evidence binding. Waits on Hardware-attested weight binding ^{25 26}
  • No independent red-team or audit of a safeguard-attestation system has been published, and the available prototypes are described by their authors as proofs of concept that have not been stress-tested by a counterparty. Adversarial validation ^{2 6}
• Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors
  • Integrated flexHEG needs substantial help from the accelerator manufacturer, and the authors estimate 3.7–7.9 years, from when the manufacturer starts work, for such hardware to displace other accelerators in frontier development. Access & governance ¹⁵
  • State-level attackers who hold the hardware can likely compromise the best current secure enclosures. Hardware trust. Waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices ^{15 17}
  • Rival states would need to trust the design and manufacture of guarantee processors and enclosures, for example through open design, redundant processors from each side or oversight of production. Hardware trust ^{14 16}
  • Restricting future rule updates would need a formal language for rules, which the authors judge most likely infeasible for early flexHEG versions. Protocol soundness ¹⁴
  • Governing all relevant chips depends on knowing where they are, through chip registries and detection of undeclared facilities. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Chip registries and manufacturing records ¹⁶
• Remote detection of data centres
  • Wide-area, automated detection of data centres is not yet practical and needs large training datasets. Coverage & hidden compute ²²
  • No measured detection or false-alarm rates for finding undeclared facilities have been published. Adversarial validation ^{20 22}
  • Recent high-resolution imagery is costly, is limited by weather and needs trained analysts. Access & governance ²²

From the family or selected implementation's record. ?

Model weights

Depends on the design for Safeguard attestation.

Hidden by Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors.

Not involved: Remote detection of data centres.

Inputs and outputs

Depends on the design for Safeguard attestation.

Hidden by Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors.

Not involved: Remote detection of data centres.

Training data

Hidden by Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors.

Not involved: Safeguard attestation and Remote detection of data centres.

Safeguard attestation

None on the map

Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors

None on the map

Remote detection of data centres

None on the map

1. Proof-of-Guardrail in AI Agents and What (Not) to Trust from It, X. Jin et al. (2026). Original
2. Verifiable-ClawGuard: proof-of-guardrail reference code, SaharaLabsAI (2026). Original
3. Safety Without Compromising on Privacy, D. McCann-Sayles et al. (2026). Original
4. PAL*M: Property Attestation for Large Generative Models, P. Chantasantitam et al. (2026). Original
5. Enabling Verifiably-Scoped Monitoring through Large Language Models and Trusted Compute, B. Penchas et al. (2026). Original
6. Auditor-in-a-Box: Tools for Third-Party Auditing, R. Rinberg & B. Penchas (2026). Original
7. TEE.fail: Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition, J. Chuang et al. (2026). Original
8. DDRop: Active Memory Interposer Attacks on Confidential VMs by Dropping DDR5 Writes, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). Original
9. On TEEs for Privacy-Preserving Monitoring in AI Governance, Gloria Z (2026). Original
10. Battering RAM: Low-Cost Interposer Attacks on Confidential Computing via Dynamic Memory Aliasing, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). Original
11. RMPocalypse: How a Catch-22 Breaks AMD SEV-SNP, B. Schlüter & S. Shinde (2025). Original
12. SEV-SNP RMP Initialization Vulnerability (AMD-SB-3020), AMD (2025). Original
13. A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
14. Flexible Hardware-Enabled Guarantees for AI Compute, J. Petrie et al. (2025). Original
15. Technical Options for Flexible Hardware-Enabled Guarantees, J. Petrie & O. Aarne (2025). Original
16. International Security Applications of Flexible Hardware-Enabled Guarantees, O. Aarne & J. Petrie (2025). Original
17. Hardware-Enabled Governance Mechanisms: Developing Technical Solutions to Exempt Items Otherwise Classified Under Export Control Classification Numbers 3A090 and 4A090, G. Kulp et al. (2024). Original
18. Secure, Governable Chips: Using On-Chip Mechanisms to Manage National Security Risks from AI & Advanced Computing, O. Aarne et al. (2024). Original
19. Hardware-Enabled Mechanisms for Verifying Responsible AI Development, A. O'Gara et al. (2025). Original
20. Covert AI Projects, B. Halstead & T. Larsen (2026). Original
21. Verifying International Agreements on AI: Six Layers of Verification for Rules on Large-Scale AI Development and Deployment, M. Baker et al. (2025). Original
22. Tracking Hyperscale AI Data Center Growth with Satellite Imagery, C. Krawec (2026). Original
23. Introducing the Frontier Data Centers Hub, Epoch AI (2025). Original
24. AI Data Centers Documentation – Methodology, Epoch AI (2026). Original
25. Attestable Audits: Verifiable AI Safety Benchmarks Using Trusted Execution Environments, C. Schnabl et al. (2025). Original
26. How Tinfoil Proves Exactly What Model Is Running, Tinfoil Team (2026). Original