Proposal Explorer
ResetA verification proposal from the AI Verification Tech Map, from its records of 2026-10-08. https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0010&chips=existing
Analysis
Applied filters: Chips: Existing chips only. Not set (Any): Prover, Verifier devices on site, Prover cooperation, Minimum readiness, Attack testing, Keep hidden from the verifier.
Overview
| Mechanism | Readiness | Open flaws |
|---|---|---|
| On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters | R2 | 1 critical3 significant1 minor |
- Open flaws: n critical n significant n minor
Claim coverageNo claims yet
Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.
PropertiesNone recorded
- No new hardware needed
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
Attack testing1 mechanism with published testing
Published attempts to break a system, including those that found failures. Testing history does not show that open flaws are resolved.
Limits1 mechanism with open critical findings · 1 mechanism with open significant findings
- Open critical flaws
Software-read telemetry can be forged by the operator in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
NVML-based classification assumes trustworthy telemetry. Without a tamper-resistant read path, an authenticated telemetry channel and secure boot of the monitoring software, an operator who controls the full software stack could forge counter values. Monfared et al. start from the same premise: current GPUs expose little trusted telemetry and can be modified or virtualized. 1 3
Theoretical argument · Critical · Open. On the record
Related mechanism R1 Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors: A guarantee processor on the chip would give the tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path the flaw says is missing. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. Add
- Open significant flaws
3 flaws in 1 mechanism
Adversarially disguised fine-tuning partly evades classification in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
Across 20 evasion strategy families in five monitor-evader rounds, the classifier's accuracy against the most challenging disguised workloads held out from training was 43–87%. White-box LoRA fine-tuning was the only evasion family detected less than half the time. The evaluation covered single nodes, PyTorch-level evasion and NVIDIA hardware. 3
Demonstrated attack · Significant · Open. On the record
Timing challenges do not identify the individual chip in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
GEMM and VDF challenges can be answered by identical GPUs elsewhere, and floating-point fingerprints distinguish GPU models, not individual devices. GPU virtualization adds timing leakage that prevents attributing compute use. 1
Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Counters leak information about protected workloads in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
Performance counters have been used as a side channel against TEEs, for example in CounterSEVeillance. NVIDIA disables performance counters in full confidential-computing mode, stating that they could provide an avenue for side-channel attacks. Richer counters for verification therefore pull against confidentiality. 4 5
Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
- Open minor flaws
1 mechanism with minor findings
No quantified error rates or formal thresholds for timing primitives in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
Monfared et al. state that false-positive and false-negative rates are not quantified and leave hardware-specific formal thresholds to future work. 1
Open question · Minor · Open. On the record
Possible additions1 for open flaws · 2 for dependencies
Mechanisms on the map that are not in the proposal. Pointers, not recommendations.
-
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters depends on it.
-
Excluded by filters: needs new chips
- Bears on the open critical flaw “Software-read telemetry can be forged by the operator” in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters. A guarantee processor on the chip would give the tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path the flaw says is missing.
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters waits on it. Shipping accelerators need a tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path.
Dependencies1 missing prerequisite · 4 blockers
- Missing prerequisites
- R3 TEE remote attestation for AI workloads needed by On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters Add
- Blockers
4 blockers recorded
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
- Shipping accelerators need a tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path. Hardware trust. Waits on Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors 2 3
- NVIDIA's full confidential-computing mode disables the hardware performance counters its profiling tools use, so telemetry that needs them conflicts with it. Privacy & leakage 4 5
- Continuous challenge puzzles cost power and throughput on production workloads. Performance & compatibility 1
- Evaluation has not gone beyond single nodes, framework-level evasion and one vendor's hardware. Adversarial validation 3
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
What the verifier sees1 depend on design
From the family or selected implementation's record.
- Model weights
Depends on the design for On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters.
- Inputs and outputs
Depends on the design for On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters.
- Training data
Depends on the design for On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters.
Exposure notes
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters: Counters do not read weights or data, but richer counters can leak secrets through side channels.
ImplementationsNone on the map
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
- None on the map
Sources5 cited
- Timing and Memory Telemetry on GPUs for AI Governance, S. K. Monfared et al. (2026). Original
- Guaranteeable Memory: An HBM-Based Chiplet for Verifiable AI Workloads, J. Petrie (2025). Original
- Detecting Hidden ML Training With Zero-Overhead Telemetry, R. Rahman & S. Tajdari (2026). Original
- On TEEs for Privacy-Preserving Monitoring in AI Governance, Gloria Z (2026). Original
- NVIDIA Secure AI with Blackwell and Hopper GPUs (White Paper), NVIDIA (2025). Original
Share the link to this proposal. This proposal is also available as plain text and JSON.
Filter mechanisms
Filters apply to mechanisms only. They describe the setting a proposal is for, and all are off by default. A mechanism that a filter rules out is flagged and does not count towards claim coverage. Selected implementations use their own record fields. A match means not excluded; conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note. Passing a filter does not establish that the assumptions hold in a deployment.
23 of 25 mechanisms match · Clear all
Prover
How far can the party being checked be trusted?
The prover is the party being checked. Semi-trusted designs rely on part of its stack: usually the chip vendor's hardware root of trust, its firmware or counters, or its supply-chain records. Adversarial designs aim to hold even if it cheats wherever the checks allow, within their stated assumptions.
Keeps mechanisms whose threat model holds against at least this prover. Adversarial is the strongest assumption. Definitions
Verifier devices on site
May the verifier install its own hardware at the prover's sites?
Some mechanisms need a device the verifier owns or trusts at the prover's facility, such as a network tap, a bandwidth limiter or a sealed sensor. Choose Not allowed when the setting rules that out. Inspectors are not covered.
"Not allowed" removes mechanisms that need a retrofit device, such as a network tap or a sealed sensor. Definitions
Prover cooperation
How much must the prover take part?
Required: the prover takes part, for example by logging requests, producing proofs or opening records. Partial: some access, such as installing a device. Not required: works from outside, such as satellite imagery.
"Partial at most" removes mechanisms that need the prover's active participation. "Not required" keeps only those that work without it. Definitions
Chips
May the proposal depend on new 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.
"Existing chips only" removes mechanisms that need changes to future chip designs. Definitions
Minimum readiness
How mature must each mechanism be?
- Any (selected)23 match
- R1 Proposed23 match
- R2 Demonstrated15 match
- R3 In production4 match
- R4 Deployment-ready0 match
A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws.
Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one. Definitions
Attack testing
How hard has each mechanism been attacked in public?
The strongest published attempt to break the mechanism for its verification use: a security analysis, red-teaming by its developers or collaborators, or a red team independent of them.
Keeps mechanisms whose strongest published attack testing is at least this. Definitions
Keep hidden from the verifier
What must the verifier never see? Choose any.
Model weights: the checked model's parameters. Inputs and outputs: the requests a deployed model serves and its responses. Training data: what a model was trained on. Each mechanism's exposure is the editors' reading of its record: shown, depends on the design (kept, with a note), hidden, not involved, or unspecified for a selected implementation. Code and configuration are not covered yet.
Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement.
Claims
A claim is something one party wants to verify about another party's AI hardware or software. Each claim's number shows how the proposal addresses it.
- Addressed. A mechanism in the proposal is aimed at this claim and is not excluded by the filters.
- Partly addressed. Only supporting mechanisms, or mechanisms aimed at it that the filters exclude.
- Unaddressed. No mechanism in the proposal addresses this claim.
Addressed means a mechanism in the proposal is aimed at the claim and is not excluded by your filters. It does not mean the claim is verified: check its assessed use, readiness, assumptions and open flaws.
Mechanisms
A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims. Its badge is its readiness level for its stated use. An optional implementation choice narrows its assumptions, assessed use and claim links to that record. Lines join it to the claims it addresses. Click a line for details.Under its name it lists the claims it is aimed at or supports.
- Aimed at the claim: verifying it is a direct purpose of the mechanism.
- Supports the claim: helps verify it without being aimed at it.
- Faint: excluded by your filters, so it does not count towards claim coverage.
Overview
One row per mechanism in the proposal. Every mark comes from that mechanism's record, as listed in the panels below; what the verifier sees is the editors' reading of the record's text. Flaw counts are per mechanism. Summary counts name mechanisms with open findings, not a sum of attacks. Choosing an implementation narrows each row to that record's assessed use; family findings remain as context.
What the verifier sees
For model weights, inputs and outputs, and training data. This is the editors' reading of each mechanism's record (its threat model, how it works and its limitations), not a field of the record. Shown: the verifier sees it. Depends: on the design or variant, or the verifier sees only samples. Hidden: the verifier sees only commitments, hashes, proofs or results. Not involved: the record does not handle it. Unspecified: the selected implementation has no asset-specific assessment here.
Possible additions
Mechanisms on the map, not in the proposal, that the records connect to an unaddressed or partly addressed claim, an open flaw or a dependency. They are pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and flaws, and none is claimed to close a flaw. Links from flaws are the editors' reading of the two records.
Start from a goal
A goal is something a rule or agreement about AI sets out to achieve. Choosing one loads the claims it needs verified. Your mechanisms and filters stay as they are.
- Cap frontier training2 direct, 3 supportingKeep every AI training run below an agreed amount of compute.
- Pause frontier AI development2 direct, 3 supportingStop new AI training runs and experiments for an agreed period, while existing models stay in service.
- Deploy only evaluated models2 direct, 3 supportingDeploy powerful AI models widely only after their risks have been evaluated and judged manageable.
- Prevent catastrophic misuse2 direct, 2 supportingKeep capable AI models from helping anyone carry out catastrophic attacks, such as biological or chemical ones.
- Prevent weight theft1 direct, 1 supportingKeep the weights of capable AI models from being copied out of the facilities that hold them.
- Enforce chip export controls1 directKeep export-controlled AI chips at the destinations they were authorised for.
Start from a published design
Choosing a design loads the mechanisms its record realises or depends on. If the proposal has no claims yet, it also loads the claims that record says the design addresses.
- AI 2040 inference-only verification stack7 mechanismsProposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- Low-trust AI compute verification system overview7 mechanismsProposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design3 mechanismsProposed architecture, RAND