{
  "schema_version": "1.3",
  "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0017,M-0019,M-0010&cols=hardware,sees",
  "data_generated": "2026-10-09",
  "definitions": {
    "methodology": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/methodology/",
    "readiness": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/readiness/",
    "filters": [
      {
        "id": "prover",
        "label": "Prover",
        "question": "How far can the party being checked be trusted?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "cooperative",
            "label": "Cooperative"
          },
          {
            "value": "semi-trusted",
            "label": "Semi-trusted"
          },
          {
            "value": "adversarial",
            "label": "Adversarial"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Keeps mechanisms whose threat model holds against at least this prover. Adversarial is the strongest assumption.",
        "about": "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."
      },
      {
        "id": "onsite",
        "label": "Verifier devices on site",
        "question": "May the verifier install its own hardware at the prover's sites?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "no",
            "label": "Not allowed"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "\"Not allowed\" removes mechanisms that need a retrofit device, such as a network tap or a sealed sensor.",
        "about": "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."
      },
      {
        "id": "coop",
        "label": "Prover cooperation",
        "question": "How much must the prover take part?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "partial",
            "label": "Partial at most"
          },
          {
            "value": "none",
            "label": "Not required"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "\"Partial at most\" removes mechanisms that need the prover's active participation. \"Not required\" keeps only those that work without it.",
        "about": "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."
      },
      {
        "id": "chips",
        "label": "Chips",
        "question": "May the proposal depend on new chip designs?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "existing",
            "label": "Existing chips only"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "\"Existing chips only\" removes mechanisms that need changes to future chip designs.",
        "about": "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."
      },
      {
        "id": "ready",
        "label": "Minimum development status",
        "question": "Development status",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "R1",
            "label": "Proposed"
          },
          {
            "value": "R2",
            "label": "Research demonstration"
          },
          {
            "value": "R3",
            "label": "Operational use"
          },
          {
            "value": "R4",
            "label": "Legacy independent-evaluation filter",
            "legacy": true
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one.",
        "about": "A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws."
      },
      {
        "id": "tested",
        "label": "Attack testing",
        "question": "How hard has each mechanism been attacked in public?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "analysis",
            "label": "Published analysis"
          },
          {
            "value": "red-teamed",
            "label": "Red-teamed"
          },
          {
            "value": "independent-red-team",
            "label": "Independent red-team"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Keeps mechanisms whose strongest published attack testing is at least this.",
        "about": "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."
      },
      {
        "id": "hide",
        "label": "Keep hidden from the verifier",
        "question": "What must the verifier never see?",
        "options": [
          {
            "value": "weights",
            "label": "Model weights"
          },
          {
            "value": "io",
            "label": "Inputs and outputs"
          },
          {
            "value": "training",
            "label": "Training data"
          }
        ],
        "rule": "Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement.",
        "about": "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."
      }
    ],
    "exposure": "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.",
    "claim_status": {
      "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."
    },
    "finding_classification": {
      "failure": {
        "label": "Known failures",
        "singular": "Known failure",
        "anchor": "known-flaws"
      },
      "scope-limitation": {
        "label": "Scope limitations",
        "singular": "Scope limitation",
        "anchor": "scope-limitations"
      },
      "open-question": {
        "label": "Open questions",
        "singular": "Open question",
        "anchor": "open-questions"
      }
    },
    "finding_scope": "Evidence scope describes where a finding was demonstrated; it does not establish applicability to every implementation in the mechanism family.",
    "claim_finding_scope": "open_critical_findings names active failures on the assessed records; open_critical_context names conditional family failures whose implementation applicability is unassessed.",
    "legacy_status": "The status field retains covered/partial/none for compatibility. It names claim links, never successful verification. Use claim_status and status_label for presentation."
  },
  "filters": {
    "prover": "",
    "onsite": "",
    "coop": "",
    "chips": "",
    "ready": "",
    "tested": "",
    "hide": []
  },
  "mechanisms_passing_filters": 25,
  "claims": [],
  "mechanisms": [
    {
      "id": "M-0017",
      "title": "Tamper evidence for verifier devices",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "M-0017",
        "title": "Tamper evidence for verifier devices",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 2,
        "scope_limitation": 1,
        "open_question": 0,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": null,
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R2",
        "scope": "detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence",
        "confidence": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "S-0052",
          "S-1315",
          "S-0051",
          "S-0050",
          "S-3262",
          "S-1316",
          "S-0018"
        ]
      },
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R2",
        "label": "Research demonstration",
        "short": "Research demo",
        "rank": 2,
        "legacy_code": "R2"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1317",
              "S-1318"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 3,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1315",
              "S-0052",
              "S-3261"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "assessed_properties": {
        "threat_model": "adversarial",
        "hardware_requirement": "retrofit-device",
        "prover_cooperation": "partial",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "analysis"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "none",
        "io": "none",
        "training": "none",
        "note": "Protects verifier devices; it does not handle model data."
      },
      "family_finding_context": [],
      "filter_issues": []
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0019",
      "title": "Chip registries and manufacturing records",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-registries-and-manufacturing-records/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "M-0019",
        "title": "Chip registries and manufacturing records",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-registries-and-manufacturing-records/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 1,
        "scope_limitation": 2,
        "open_question": 0,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 1,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": null,
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R1",
        "scope": "a checkable record of which chips were made and who declared owning them",
        "confidence": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "S-0002",
          "S-1402",
          "S-1408",
          "S-0007"
        ]
      },
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R1",
        "label": "Proposed",
        "short": "Proposed",
        "rank": 1,
        "legacy_code": "R1"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 2,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1402"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 1,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "assessed_properties": {
        "threat_model": "semi-trusted",
        "hardware_requirement": "existing-features",
        "prover_cooperation": "required",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "analysis"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "none",
        "io": "none",
        "training": "none",
        "note": "Records chip identities and owners; it does not handle model data."
      },
      "family_finding_context": [],
      "filter_issues": []
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0010",
      "title": "On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/on-chip-telemetry/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "M-0010",
        "title": "On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/on-chip-telemetry/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 2,
        "scope_limitation": 2,
        "open_question": 1,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": null,
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R2",
        "scope": "workload evidence from GPU counters and timing, assuming authentic measurements",
        "confidence": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "S-0033",
          "S-0034",
          "S-0037"
        ]
      },
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R2",
        "label": "Research demonstration",
        "short": "Research demo",
        "rank": 2,
        "legacy_code": "R2"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "red-teamed",
          "label": "Published attack testing",
          "kind": "practical",
          "attribution": "Developers or collaborators"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 2,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-0037"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 4,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-0014",
              "S-1200"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 2,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "assessed_properties": {
        "threat_model": "semi-trusted",
        "hardware_requirement": "existing-features",
        "prover_cooperation": "partial",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "red-teamed"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "partial",
        "io": "partial",
        "training": "partial",
        "note": "Counters do not read weights or data, but richer counters can leak secrets through side channels."
      },
      "family_finding_context": [],
      "filter_issues": []
    }
  ],
  "strengths": {
    "covered": [],
    "production": [],
    "operationalUse": [],
    "adversarial": [
      "M-0017"
    ],
    "noNewHardware": [
      "M-0019",
      "M-0010"
    ],
    "mitigated": [],
    "notCounted": []
  },
  "properties": {
    "covered": [],
    "production": [],
    "operationalUse": [],
    "adversarial": [
      "M-0017"
    ],
    "noNewHardware": [
      "M-0019",
      "M-0010"
    ],
    "mitigated": [],
    "notCounted": []
  },
  "attack_testing": [
    {
      "id": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "evaluation": "analysis",
      "in_setting": true
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0019",
      "record": "M-0019",
      "evaluation": "analysis",
      "in_setting": true
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0010",
      "record": "M-0010",
      "evaluation": "red-teamed",
      "in_setting": true
    }
  ],
  "selected_implementations": {},
  "weaknesses": {
    "gaps": [],
    "excluded": [],
    "unlinked": [],
    "critical": [],
    "significant": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Seals are often defeated with simple methods",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
        "scope_note": "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.",
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1317",
          "S-1318"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Attack classes outside published models",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "open-question",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
        "scope_note": "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.",
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1315",
          "S-0052",
          "S-3261"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0019",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Documents and serial numbers can be forged",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Avellar and Grunewald note that export documents can be forged, that companies can hide information behind obscure corporate structures, and that it may be possible to forge serial numbers on chips and racks. They recommend cryptographic attestation of a powered-on chip as an extra check.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1402"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0010",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Adversarially disguised fine-tuning partly evades classification",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0037"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0010",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Counters leak information about protected workloads",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0014",
          "S-1200"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "criticalMechanisms": [],
    "significantMechanisms": [
      "M-0017",
      "M-0019",
      "M-0010"
    ],
    "familyContext": [],
    "scopeLimitations": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Security depends on inspection protocols",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
        "scope_note": "An inspection and protocol requirement drawn from safeguards and enclosure studies, not a reported break of a deployed AI verifier.",
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1318",
          "S-1316"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0019",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Records cover only chips that were recorded",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "A registry or commitment accounts only for chips entered into it. Cankaya asks how a verifier would know it had found all chips, or how much \"dark compute\" remains, and notes that a fraudulent original record would mean unregistered chips had been made in advance. Halstead and Larsen propose reconstructing earlier production by auditing upstream suppliers.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1408",
          "S-1410"
        ],
        "helps": [
          {
            "by": "M-0020",
            "how": "Looks for large data centres that were never declared, which a registry cannot show."
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0019",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Insiders could alter records before they are fixed",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Cankaya argues that insiders who can photograph process secrets could also tamper with production records. A commitment makes changes after publication detectable, but it cannot show that the records were accurate when committed.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1408"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0010",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Software-read telemetry can be forged by the operator",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "critical",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0037",
          "S-0033"
        ],
        "helps": [
          {
            "by": "M-0009",
            "how": "A guarantee processor on the chip would give the tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path the flaw says is missing."
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0010",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Timing challenges do not identify the individual chip",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0033"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "openQuestions": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0010",
        "n": 5,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "No quantified error rates or formal thresholds for timing primitives",
        "classification": "open-question",
        "kind": "open-question",
        "severity": "minor",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Monfared et al. state that false-positive and false-negative rates are not quantified and leave hardware-specific formal thresholds to future work.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0033"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "minor": 0,
    "minorFindings": [],
    "minorBy": [],
    "notDemonstrated": [
      "M-0019"
    ],
    "newChip": []
  },
  "findings": [
    {
      "mech": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Seals are often defeated with simple methods",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
      "scope_note": "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.",
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1317",
        "S-1318"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Security depends on inspection protocols",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
      "scope_note": "An inspection and protocol requirement drawn from safeguards and enclosure studies, not a reported break of a deployed AI verifier.",
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1318",
        "S-1316"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0017",
      "record": "M-0017",
      "n": 3,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Attack classes outside published models",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "open-question",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
      "scope_note": "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.",
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1315",
        "S-0052",
        "S-3261"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0019",
      "record": "M-0019",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Records cover only chips that were recorded",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "A registry or commitment accounts only for chips entered into it. Cankaya asks how a verifier would know it had found all chips, or how much \"dark compute\" remains, and notes that a fraudulent original record would mean unregistered chips had been made in advance. Halstead and Larsen propose reconstructing earlier production by auditing upstream suppliers.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1408",
        "S-1410"
      ],
      "helps": [
        {
          "by": "M-0020",
          "how": "Looks for large data centres that were never declared, which a registry cannot show."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0019",
      "record": "M-0019",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Documents and serial numbers can be forged",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Avellar and Grunewald note that export documents can be forged, that companies can hide information behind obscure corporate structures, and that it may be possible to forge serial numbers on chips and racks. They recommend cryptographic attestation of a powered-on chip as an extra check.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1402"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0019",
      "record": "M-0019",
      "n": 3,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Insiders could alter records before they are fixed",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Cankaya argues that insiders who can photograph process secrets could also tamper with production records. A commitment makes changes after publication detectable, but it cannot show that the records were accurate when committed.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1408"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0010",
      "record": "M-0010",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Software-read telemetry can be forged by the operator",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "critical",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0037",
        "S-0033"
      ],
      "helps": [
        {
          "by": "M-0009",
          "how": "A guarantee processor on the chip would give the tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path the flaw says is missing."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0010",
      "record": "M-0010",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Adversarially disguised fine-tuning partly evades classification",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0037"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0010",
      "record": "M-0010",
      "n": 3,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Timing challenges do not identify the individual chip",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0033"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0010",
      "record": "M-0010",
      "n": 4,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Counters leak information about protected workloads",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0014",
        "S-1200"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0010",
      "record": "M-0010",
      "n": 5,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "No quantified error rates or formal thresholds for timing primitives",
      "classification": "open-question",
      "kind": "open-question",
      "severity": "minor",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Monfared et al. state that false-positive and false-negative rates are not quantified and leave hardware-specific formal thresholds to future work.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0033"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "possible_additions": [
    {
      "id": "M-0009",
      "title": "Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/flexheg-guarantee-processors/",
      "readiness": "R1",
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R1",
        "label": "Proposed",
        "short": "Proposed",
        "rank": 1,
        "legacy_code": "R1"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "analysis",
          "label": "Published security analysis",
          "kind": "analysis"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1204",
              "S-0057"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 2,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1204"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 4,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-1204"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 3,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "fits_filters": true,
      "filter_issues": [],
      "reasons": [
        {
          "kind": "blocker",
          "mech": "M-0010",
          "text": "Shipping accelerators need a tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0008",
      "title": "TEE remote attestation for AI workloads",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tee-remote-attestation/",
      "readiness": "R3",
      "development_status": {
        "code": "R3",
        "label": "Operational use",
        "short": "Operational use",
        "rank": 3,
        "legacy_code": "R3"
      },
      "security_evidence": {
        "attack_testing": {
          "status": "independent-red-team",
          "label": "Published attack testing",
          "kind": "practical",
          "attribution": "Independent team"
        },
        "independent_evaluation": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "formal_proof": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "deployment_assurance": {
          "status": "unassessed"
        },
        "legacy_evaluation_code": null,
        "scoped_findings": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "severity": "critical",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1202",
              "S-3126",
              "S-0012",
              "S-1206",
              "S-0014",
              "S-1210",
              "S-1212",
              "S-3127"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 2,
            "severity": "critical",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1210",
              "S-1211"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 3,
            "severity": "critical",
            "status": "mitigated",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1212",
              "S-1213",
              "S-3127",
              "S-3128"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 4,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-1202"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 5,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-0012",
              "S-0009",
              "S-0014",
              "S-3123",
              "S-3129"
            ]
          },
          {
            "n": 8,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": "mechanism",
            "sources": [
              "S-0014",
              "S-0009",
              "S-3130",
              "S-3131"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 2,
          "significant": 3,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "fits_filters": true,
      "filter_issues": [],
      "reasons": [
        {
          "kind": "prerequisite",
          "mech": "M-0010"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "goal": null,
  "design": null,
  "dependencies": {
    "prerequisites": [
      {
        "id": "M-0008",
        "neededBy": [
          "M-0010"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "shared": [],
    "blockers": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No tamper-evident enclosure has been designed for AI verifier hardware at retrofit scale.",
        "theme": "hardware-trust",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0018"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Battery-backed designs add bulk, limit operating temperature (+10 °C to +35 °C for the IBM 4765) and complicate transport.",
        "theme": "performance-compatibility",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1315"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Active monitoring needs power, and visual inspection of large enclosures faces access limits.",
        "theme": "access-governance",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1316"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0017",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No evaluation has been published in the AI verification setting.",
        "theme": "adversarial-validation",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0018"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0019",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No implementation of an AI chip registry has been publicly reported, and covering re-exports would need cooperation from re-exporters and foreign governments that may not be feasible everywhere.",
        "theme": "access-governance",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1402",
          "S-0002"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0019",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Linking records to physical chips needs hard-to-spoof unique IDs and inspections.",
        "theme": "hardware-trust",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0002",
          "S-1402",
          "S-1408"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0019",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Chips produced before a registry starts must be reconstructed from supplier records.",
        "theme": "coverage-hidden-compute",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1408",
          "S-1410"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0010",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Shipping accelerators need a tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path.",
        "theme": "hardware-trust",
        "blocked_by": "M-0009",
        "sources": [
          "S-0037",
          "S-0034"
        ],
        "inProposal": false
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0010",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "NVIDIA's full confidential-computing mode disables the hardware performance counters its profiling tools use, so telemetry that needs them conflicts with it.",
        "theme": "privacy-leakage",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1200",
          "S-0014"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0010",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Continuous challenge puzzles cost power and throughput on production workloads.",
        "theme": "performance-compatibility",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0033"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0010",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Evaluation has not gone beyond single nodes, framework-level evasion and one vendor's hardware.",
        "theme": "adversarial-validation",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0037"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      }
    ]
  },
  "exposure": {
    "weights": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [
        "M-0010"
      ],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0017",
        "M-0019"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    },
    "io": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [
        "M-0010"
      ],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0017",
        "M-0019"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    },
    "training": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [
        "M-0010"
      ],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0017",
        "M-0019"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    }
  },
  "implementations": [
    {
      "mechanism": "M-0017",
      "selected": null,
      "implementations": [
        {
          "id": "I-0011",
          "title": "AI 2040 inference-only verification stack",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "M-0019",
      "selected": null,
      "implementations": []
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "M-0010",
      "selected": null,
      "implementations": []
    }
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "S-0052",
      "title": "Anti-Tamper Radio: System-Level Tamper Detection for Computing Systems",
      "authors": "P. Staat et al.",
      "year": 2022,
      "url": "https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9833631/",
      "path": "/sources/staat-anti-tamper-radio/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1315",
      "title": "Secure Physical Enclosures from Covers with Tamper-Resistance",
      "authors": "V. Immler et al.",
      "year": 2019,
      "url": "https://tches.iacr.org/index.php/TCHES/article/view/7334",
      "path": "/sources/immler-secure-physical-enclosures-covers/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0051",
      "title": "ImpedanceVerif: On-Chip Impedance Sensing for System-Level Tampering Detection",
      "authors": "T. Mosavirik et al.",
      "year": 2023,
      "url": "https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/946",
      "path": "/sources/mosavirik-impedanceverif/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0050",
      "title": "IBM 4765 Cryptographic Coprocessor Security Module: Security Policy",
      "authors": "IBM Corporation",
      "year": 2012,
      "url": "https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp1505.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/ibm-4765-security-policy/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-3262",
      "title": "PHYSEC SEAL: Change detection for maximum safety",
      "authors": "PHYSEC GmbH",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://www.physec.de/en/solutions/physec-seal/",
      "path": "/sources/physec-seal/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1316",
      "title": "Tamper-Indicating Enclosures, A Current Survey",
      "authors": "H. A. Smartt & Z. N. Gastelum",
      "year": 2015,
      "url": "https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1256541",
      "path": "/sources/smartt-tamper-indicating-enclosures-survey/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0018",
      "title": "A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification",
      "authors": "N. Cankaya",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/A-system-overview-for-near-term-low-trust-AI-compute-verification.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/cankaya-system-overview-low-trust-compute-verification/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1317",
      "title": "Physical Security and Tamper-Indicating Devices",
      "authors": "R. G. Johnston & A. R. E. Garcia",
      "year": 1996,
      "url": "https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/459707",
      "path": "/sources/johnston-physical-security-tamper-indicating-devices/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1318",
      "title": "Tamper Detection for Safeguards and Treaty Monitoring: Fantasies, Realities, and Potentials",
      "authors": "R. G. Johnston",
      "year": 2001,
      "url": "https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/81john.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/johnston-tamper-detection-safeguards-treaty-monitoring/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-3261",
      "title": "Anti-Tamper Radio Meets Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface for System-Level Tamper Detection",
      "authors": "M. S. Tabar et al.",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14279",
      "path": "/sources/tabar-anti-tamper-radio-ris/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0002",
      "title": "Verifying International Agreements on AI: Six Layers of Verification for Rules on Large-Scale AI Development and Deployment",
      "authors": "M. Baker et al.",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA4077-1.html",
      "path": "/sources/baker-verifying-international-agreements-ai/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1402",
      "title": "Near-Term Verification Methods for AI Chip Exports",
      "authors": "B. Avellar & E. Grunewald",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://www.iaps.ai/research/near-term-verification-methods-for-ai-chip-exports",
      "path": "/sources/avellar-near-term-verification-ai-chip-exports/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1408",
      "title": "TSMC most definitely has a golden record of all AI chips it made",
      "authors": "N. Cankaya",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://nacicankaya.substack.com/p/tsmc-most-definitely-has-a-golden",
      "path": "/sources/cankaya-tsmc-golden-record/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0007",
      "title": "Hardware-Level Governance of AI Compute: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Regulatory Compliance and Treaty Verification",
      "authors": "S. Ansari",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04712",
      "path": "/sources/ansari-hardware-level-governance-ai-compute/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1410",
      "title": "Covert AI Projects",
      "authors": "B. Halstead & T. Larsen",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://ai-2040.com/supplements/covert-ai-projects",
      "path": "/sources/halstead-covert-ai-projects/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0033",
      "title": "Timing and Memory Telemetry on GPUs for AI Governance",
      "authors": "S. K. Monfared et al.",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09369",
      "path": "/sources/monfared-timing-memory-telemetry-gpus/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0034",
      "title": "Guaranteeable Memory: An HBM-Based Chiplet for Verifiable AI Workloads",
      "authors": "J. Petrie",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://openreview.net/forum?id=uc79kOv0MV",
      "path": "/sources/petrie-guaranteeable-memory/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0037",
      "title": "Detecting Hidden ML Training With Zero-Overhead Telemetry",
      "authors": "R. Rahman & S. Tajdari",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19262",
      "path": "/sources/rahman-detecting-hidden-ml-training/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0014",
      "title": "On TEEs for Privacy-Preserving Monitoring in AI Governance",
      "authors": "Gloria Z",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://techgov.intelligence.org/blog/on-tees-for-privacy-preserving-monitoring-in-ai-governance",
      "path": "/sources/zhao-tees-privacy-preserving-monitoring/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1200",
      "title": "NVIDIA Secure AI with Blackwell and Hopper GPUs (White Paper)",
      "authors": "NVIDIA",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://docs.nvidia.com/nvidia-secure-ai-with-blackwell-and-hopper-gpus-whitepaper.pdf",
      "path": "/sources/nvidia-secure-ai-blackwell-hopper-whitepaper/"
    }
  ]
}