# 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-0015,M-0012&cols=hardware

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.

None set. Every mechanism on the map was available.

## 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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 1 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |
| Hardware-attested weight binding | Operational use | Published attack testing | Semi-trusted | Independent red-team | Existing features | 1 / 0 / 0 | hidden | unspecified | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure

Overwriting a device's memory in a way a verifier can check, so that data from earlier, undeclared work cannot persist in memory the wipe reaches. ([Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for showing that no data from earlier work persists in memory the wipe reaches.
- 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: Isolation & system architectures.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Overwrites memory with verifier-chosen data; it does not handle model data.

### Hardware-attested weight binding

Checks that a hardware enclave serves committed model weights, by attesting software that tests the weights against a hash commitment when they are read. ([Hardware-attested weight binding](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/model-identity-attestation/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for hardware-attested weight binding showing users that a service runs its committed weights.
- Security evidence: Published attack testing. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: semi-trusted prover. Hardware: existing features. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: independent red-team. Category: Cryptographic & computational.
- What the verifier sees: model weights hidden; inputs and outputs unspecified; training data not involved. Verifiers check a hash commitment to the weights, carried in a hardware attestation, and need no access to the weights themselves. The mechanism does not specify whether prompts and outputs are disclosed to a verifier. It involves no training data.


## Properties

**Operational use**

- Hardware-attested weight binding: Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for hardware-attested weight binding showing users that a service runs its committed weights

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure

**No new hardware needed**

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure
- Hardware-attested weight binding

**Failures since mitigated**

- Launch-state attestation does not by itself cover weights loaded later (in Hardware-attested weight binding) [9][19]


## 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**

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Analysis
- Hardware-attested weight binding: Independent red-team


## Limits

**Open critical failures**

- Underlying attestation can be forged or relayed (known failure, demonstrated attack, in Hardware-attested weight binding; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/model-identity-attestation/evidence/flaws/1/) [10][11][15][16][17][18]. Inherited finding. Critical for weight binding against an operator with physical access to affected hardware, or with control of the hypervisor on an AMD SEV-SNP platform without AMD's fixes. PAL*M excludes physical attacks, and Tinfoil acknowledges this boundary. The enclave route inherits the platform-specific TEE attestation failures. Intel TDX forgery and H100 relay were demonstrated with physical access and host control. Battering RAM defeated AMD SEV-SNP attestation on DDR4 servers; RMPocalypse did so from malicious host software on platforms without AMD's fixes. These demonstrate failures of the trust roots, not of each model-commitment protocol. Related finding: https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tee-remote-attestation/evidence/flaws/1/.

  Response: The TEE.fail authors report that physical interposer attacks are outside Intel's and AMD's threat models. AMD reports fixes for RMPocalypse.

  Related mechanism: Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors (R1, not in the proposal). A tamper-protected enclosure around the chip is the proposed answer when the party that holds the hardware may attack it physically.

**Open significant failures**

- Outside help during challenges (known failure, theoretical argument, in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/evidence/flaws/2/) [3][4]. Classic proofs of secure erasure assume the device is isolated during the protocol. Bursuc et al. relax this to a bound on how close a helper can be, enforced by round-trip times. In data centres, remote memory access has round trips of about 1–2 µs, against about 70–200 ns for local DRAM. The MIRI overview therefore says verification depends on ruling out RDMA by latency or physical disconnection.

  Related mechanism: Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges (R2, not in the proposal). Timed challenges bound how far away a helper can be by how quickly it must answer.

  Related mechanism: Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization (R2, not in the proposal). Removing or capping links between groups of accelerators limits remote memory access during a challenge.

**Scope limitations**

- Memory the wipe cannot reach (scope limitation, open question, in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/evidence/flaws/1/) [5][6]. Amodo's inventory of a GB200 system lists many memory stores beyond GPU HBM and host DRAM. It notes that SSD controller DRAM sits on a private bus that host commands cannot read or write, and that its optimized algorithm leaves 25 GiB of HBM unattested. It also asks how switch memory could be wiped.
- Gap between erased and total memory (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/evidence/flaws/3/) [3]. Bursuc et al. note that memory left between the erased region and the device's full memory could hold data, and that their bounds are tighter only against a restricted adversary.
- For private models, a user can confirm consistency but not content (scope limitation, open question, in Hardware-attested weight binding; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/model-identity-attestation/evidence/flaws/3/) [9][20]. When weights are not published, users can check that the same root hash is served each time, but not what the model is. Pairing the hash with an attested evaluation, as in Attestable Audits, is one proposed remedy.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for showing that no data from earlier work persists in memory the wipe reaches


## 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.

- **Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors** (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for checking and enforcing training-compute limits on chips, against adversaries up to states)
  - Bears on the open critical failure "Underlying attestation can be forged or relayed" in Hardware-attested weight binding. A tamper-protected enclosure around the chip is the proposed answer when the party that holds the hardware may attack it physically.
- **Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for monitoring inter-node traffic with operator-run software on four GPUs)
  - Bears on the open significant failure "Outside help during challenges" in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure. Removing or capping links between groups of accelerators limits remote memory access during a challenge.
- **Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting whether a GPU is doing other work)
  - Bears on the open significant failure "Outside help during challenges" in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure. Timed challenges bound how far away a helper can be by how quickly it must answer.
  - Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure waits on it: Timed challenges must exclude remote memory and other helpers.
- **TEE remote attestation for AI workloads** (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for showing which software ran to a party that distrusts the operator holding the hardware)
  - Hardware-attested weight binding waits on it: Attestation that resists physical attackers, for the enclave variant.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting whether a GPU is doing other work), needed by Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure
- TEE remote attestation for AI workloads (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for showing which software ran to a party that distrusts the operator holding the hardware), needed by Hardware-attested weight binding

**Blockers**

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Wipes take time: tens of minutes for a pod's volatile memory and hours for SSDs, displacing work. (performance & compatibility) [4][5][6]
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Timed challenges must exclude remote memory and other helpers. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges) [3][4]
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: All memory stores in a system must be inventoried and wiped at the same time. (coverage & hidden compute) [5]
- Hardware-attested weight binding: Attestation that resists physical attackers, for the enclave variant. (hardware trust; waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads) [15]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by Hardware-attested weight binding; not involved in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; unspecified for none.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; unspecified for Hardware-attested weight binding.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure and Hardware-attested weight binding; unspecified for none.

## Implementations

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture); [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/) (R1, proposed architecture)
- Hardware-attested weight binding: [Attestable Audits](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/attestable-audits/) (R2, research prototype); [PAL*M](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/palm/) (R2, research prototype); [Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap)](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/tinfoil-model-identity/) (R3, product)

## Sources

1. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan
2. 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
3. Software-Based Memory Erasure with Relaxed Isolation Requirements, S. Bursuc et al. (2024). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10664348/
4. 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
5. Memory Wipes - Performance Analysis, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-07-01-memory-wiping/
6. Improving Disk Wiping Speed for Memory Wipes, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-09-14-disk-wiping-speed/
7. Amodo-Design/PoSE-Memory-Wiping (GitHub repository), Amodo Design (2026). https://github.com/Amodo-Design/PoSE-Memory-Wiping
8. Empirical Evaluation of Memory-Erasure Protocols, R. Gil-Pons et al. (2025). https://www.scitepress.org/Papers/2025/135548/135548.pdf
9. How Tinfoil Proves Exactly What Model Is Running, Tinfoil Team (2026). https://tinfoil.sh/blog/2026-02-03-proving-model-identity
10. PAL*M: Property Attestation for Large Generative Models, P. Chantasantitam et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16199
11. A primer on secure enclaves, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/secure-enclave-primer
12. Backend infrastructure, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/attestation-architecture
13. How verification works in Tinfoil, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/verification-in-tinfoil
14. modelwrap: Reproducible dm-verity read-only image of Huggingface models, Tinfoil (2026). https://github.com/tinfoilsh/modelwrap
15. TEE.fail: Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition, J. Chuang et al. (2026). https://tee.fail/
16. Battering RAM: Low-Cost Interposer Attacks on Confidential Computing via Dynamic Memory Aliasing, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). https://batteringram.eu/
17. RMPocalypse: How a Catch-22 Breaks AMD SEV-SNP, B. Schlüter & S. Shinde (2025). https://rmpocalypse.github.io/
18. SEV-SNP RMP Initialization Vulnerability (AMD-SB-3020), AMD (2025). https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-3020.html
19. On TEEs for Privacy-Preserving Monitoring in AI Governance, Gloria Z (2026). https://techgov.intelligence.org/blog/on-tees-for-privacy-preserving-monitoring-in-ai-governance
20. Attestable Audits: Verifiable AI Safety Benchmarks Using Trusted Execution Environments, C. Schnabl et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23706