{
  "schema_version": "1.3",
  "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0012,M-0020&cols=prover,tested,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-0012",
      "title": "Hardware-attested weight binding",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/model-identity-attestation/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "M-0012",
        "title": "Hardware-attested weight binding",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/model-identity-attestation/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 2,
        "scope_limitation": 1,
        "open_question": 0,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 1,
          "significant": 0,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": null,
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R3",
        "scope": "hardware-attested weight binding showing users that a service runs its committed weights",
        "confidence": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "S-0013",
          "S-0012",
          "S-1206",
          "S-1207",
          "S-1208",
          "S-1209",
          "S-1202"
        ]
      },
      "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": "inherited",
            "sources": [
              "S-1202",
              "S-1210",
              "S-1212",
              "S-1213",
              "S-1206",
              "S-0012"
            ],
            "related_finding": {
              "record": "M-0008",
              "flaw": 1
            }
          },
          {
            "n": 2,
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "mitigated",
            "evidence_scope": "unassessed",
            "sources": [
              "S-0013",
              "S-0014"
            ]
          }
        ],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 1,
          "significant": 0,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "assessed_properties": {
        "threat_model": "semi-trusted",
        "hardware_requirement": "existing-features",
        "prover_cooperation": "required",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "independent-red-team"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "hidden",
        "io": "unknown",
        "training": "none",
        "note": "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.",
        "sources": [
          "S-0013",
          "S-0012",
          "S-0009"
        ]
      },
      "family_finding_context": [],
      "filter_issues": []
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0020",
      "title": "Remote detection of data centres",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "M-0020",
        "title": "Remote detection of data centres",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/remote-detection-of-data-centres/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 0,
        "scope_limitation": 2,
        "open_question": 1,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 0,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": null,
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R1",
        "scope": "finding undeclared data centres above an agreed compute threshold",
        "confidence": "medium",
        "evidence": [
          "S-1410",
          "S-0002",
          "S-1409",
          "S-1411",
          "S-3301"
        ]
      },
      "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": [],
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 0,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "assessed_properties": {
        "threat_model": "adversarial",
        "hardware_requirement": "none",
        "prover_cooperation": "not-required",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "analysis"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "none",
        "io": "none",
        "training": "none",
        "note": "Works from outside the facility; it does not handle model data."
      },
      "family_finding_context": [],
      "filter_issues": []
    }
  ],
  "strengths": {
    "covered": [],
    "production": [
      "M-0012"
    ],
    "operationalUse": [
      "M-0012"
    ],
    "adversarial": [
      "M-0020"
    ],
    "noNewHardware": [
      "M-0012",
      "M-0020"
    ],
    "mitigated": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0012",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Launch-state attestation does not by itself cover weights loaded later",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "mitigated",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Attestation measures launch state, and weights are read from disk after boot. A signature checked at load time does not stop a malicious hypervisor from altering the disk afterwards. Tinfoil reports mitigating this with dm-verity checks on every read. Unmeasured runtime configuration remains a general risk.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0013",
          "S-0014"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "notCounted": []
  },
  "properties": {
    "covered": [],
    "production": [
      "M-0012"
    ],
    "operationalUse": [
      "M-0012"
    ],
    "adversarial": [
      "M-0020"
    ],
    "noNewHardware": [
      "M-0012",
      "M-0020"
    ],
    "mitigated": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0012",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Launch-state attestation does not by itself cover weights loaded later",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "mitigated",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Attestation measures launch state, and weights are read from disk after boot. A signature checked at load time does not stop a malicious hypervisor from altering the disk afterwards. Tinfoil reports mitigating this with dm-verity checks on every read. Unmeasured runtime configuration remains a general risk.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0013",
          "S-0014"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "notCounted": []
  },
  "attack_testing": [
    {
      "id": "M-0012",
      "record": "M-0012",
      "evaluation": "independent-red-team",
      "in_setting": true
    },
    {
      "id": "M-0020",
      "record": "M-0020",
      "evaluation": "analysis",
      "in_setting": true
    }
  ],
  "selected_implementations": {},
  "weaknesses": {
    "gaps": [],
    "excluded": [],
    "unlinked": [],
    "critical": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0012",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Underlying attestation can be forged or relayed",
        "classification": "failure",
        "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
        "severity": "critical",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": "inherited",
        "scope_note": "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.",
        "related_finding": {
          "record": "M-0008",
          "flaw": 1
        },
        "description": "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.",
        "response": "The TEE.fail authors report that physical interposer attacks are outside Intel's and AMD's threat models. AMD reports fixes for RMPocalypse.",
        "sources": [
          "S-1202",
          "S-1210",
          "S-1212",
          "S-1213",
          "S-1206",
          "S-0012"
        ],
        "helps": [
          {
            "by": "M-0009",
            "how": "A tamper-protected enclosure around the chip is the proposed answer when the party that holds the hardware may attack it physically."
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "significant": [],
    "criticalMechanisms": [
      "M-0012"
    ],
    "significantMechanisms": [],
    "familyContext": [],
    "scopeLimitations": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0012",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "For private models, a user can confirm consistency but not content",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "open-question",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-0013",
          "S-0009"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0020",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Facilities can be disguised or hidden",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1410"
        ]
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0020",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Small sites may not be detectable",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1410",
          "S-1409"
        ],
        "helps": [
          {
            "by": "M-0019",
            "how": "Accounts for chips from the fab onwards, which does not depend on a site being visible."
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "openQuestions": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0020",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Search for unknown sites is undemonstrated",
        "classification": "open-question",
        "kind": "open-question",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "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\".",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1409"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "minor": 0,
    "minorFindings": [],
    "minorBy": [],
    "notDemonstrated": [
      "M-0020"
    ],
    "newChip": []
  },
  "findings": [
    {
      "mech": "M-0012",
      "record": "M-0012",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Underlying attestation can be forged or relayed",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "demonstrated-attack",
      "severity": "critical",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": "inherited",
      "scope_note": "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.",
      "related_finding": {
        "record": "M-0008",
        "flaw": 1
      },
      "description": "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.",
      "response": "The TEE.fail authors report that physical interposer attacks are outside Intel's and AMD's threat models. AMD reports fixes for RMPocalypse.",
      "sources": [
        "S-1202",
        "S-1210",
        "S-1212",
        "S-1213",
        "S-1206",
        "S-0012"
      ],
      "helps": [
        {
          "by": "M-0009",
          "how": "A tamper-protected enclosure around the chip is the proposed answer when the party that holds the hardware may attack it physically."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0012",
      "record": "M-0012",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Launch-state attestation does not by itself cover weights loaded later",
      "classification": "failure",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "mitigated",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Attestation measures launch state, and weights are read from disk after boot. A signature checked at load time does not stop a malicious hypervisor from altering the disk afterwards. Tinfoil reports mitigating this with dm-verity checks on every read. Unmeasured runtime configuration remains a general risk.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0013",
        "S-0014"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0012",
      "record": "M-0012",
      "n": 3,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "For private models, a user can confirm consistency but not content",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "open-question",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-0013",
        "S-0009"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0020",
      "record": "M-0020",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Facilities can be disguised or hidden",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1410"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0020",
      "record": "M-0020",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Small sites may not be detectable",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1410",
        "S-1409"
      ],
      "helps": [
        {
          "by": "M-0019",
          "how": "Accounts for chips from the fab onwards, which does not depend on a site being visible."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0020",
      "record": "M-0020",
      "n": 3,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Search for unknown sites is undemonstrated",
      "classification": "open-question",
      "kind": "open-question",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "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\".",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1409"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "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": "flaw",
          "mech": "M-0012",
          "n": 1,
          "title": "Underlying attestation can be forged or relayed",
          "severity": "critical",
          "how": "A tamper-protected enclosure around the chip is the proposed answer when the party that holds the hardware may attack it physically."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "blocker",
          "mech": "M-0012",
          "text": "Attestation that resists physical attackers, for the enclave variant."
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "goal": null,
  "design": null,
  "dependencies": {
    "prerequisites": [
      {
        "id": "M-0008",
        "neededBy": [
          "M-0012"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "shared": [],
    "blockers": [
      {
        "mech": "M-0012",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Attestation that resists physical attackers, for the enclave variant.",
        "theme": "hardware-trust",
        "blocked_by": "M-0008",
        "sources": [
          "S-1202"
        ],
        "inProposal": false
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0020",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Wide-area, automated detection of data centres is not yet practical and needs large training datasets.",
        "theme": "coverage-hidden-compute",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1409"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0020",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No measured detection or false-alarm rates for finding undeclared facilities have been published.",
        "theme": "adversarial-validation",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1410",
          "S-1409"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0020",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Recent high-resolution imagery is costly, is limited by weather and needs trained analysts.",
        "theme": "access-governance",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1409"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      }
    ]
  },
  "exposure": {
    "weights": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [],
      "hidden": [
        "M-0012"
      ],
      "none": [
        "M-0020"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    },
    "io": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0020"
      ],
      "unknown": [
        "M-0012"
      ]
    },
    "training": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0012",
        "M-0020"
      ],
      "unknown": []
    }
  },
  "implementations": [
    {
      "mechanism": "M-0012",
      "selected": null,
      "implementations": [
        {
          "id": "I-0007",
          "title": "Attestable Audits",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/attestable-audits/"
        },
        {
          "id": "I-0022",
          "title": "PAL*M",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/palm/"
        },
        {
          "id": "I-0006",
          "title": "Tinfoil model identity (Modelwrap)",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/tinfoil-model-identity/"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mechanism": "M-0020",
      "selected": null,
      "implementations": []
    }
  ],
  "sources": [
    {
      "id": "S-0013",
      "title": "How Tinfoil Proves Exactly What Model Is Running",
      "authors": "Tinfoil Team",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://tinfoil.sh/blog/2026-02-03-proving-model-identity",
      "path": "/sources/tinfoil-proving-model-identity/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0012",
      "title": "PAL*M: Property Attestation for Large Generative Models",
      "authors": "P. Chantasantitam et al.",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16199",
      "path": "/sources/chantasantitam-palm/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1206",
      "title": "A primer on secure enclaves",
      "authors": "Tinfoil",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/secure-enclave-primer",
      "path": "/sources/tinfoil-docs-secure-enclave-primer/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1207",
      "title": "Backend infrastructure",
      "authors": "Tinfoil",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/attestation-architecture",
      "path": "/sources/tinfoil-docs-attestation-architecture/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1208",
      "title": "How verification works in Tinfoil",
      "authors": "Tinfoil",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/verification-in-tinfoil",
      "path": "/sources/tinfoil-docs-verification-in-tinfoil/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1209",
      "title": "modelwrap: Reproducible dm-verity read-only image of Huggingface models",
      "authors": "Tinfoil",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://github.com/tinfoilsh/modelwrap",
      "path": "/sources/tinfoil-modelwrap-code/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1202",
      "title": "TEE.fail: Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition",
      "authors": "J. Chuang et al.",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://tee.fail/",
      "path": "/sources/chuang-tee-fail/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1210",
      "title": "Battering RAM: Low-Cost Interposer Attacks on Confidential Computing via Dynamic Memory Aliasing",
      "authors": "J. De Meulemeester et al.",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://batteringram.eu/",
      "path": "/sources/de-meulemeester-battering-ram/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1212",
      "title": "RMPocalypse: How a Catch-22 Breaks AMD SEV-SNP",
      "authors": "B. Schlüter & S. Shinde",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://rmpocalypse.github.io/",
      "path": "/sources/schluter-rmpocalypse/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1213",
      "title": "SEV-SNP RMP Initialization Vulnerability (AMD-SB-3020)",
      "authors": "AMD",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-3020.html",
      "path": "/sources/amd-sb-3020-rmp-initialization/"
    },
    {
      "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-0009",
      "title": "Attestable Audits: Verifiable AI Safety Benchmarks Using Trusted Execution Environments",
      "authors": "C. Schnabl et al.",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23706",
      "path": "/sources/schnabl-attestable-audits/"
    },
    {
      "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-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-1409",
      "title": "Tracking Hyperscale AI Data Center Growth with Satellite Imagery",
      "authors": "C. Krawec",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://fas.org/publication/tracking-hyperscale/",
      "path": "/sources/krawec-tracking-hyperscale-satellite-imagery/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1411",
      "title": "Introducing the Frontier Data Centers Hub",
      "authors": "Epoch AI",
      "year": 2025,
      "url": "https://epoch.ai/latest/introducing-the-frontier-data-centers-hub",
      "path": "/sources/epoch-frontier-data-centers-hub/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-3301",
      "title": "AI Data Centers Documentation – Methodology",
      "authors": "Epoch AI",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://epoch.ai/data/data-centers-documentation/methodology",
      "path": "/sources/epoch-data-centers-methodology/"
    }
  ]
}