{
  "schema_version": "1.3",
  "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0012,M-0014&implementations=M-0014:I-0010",
  "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-0014",
      "title": "Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization",
      "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bandwidth-limits-and-compartmentalization/",
      "assessment_record": {
        "id": "I-0010",
        "title": "RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/"
      },
      "finding_counts": {
        "failure": 0,
        "scope_limitation": 2,
        "open_question": 0,
        "open_failures": {
          "critical": 0,
          "significant": 0,
          "minor": 0
        }
      },
      "selected_implementation": {
        "id": "I-0010",
        "title": "RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/"
      },
      "readiness": {
        "level": "R1",
        "scope": "the operator's own weight security, with no outside verification described",
        "confidence": "low",
        "evidence": [
          "S-1510"
        ]
      },
      "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": "semi-trusted",
        "hardware_requirement": "retrofit-device",
        "prover_cooperation": "required",
        "adversarial_evaluation": "analysis"
      },
      "claims": [],
      "exposure": {
        "weights": "unknown",
        "io": "unknown",
        "training": "unknown",
        "note": "This Explorer has no asset-specific exposure assessment for this implementation. Check its source and deployment assumptions.",
        "sources": []
      },
      "family_finding_context": [
        {
          "n": 1,
          "historical": false,
          "title": "Low-communication training reduces the bandwidth training needs",
          "classification": "open-question",
          "kind": "theoretical-argument",
          "severity": "significant",
          "status": "open",
          "evidence_scope": null,
          "scope_note": null,
          "related_finding": null,
          "description": "DiLoCo matched fully synchronous training on 8 workers while communicating 500 times less. Rahman writes that this family of methods theoretically allows large-scale training with less than 100 Mbps. Lucid includes these methods in its bounds, but notes that extreme activation compression, architectures with unusually small inter-layer widths, or modular paradigms could erode the margin.",
          "response": null,
          "sources": [
            "S-1314",
            "S-0060",
            "S-1301"
          ],
          "record": "M-0014",
          "represented_by": []
        },
        {
          "n": 2,
          "historical": false,
          "title": "Operator control of pod routing collapses the bound",
          "classification": "failure",
          "kind": "theoretical-argument",
          "severity": "significant",
          "status": "open",
          "evidence_scope": null,
          "scope_note": null,
          "related_finding": null,
          "description": "Lucid's analysis finds that if the operator can freely assign pods to routers, it could dedicate a whole cell of 100 or more pods to one pipeline stage. The bound then falls to about 90–220x uncompressed and as low as about 25x with compression. The proposed mitigation, auditor-controlled random assignment that is periodically re-randomized, has not been implemented.",
          "response": null,
          "sources": [
            "S-1301"
          ],
          "record": "M-0014",
          "represented_by": []
        },
        {
          "n": 3,
          "historical": false,
          "title": "Undeclared local storage raises per-pod capacity",
          "classification": "scope-limitation",
          "kind": "theoretical-argument",
          "severity": "significant",
          "status": "open",
          "evidence_scope": null,
          "scope_note": null,
          "related_finding": null,
          "description": "More memory or storage per pod helps an adversary. Lucid requires per-pod storage to be declared, capped and physically inspected.",
          "response": null,
          "sources": [
            "S-1301"
          ],
          "record": "M-0014",
          "represented_by": []
        },
        {
          "n": 4,
          "historical": false,
          "title": "Training within one pod is not covered",
          "classification": "scope-limitation",
          "kind": "open-question",
          "severity": "significant",
          "status": "open",
          "evidence_scope": null,
          "scope_note": null,
          "related_finding": null,
          "description": "Lucid's bounds concern pre-training models larger than the pods are sized for. Training models that fit in one pod, fine-tuning and reinforcement-learning post-training within one pod are outside the modelled threat.",
          "response": null,
          "sources": [
            "S-1301"
          ],
          "record": "M-0014",
          "represented_by": []
        },
        {
          "n": 5,
          "historical": false,
          "title": "Parallel scale-up switches are hard enforcement points",
          "classification": "failure",
          "kind": "theoretical-argument",
          "severity": "significant",
          "status": "open",
          "evidence_scope": null,
          "scope_note": null,
          "related_finding": null,
          "description": "In GB200 topologies, GPUs reach GPUs in other nodes through NVSwitches without a NIC on the path. Amodo notes that limits are hard to enforce there because many switches work in parallel, so compromising one or two would bypass the limit.",
          "response": null,
          "sources": [
            "S-1313"
          ],
          "record": "M-0014",
          "represented_by": []
        }
      ],
      "filter_issues": []
    }
  ],
  "strengths": {
    "covered": [],
    "production": [
      "M-0012"
    ],
    "operationalUse": [
      "M-0012"
    ],
    "adversarial": [],
    "noNewHardware": [
      "M-0012"
    ],
    "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": [],
    "noNewHardware": [
      "M-0012"
    ],
    "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-0014",
      "record": "I-0010",
      "evaluation": "analysis",
      "in_setting": true
    }
  ],
  "selected_implementations": {
    "M-0014": "I-0010"
  },
  "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": [
      {
        "id": "M-0014",
        "implementation": "I-0010",
        "flaws": [
          {
            "n": 1,
            "historical": false,
            "title": "Low-communication training reduces the bandwidth training needs",
            "classification": "open-question",
            "kind": "theoretical-argument",
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": null,
            "scope_note": null,
            "related_finding": null,
            "description": "DiLoCo matched fully synchronous training on 8 workers while communicating 500 times less. Rahman writes that this family of methods theoretically allows large-scale training with less than 100 Mbps. Lucid includes these methods in its bounds, but notes that extreme activation compression, architectures with unusually small inter-layer widths, or modular paradigms could erode the margin.",
            "response": null,
            "sources": [
              "S-1314",
              "S-0060",
              "S-1301"
            ],
            "record": "M-0014",
            "represented_by": []
          },
          {
            "n": 2,
            "historical": false,
            "title": "Operator control of pod routing collapses the bound",
            "classification": "failure",
            "kind": "theoretical-argument",
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": null,
            "scope_note": null,
            "related_finding": null,
            "description": "Lucid's analysis finds that if the operator can freely assign pods to routers, it could dedicate a whole cell of 100 or more pods to one pipeline stage. The bound then falls to about 90–220x uncompressed and as low as about 25x with compression. The proposed mitigation, auditor-controlled random assignment that is periodically re-randomized, has not been implemented.",
            "response": null,
            "sources": [
              "S-1301"
            ],
            "record": "M-0014",
            "represented_by": []
          },
          {
            "n": 3,
            "historical": false,
            "title": "Undeclared local storage raises per-pod capacity",
            "classification": "scope-limitation",
            "kind": "theoretical-argument",
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": null,
            "scope_note": null,
            "related_finding": null,
            "description": "More memory or storage per pod helps an adversary. Lucid requires per-pod storage to be declared, capped and physically inspected.",
            "response": null,
            "sources": [
              "S-1301"
            ],
            "record": "M-0014",
            "represented_by": []
          },
          {
            "n": 4,
            "historical": false,
            "title": "Training within one pod is not covered",
            "classification": "scope-limitation",
            "kind": "open-question",
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": null,
            "scope_note": null,
            "related_finding": null,
            "description": "Lucid's bounds concern pre-training models larger than the pods are sized for. Training models that fit in one pod, fine-tuning and reinforcement-learning post-training within one pod are outside the modelled threat.",
            "response": null,
            "sources": [
              "S-1301"
            ],
            "record": "M-0014",
            "represented_by": []
          },
          {
            "n": 5,
            "historical": false,
            "title": "Parallel scale-up switches are hard enforcement points",
            "classification": "failure",
            "kind": "theoretical-argument",
            "severity": "significant",
            "status": "open",
            "evidence_scope": null,
            "scope_note": null,
            "related_finding": null,
            "description": "In GB200 topologies, GPUs reach GPUs in other nodes through NVSwitches without a NIC on the path. Amodo notes that limits are hard to enforce there because many switches work in parallel, so compromising one or two would bypass the limit.",
            "response": null,
            "sources": [
              "S-1313"
            ],
            "record": "M-0014",
            "represented_by": []
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "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-0014",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Everything rests on the trusted setup",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "significant",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "Reference measurements for model weights and reference data are established in a trusted setup phase. The report states that the system cannot detect compromise that happened before ingestion if the trusted setup itself is compromised.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1510"
        ],
        "record": "I-0010"
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0014",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "title": "Security weakens over long operation",
        "classification": "scope-limitation",
        "kind": "theoretical-argument",
        "severity": "minor",
        "status": "open",
        "evidence_scope": null,
        "scope_note": null,
        "related_finding": null,
        "description": "The authors claim that the facility can withstand attacks at the OC5 level for a five-year operational period. They expect its ability to withstand long OC5 campaigns to become less robust the longer the facility remains in operation.",
        "response": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1510"
        ],
        "record": "I-0010"
      }
    ],
    "openQuestions": [],
    "minor": 0,
    "minorFindings": [],
    "minorBy": [],
    "notDemonstrated": [
      "M-0014"
    ],
    "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-0014",
      "record": "I-0010",
      "n": 1,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Everything rests on the trusted setup",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "significant",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "Reference measurements for model weights and reference data are established in a trusted setup phase. The report states that the system cannot detect compromise that happened before ingestion if the trusted setup itself is compromised.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1510"
      ]
    },
    {
      "mech": "M-0014",
      "record": "I-0010",
      "n": 2,
      "historical": false,
      "title": "Security weakens over long operation",
      "classification": "scope-limitation",
      "kind": "theoretical-argument",
      "severity": "minor",
      "status": "open",
      "evidence_scope": null,
      "scope_note": null,
      "related_finding": null,
      "description": "The authors claim that the facility can withstand attacks at the OC5 level for a five-year operational period. They expect its ability to withstand long OC5 campaigns to become less robust the longer the facility remains in operation.",
      "response": null,
      "sources": [
        "S-1510"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "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-0014",
        "n": 1,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "No prototype exists; RAND recommends prototyping key security features and integration now.",
        "theme": "adversarial-validation",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1510"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0014",
        "n": 2,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "The report describes internal integrity checks, audit logging and accreditation, but no way for a party outside the operator to verify the facility's properties.",
        "theme": "access-governance",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1510"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0014",
        "n": 3,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Human review of every prompt and response makes each request take three to five minutes, with the review steps as the rate-limiting factor.",
        "theme": "performance-compatibility",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1510"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      },
      {
        "mech": "M-0014",
        "n": 4,
        "historical": false,
        "text": "Detailed design information is withheld from the public report and is to be evaluated privately with stakeholders, which limits independent public scrutiny.",
        "theme": "access-governance",
        "blocked_by": null,
        "sources": [
          "S-1510"
        ],
        "inProposal": null
      }
    ]
  },
  "exposure": {
    "weights": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [],
      "hidden": [
        "M-0012"
      ],
      "none": [],
      "unknown": [
        "M-0014"
      ]
    },
    "io": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [],
      "unknown": [
        "M-0012",
        "M-0014"
      ]
    },
    "training": {
      "shown": [],
      "partial": [],
      "hidden": [],
      "none": [
        "M-0012"
      ],
      "unknown": [
        "M-0014"
      ]
    }
  },
  "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-0014",
      "selected": {
        "id": "I-0010",
        "title": "RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design",
        "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/"
      },
      "implementations": [
        {
          "id": "I-0011",
          "title": "AI 2040 inference-only verification stack",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/"
        },
        {
          "id": "I-0010",
          "title": "RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design",
          "url": "https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "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-1510",
      "title": "Highly Secure Inference Data Centers: A Vertically Integrated Strategy for Security Engineering",
      "authors": "S. F. Comer et al.",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4827-1.html",
      "path": "/sources/comer-highly-secure-inference-data-centers/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1314",
      "title": "DiLoCo: Distributed Low-Communication Training of Language Models",
      "authors": "A. Douillard et al.",
      "year": 2024,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08105",
      "path": "/sources/douillard-diloco/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-0060",
      "title": "Does Distributed Training Undermine Compute Governance?",
      "authors": "R. Rahman",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29359",
      "path": "/sources/rahman-distributed-training-compute-governance/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1301",
      "title": "Traffic Shaping for Workload Classification",
      "authors": "Lucid Computing",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://lucidcomputing.substack.com/p/traffic-shaping-for-workload-classification",
      "path": "/sources/lucid-traffic-shaping-workload-classification/"
    },
    {
      "id": "S-1313",
      "title": "The Tray as a Bandwidth Boundary",
      "authors": "Amodo Design",
      "year": 2026,
      "url": "https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-03-16-dpu-bandwidth-limiter/",
      "path": "/sources/amodo-tray-bandwidth-boundary/"
    }
  ]
}