# 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-0018,M-0012&implementations=M-0018:I-0009

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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Chip location verification / Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates | Proposed | Published security analysis | Semi-trusted | Analysis | Existing features | 0 / 2 / 0 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |
| 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

### Chip location verification

A draft specification, hosted by Lucid Computing, for short-lived certificates that bound where a workload runs by timing signed messages to servers at known locations. ([Chip location verification](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/).
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for certifying the region where an attested workload ran at a given time.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. 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: analysis. Category: Compute accounting & provenance.
- What the verifier sees: model weights unspecified; inputs and outputs unspecified; training data unspecified. This Explorer has no asset-specific exposure assessment for this implementation. Check its source and deployment assumptions.

### 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

**No new hardware needed**

- Chip location verification
- Hardware-attested weight binding

**Failures since mitigated**

- Launch-state attestation does not by itself cover weights loaded later (in Hardware-attested weight binding) [8][18]


## 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**

- Chip location verification / Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates: 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/) [9][10][14][15][16][17]. 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**

- On-chip keys may be extractable (known failure, theoretical argument, in Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/evidence/flaws/2/) [1][5]. Tee and Happel argue that ping-based location protocols backed by keys stored on the chip can be compromised if an adversary with physical access extracts those keys. In this specification, the evidence chain rests on the hardware root of trust's signed quote, whose signing key must be protected by the hardware.
- General delay and landmark attacks apply (known failure, theoretical argument, in Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/evidence/flaws/3/) [1][6]. Attacks on delay-based location verification in general also apply. Brass and Aarne discuss adding delay, using faster paths such as dark fibre, and compromising landmarks. The specification counters anchor impersonation with a signed anchor directory. Against collusion it recommends anchors in diverse places run by several independent operators, and peer monitoring that temporarily removes anchors whose timings deviate.

**Family finding context**

- Context for Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates. Findings from the mechanism family appear here as context. They apply to an implementation only when its own record lists them, under the conditions stated there. Extracting a chip's key lets another device answer for it (known failure, theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/1/) [5][6]. Ping-based protocols rely on cryptographic keys stored on the chip. Tee and Happel argue that an adversary with physical access could extract these keys and so compromise location verification. They propose GPU fingerprints as a mitigation, so far tested on 24 GPUs. Brass and Aarne assume the keys are stored securely, for example in a TPM.
- Context for Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates. Findings from the mechanism family appear here as context. They apply to an implementation only when its own record lists them, under the conditions stated there. Added delay can shift an estimated position (known failure, demonstrated attack, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/2/) [6][7]. Brass and Aarne cite internet-geolocation research in which artificially increased round-trip times moved the estimated location by up to 1,000 km, with a 74% chance of avoiding detection. Avellar and Grunewald list inflated ping times from circuitous routing as an evasion route. Added delay only loosens a distance bound, and Brass and Aarne propose a hard time limit as the counter: a chip that replies too slowly cannot be ruled out of a restricted location.
- Context for Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates. Findings from the mechanism family appear here as context. They apply to an implementation only when its own record lists them, under the conditions stated there. Faster-than-assumed network paths (known failure, theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/3/) [6][7]. Brass and Aarne list dark fibre and other private high-speed interconnects as ways to lower measured delays artificially. They judge that leasing dark fibre would probably not be a considerable challenge for covertly or openly adversarial actors. Avellar and Grunewald note that this can make a chip appear to be somewhere else entirely. A limit set at the vacuum speed of light cannot be beaten, but it makes honest chips fail more often.
- Context for Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates. Findings from the mechanism family appear here as context. They apply to an implementation only when its own record lists them, under the conditions stated there. Compromised landmarks can falsify measurements (known failure, theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/4/) [1][6][7]. A party that controls landmark servers can report false timing. Brass and Aarne cite research in which manipulating a third of the landmarks shifted the estimated location by about 700 km. Avellar and Grunewald note that compromised landmarks let adversaries spoof travel-time measurements directly. The draft specification asks verifiers to require anchors in diverse places, run by several independent operators.

**Scope limitations**

- Physical attacks on the trusted hardware are out of scope (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/evidence/flaws/1/) [1]. The specification places the hardware root of trust and the TEE in the trusted computing base. It assumes they resist software attacks, notes that the attacker may have physical access, and leaves sophisticated physical attacks, such as bus probing and side-channel analysis, as a residual risk. It says that future revisions may add requirements for physical tamper evidence.
- 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/) [8][19]. 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**

- Chip location verification: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for certifying the region where an attested workload ran at a given time


## 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.
- **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.
  - Chip location verification depends on it.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- 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 Chip location verification and Hardware-attested weight binding

**Shared foundations**

- TEE remote attestation for AI workloads, relied on by Chip location verification and Hardware-attested weight binding

**Blockers**

- Chip location verification: The specification is an unfinished draft with no public implementation or evaluation. (adversarial validation) [1][2]
- Chip location verification: It needs a globally distributed, trusted anchor fleet and an endorser to run the anchor directory. (access & governance) [1]
- Hardware-attested weight binding: Attestation that resists physical attackers, for the enclave variant. (hardware trust; waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads) [14]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by Hardware-attested weight binding; not involved in none; unspecified for Chip location verification.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in none; unspecified for Chip location verification and Hardware-attested weight binding.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Hardware-attested weight binding; unspecified for Chip location verification.

## Implementations

- Chip location verification: [Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/) (R1, standard)
- 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. Sovereignty Certificates: draft specification, version 0.1.0, Sovereignty Certificates Working Group (2025). https://github.com/Lucid-Computing/sovereignty-certificate-specification
2. Sovereignty Certificates Working Group (2026). https://sovcert.org/
3. Lucid Computing: Verifiable AI. Proven in hardware. (2026). https://lucidcomputing.ai/
4. Lucid Developer Platform documentation (2026). https://docs.lucidcomputing.ai/
5. GPU Fingerprinting for Location Verification, W. Tee & J. Happel (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01930
6. Location Verification for AI Chips, A. Brass & O. Aarne (2024). https://www.iaps.ai/research/location-verification-for-ai-chips
7. Near-Term Verification Methods for AI Chip Exports, B. Avellar & E. Grunewald (2026). https://www.iaps.ai/research/near-term-verification-methods-for-ai-chip-exports
8. How Tinfoil Proves Exactly What Model Is Running, Tinfoil Team (2026). https://tinfoil.sh/blog/2026-02-03-proving-model-identity
9. PAL*M: Property Attestation for Large Generative Models, P. Chantasantitam et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16199
10. A primer on secure enclaves, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/secure-enclave-primer
11. Backend infrastructure, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/attestation-architecture
12. How verification works in Tinfoil, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/verification-in-tinfoil
13. modelwrap: Reproducible dm-verity read-only image of Huggingface models, Tinfoil (2026). https://github.com/tinfoilsh/modelwrap
14. TEE.fail: Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition, J. Chuang et al. (2026). https://tee.fail/
15. Battering RAM: Low-Cost Interposer Attacks on Confidential Computing via Dynamic Memory Aliasing, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). https://batteringram.eu/
16. RMPocalypse: How a Catch-22 Breaks AMD SEV-SNP, B. Schlüter & S. Shinde (2025). https://rmpocalypse.github.io/
17. SEV-SNP RMP Initialization Vulnerability (AMD-SB-3020), AMD (2025). https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-3020.html
18. 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
19. Attestable Audits: Verifiable AI Safety Benchmarks Using Trusted Execution Environments, C. Schnabl et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23706