# AI verification proposal

A proposal built with the Proposal Explorer of the AI Verification Tech Map (https://trustbutveri.fyi/), from its records of 2026-10-08. Interactive version: https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0018,M-0022&implementations=M-0022:I-0010

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 readiness and open flaws. Readiness levels R0 to R4 describe one record's public evidence for its assessed use and are never combined. Definitions: https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/methodology/ (roles, properties and flaws) and https://trustbutveri.fyi/about/readiness/ (readiness levels).

## 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 flaws: critical / significant / minor. The last three columns are the editors' reading of what the verifier sees.

| Mechanism | Readiness | Prover | Attack testing | Hardware | Open flaws | Weights | Inputs and outputs | Training data |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Chip location verification | R1 | Adversarial | Analysis | Existing features | 0 / 4 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |
| Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities / RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design | R1 | Semi-trusted | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 1 / 1 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Chip location verification

Timing a chip's signed replies to trusted servers at known places, so that the speed of light bounds how far away the chip can be. ([Chip location verification](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Readiness: R1 Proposed, assessed for bounding how far a chip is from trusted landmark servers when checked.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: existing features. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Compute accounting & provenance.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Times signed replies from chips; it does not handle model data.

### Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities

A RAND design for a purpose-built facility that serves already-trained AI models while protecting weights and inference data against state-level attackers. ([Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/).
- Readiness: R1 Proposed, assessed for the operator's own weight security, with no outside verification described.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: semi-trusted prover. Hardware: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Isolation & system architectures.
- 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.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Chip location verification

**No new hardware needed**

- Chip location verification


## Attack testing

Published attempts to break a system, including those that found failures. Testing history does not establish that open flaws are resolved.

**Testing history**

- Chip location verification: Analysis
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities / RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant flaws**

- Extracting a chip's key lets another device answer for it (theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/#flaw-1) [1][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.
- Added delay can shift an estimated position (demonstrated attack, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/#flaw-2) [1][4]. 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.
- Faster-than-assumed network paths (theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/#flaw-3) [1][4]. 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.
- Compromised landmarks can falsify measurements (theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/#flaw-4) [1][4][5]. 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.
- Everything rests on the trusted setup (theoretical argument, in RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/#flaw-1) [8]. 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.

**Family finding context**

- Context for RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Supply-chain implants may evade inspection (theoretical argument, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/#flaw-1) [9]. Cankaya identifies malicious hardware embedded deep in purchased components as a residual risk that visual inspection and disassembly may not catch. He notes that radiographic examination under high-security standards could mitigate it.
- Context for RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Openings for airflow, power and optics weaken shielding (theoretical argument, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/#flaw-2) [9]. Cankaya notes that keeping attenuation high while passing high-power airflow, cabling and optical links adds complexity beyond existing shielded-enclosure specifications.
- Context for RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design; applicability depends on the finding's scope. Inspection assumptions may not hold (open question, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/#flaw-3) [9]. The design's statistical argument assumes that visual or disassembly inspection catches every flaw that is present in a sampled unit. Cankaya is unsure whether destructive teardowns are defence-dominant or offence-dominant.

**Open minor flaws**

- Security weakens over long operation (theoretical argument, in RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/#flaw-2) [8]. 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.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Chip location verification: R1 Proposed, assessed for bounding how far a chip is from trusted landmark servers when checked
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: R1 Proposed, assessed for the operator's own weight security, with no outside verification described


## Possible additions

Mechanisms on the map, not in the proposal, that the records connect to an unaddressed or partly addressed claim, an open flaw or a dependency. Pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and flaws, and none is claimed to close a flaw.

- **Model identity attestation** (R3 In production, assessed for showing users that a service runs the declared model weights)
  - Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities depends on it.
- **TEE remote attestation for AI workloads** (R3 In production, assessed for showing which software ran to a party that distrusts the operator holding the hardware)
  - Chip location verification depends on it.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- TEE remote attestation for AI workloads (R3 In production, assessed for showing which software ran to a party that distrusts the operator holding the hardware), needed by Chip location verification
- Model identity attestation (R3 In production, assessed for showing users that a service runs the declared model weights), needed by Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities

**Blockers**

- Chip location verification: No public code or reproducible end-to-end location results are available for the reported H100 prototype. (adversarial validation) [2][3]
- Chip location verification: Per-chip keys must be provisioned and protected against extraction; hardware-integrated, tamper-resistant versions still need R&D. (hardware trust) [1][6][10]
- Chip location verification: The time limit forces a trade-off: a limit at the speed of light in fibre can be beaten by faster links, while one at the vacuum speed of light makes honest chips fail often. (protocol soundness) [1]
- Chip location verification: A trusted landmark network must be built and secured, and who should operate it, under what oversight, is unsettled. (access & governance) [1][4]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: No prototype exists; RAND recommends prototyping key security features and integration now. (adversarial validation) [8]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: 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. (access & governance) [8]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Human review of every prompt and response makes each request take three to five minutes, with the review steps as the rate-limiting factor. (performance & compatibility) [8]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Detailed design information is withheld from the public report and is to be evaluated privately with stakeholders, which limits independent public scrutiny. (access & governance) [8]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Chip location verification; unspecified for Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Chip location verification; unspecified for Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Chip location verification; unspecified for Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.

## Implementations

- Chip location verification: [Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/) (R1, standard)
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture); [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/) (R1, proposed architecture); [RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/rand-secure-inference-data-centers/) (R1, proposed architecture)

## Sources

1. Location Verification for AI Chips, A. Brass & O. Aarne (2024). https://www.iaps.ai/research/location-verification-for-ai-chips
2. Location Verification for AI Chips (issue brief), A. Brass (2025). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64edf8e7f2b10d716b5ba0e1/t/6827b67275666f3757f134ea/1747433075281/Location+Verification+two-pager.pdf
3. Ping-based Location, Ulyssean (2025). https://ping-location.info/
4. 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
5. Sovereignty Certificates: draft specification, version 0.1.0, Sovereignty Certificates Working Group (2025). https://github.com/Lucid-Computing/sovereignty-certificate-specification
6. GPU Fingerprinting for Location Verification, W. Tee & J. Happel (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01930
7. Secure, Governable Chips: Using On-Chip Mechanisms to Manage National Security Risks from AI & Advanced Computing, O. Aarne et al. (2024). https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/secure-governable-chips
8. Highly Secure Inference Data Centers: A Vertically Integrated Strategy for Security Engineering, S. F. Comer et al. (2026). https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4827-1.html
9. Suppressing Side Channels in an Untrusted Data Center via Retrofitted Defenses, N. Cankaya (2026). https://techgov.intelligence.org/blog/suppressing-side-channels-in-an-untrusted-data-center-via-retrofitted-defenses
10. Hardware-Level Governance of AI Compute: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Regulatory Compliance and Treaty Verification, S. Ansari (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04712