# 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-0022,M-0017&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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 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 |
| Tamper evidence for verifier devices | R2 | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 3 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### 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.

### Tamper evidence for verifier devices

Enclosures, seals and sensors that make physical interference with verification hardware either visible or self-defeating. ([Tamper evidence for verifier devices](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Readiness: R2 Demonstrated, assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: retrofit device. Prover cooperation: partial. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Off-chip devices & sensors.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Protects verifier devices; it does not handle model data.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Tamper evidence for verifier devices


## 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**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities / RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design: Analysis
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant flaws**

- 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) [1]. 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.
- Seals are often defeated with simple methods (demonstrated attack, in Tamper evidence for verifier devices; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/#flaw-1) [10][11]. Mechanism-class evidence. Published defeats of general security seals. They warn about proposed verifier-device seals, but do not demonstrate defeat of an AI verification enclosure or sensor. In 1996 a Los Alamos vulnerability assessment defeated all 94 security seals it examined, with 132 defeats in total, using rapid, inexpensive, low-tech methods. It found that seal cost did not predict security. In 2001 Johnston reported that high-tech seals are often easier to defeat than low-tech ones.
- Security depends on inspection protocols (theoretical argument, in Tamper evidence for verifier devices; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/#flaw-2) [8][11]. Mechanism-class evidence. An inspection and protocol requirement drawn from safeguards and enclosure studies, not a reported break of a deployed AI verifier. Johnston argues that a seal is no better than the protocols for using it, and that inspectors are usually given little useful information on how to detect tampering. The Sandia survey notes that larger enclosures are hard to inspect fully and that sensor data must be authenticated.
- Attack classes outside published models (open question, in Tamper evidence for verifier devices; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/#flaw-3) [3][4][12]. Mechanism-class evidence. The radio compensation result is emulated using measured channel data under a known-reference attacker model. It is not a physical bypass demonstration against an AI verifier enclosure. The authors of the batteryless cover say they cannot assess chemical-solvent attacks, which exceed their expertise, and deem cover removal impractical. Anti-Tamper Radio's reference can drift as the environment or measurement system ages; the authors suggest gradually renewing the reference. A 2025 follow-up by some of the same authors shows, by emulation on measured channel data, that an attacker who knows the reference channel and the needle's effect on it could inject a signal that cancels the change caused by a needle insertion. It proposes a reconfigurable intelligent surface that randomizes the channel as a countermeasure.

**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) [2]. 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) [2]. 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) [2]. 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) [1]. 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**

- 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.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- 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**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: No prototype exists; RAND recommends prototyping key security features and integration now. (adversarial validation) [1]
- 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) [1]
- 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) [1]
- 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) [1]
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: No tamper-evident enclosure has been designed for AI verifier hardware at retrofit scale. (hardware trust) [9]
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: Battery-backed designs add bulk, limit operating temperature (+10 °C to +35 °C for the IBM 4765) and complicate transport. (performance & compatibility) [4]
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: Active monitoring needs power, and visual inspection of large enclosures faces access limits. (access & governance) [8]
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: No evaluation has been published in the AI verification setting. (adversarial validation) [9]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Tamper evidence for verifier devices; 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 Tamper evidence for verifier devices; 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 Tamper evidence for verifier devices; unspecified for Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities.

## Implementations

- 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)
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: [AI 2040 inference-only verification stack](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/ai-2040-inference-only-verification-plan/) (R1, proposed architecture)

## Sources

1. 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
2. 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
3. Anti-Tamper Radio: System-Level Tamper Detection for Computing Systems, P. Staat et al. (2022). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9833631/
4. Secure Physical Enclosures from Covers with Tamper-Resistance, V. Immler et al. (2019). https://tches.iacr.org/index.php/TCHES/article/view/7334
5. ImpedanceVerif: On-Chip Impedance Sensing for System-Level Tampering Detection, T. Mosavirik et al. (2023). https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/946
6. IBM 4765 Cryptographic Coprocessor Security Module: Security Policy, IBM Corporation (2012). https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/documents/security-policies/140sp1505.pdf
7. PHYSEC SEAL: Change detection for maximum safety, PHYSEC GmbH (2026). https://www.physec.de/en/solutions/physec-seal/
8. Tamper-Indicating Enclosures, A Current Survey, H. A. Smartt & Z. N. Gastelum (2015). https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1256541
9. A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). https://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/A-system-overview-for-near-term-low-trust-AI-compute-verification.pdf
10. Physical Security and Tamper-Indicating Devices, R. G. Johnston & A. R. E. Garcia (1996). https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/459707
11. Tamper Detection for Safeguards and Treaty Monitoring: Fantasies, Realities, and Potentials, R. G. Johnston (2001). https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/81john.pdf
12. Anti-Tamper Radio Meets Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface for System-Level Tamper Detection, M. S. Tabar et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14279