# 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-0022,M-0015&implementations=M-0022:I-0012

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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities / Low-trust AI compute verification system overview | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 0 / 1 | unspecified | unspecified | unspecified |
| Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | None | 0 / 1 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities

A reference design that existing data centres could add: network taps hash all traffic, and air-gapped, independently sourced checkers later re-run randomly chosen records. ([Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/))

- Assessment: selected implementation [Low-trust AI compute verification system overview](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/).
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for screening challenged records to show declared inference compute is not training.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial 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.

### Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure

Overwriting a device's memory in a way a verifier can check, so that data from earlier, undeclared work cannot persist in memory the wipe reaches. ([Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for showing that no data from earlier work persists in memory the wipe reaches.
- Security evidence: Published security analysis. Independent evaluation: unassessed. Formal proof: unassessed. Deployment assurance: unassessed.
- Claims in this proposal: none of them.
- Threat model: adversarial prover. Hardware: none. Prover cooperation: required. Attack testing: analysis. Category: Isolation & system architectures.
- What the verifier sees: model weights not involved; inputs and outputs not involved; training data not involved. Overwrites memory with verifier-chosen data; it does not handle model data.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure

**No new hardware needed**

- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure


## 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**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities / Low-trust AI compute verification system overview: Analysis
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Analysis


## Limits

**Open significant failures**

- Outside help during challenges (known failure, theoretical argument, in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/evidence/flaws/2/) [1][6]. Classic proofs of secure erasure assume the device is isolated during the protocol. Bursuc et al. relax this to a bound on how close a helper can be, enforced by round-trip times. In data centres, remote memory access has round trips of about 1–2 µs, against about 70–200 ns for local DRAM. The MIRI overview therefore says verification depends on ruling out RDMA by latency or physical disconnection.

  Related mechanism: Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges (R2, not in the proposal). Timed challenges bound how far away a helper can be by how quickly it must answer.

  Related mechanism: Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization (R2, not in the proposal). Removing or capping links between groups of accelerators limits remote memory access during a challenge.

**Family finding context**

- Context for Low-trust AI compute verification system overview. 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. Supply-chain implants may evade inspection (open question, theoretical argument, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/evidence/flaws/1/) [3]. 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 Low-trust AI compute verification system overview. 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. Openings for airflow, power and optics weaken shielding (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/evidence/flaws/2/) [3]. Cankaya notes that keeping attenuation high while passing high-power airflow, cabling and optical links adds complexity beyond existing shielded-enclosure specifications.
- Context for Low-trust AI compute verification system overview. 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. Inspection assumptions may not hold (open question, open question, in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/evidence/flaws/3/) [3]. 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 failures**

- Deliberate faults leak a bit each (known failure, theoretical argument, in Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/evidence/flaws/2/) [1]. A malicious device can leak one bit by deliberately outputting a wrong result, which blocks a disclosure when the cross-comparison fails. The design therefore needs a pre-agreed budget of tolerated faults.

**Scope limitations**

- Mismatches cannot be attributed to cheating or error (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/evidence/flaws/1/) [1]. A failed hash or replay does not show whether it came from an evasion attempt, a random bit flip or an evaluation error. The author notes that if detected anomalies can plausibly be waved off as malfunctions, deterrence becomes less effective, so the parties need an agreed escalation procedure that ends in attribution.
- Memory the wipe cannot reach (scope limitation, open question, in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/evidence/flaws/1/) [7][8]. Amodo's inventory of a GB200 system lists many memory stores beyond GPU HBM and host DRAM. It notes that SSD controller DRAM sits on a private bus that host commands cannot read or write, and that its optimized algorithm leaves 25 GiB of HBM unattested. It also asks how switch memory could be wiped.
- Gap between erased and total memory (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/memory-wiping-and-secure-erasure/evidence/flaws/3/) [6]. Bursuc et al. note that memory left between the erased region and the device's full memory could hold data, and that their bounds are tighter only against a restricted adversary.

**Open questions**

- Inspector agents may be manipulable (open question, open question, in Low-trust AI compute verification system overview; https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/low-trust-compute-verification-system-overview/evidence/flaws/3/) [1]. Automated compliance screening with LLM-based inspector agents must resist prompt-injection attacks. Adversarially trained systems might hide malicious actions with steganography, which makes backdoor detection an open problem.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for screening challenged records to show declared inference compute is not training
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for showing that no data from earlier work persists in memory the wipe reaches


## 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.

- **Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for monitoring inter-node traffic with operator-run software on four GPUs)
  - Bears on the open significant failure "Outside help during challenges" in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure. Removing or capping links between groups of accelerators limits remote memory access during a challenge.
- **Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting whether a GPU is doing other work)
  - Bears on the open significant failure "Outside help during challenges" in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure. Timed challenges bound how far away a helper can be by how quickly it must answer.
  - Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities waits on it: Distinguishing one server's DRAM contents from another's by challenge-response timing, and a general challenge-response protocol for diverse data types, are open.
  - Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure waits on it: Timed challenges must exclude remote memory and other helpers.
- **Deterministic and bit-exact inference** (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service)
  - Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities waits on it: Exact replay needs complete hardware and software metadata, and the tolerable slowdown from emulation is an open question.
- **Tamper evidence for verifier devices** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence)
  - Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities waits on it: Tamper-evident, rapidly mass-manufacturable and retrofittable enclosures for side-channel defence are an open research question, and physical security against covert communication in every monitored data centre is challenging.
- **Network taps and certifiers** (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked)
  - Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities waits on it: Empirical feasibility of passive optical splitting at 53–112 GBaud under realistic conditions is an open question.


## Dependencies

**Missing prerequisites**

- Network taps and certifiers (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked), needed by Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- Deterministic and bit-exact inference (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service), needed by Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting whether a GPU is doing other work), needed by Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure

**Shared foundations**

- Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges, relied on by Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities and Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure

**Blockers**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Empirical feasibility of passive optical splitting at 53–112 GBaud under realistic conditions is an open question. (performance & compatibility; waits on Network taps and certifiers) [1]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Exact replay needs complete hardware and software metadata, and the tolerable slowdown from emulation is an open question. (performance & compatibility; waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference) [1]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Tamper-evident, rapidly mass-manufacturable and retrofittable enclosures for side-channel defence are an open research question, and physical security against covert communication in every monitored data centre is challenging. (hardware trust; waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices) [1]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: A mass-manufacturable, good-enough side-channel defence, particularly power-line filtering, has not been constructed or red-teamed. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities) [1]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Distinguishing one server's DRAM contents from another's by challenge-response timing, and a general challenge-response protocol for diverse data types, are open. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges) [1]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: The threat model is under-developed and needs input from cybersecurity and AI threat-modelling experts. (adversarial validation) [1]
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Wipes take time: tens of minutes for a pod's volatile memory and hours for SSDs, displacing work. (performance & compatibility) [1][7][8]
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: Timed challenges must exclude remote memory and other helpers. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Timed challenge-response and memory-occupation challenges) [1][6]
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: All memory stores in a system must be inventoried and wiped at the same time. (coverage & hidden compute) [7]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for none; hidden by none; not involved in Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; 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 Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; 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 Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure; 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)
- Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure: [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)

## Sources

1. 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
2. Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10724
3. 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
4. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). https://ai-2040.com/supplements/verification-plan
5. Secure Code Update for Embedded Devices via Proofs of Secure Erasure, D. Perito & G. Tsudik (2010). https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-15497-3_39
6. Software-Based Memory Erasure with Relaxed Isolation Requirements, S. Bursuc et al. (2024). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10664348/
7. Memory Wipes - Performance Analysis, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-07-01-memory-wiping/
8. Improving Disk Wiping Speed for Memory Wipes, Amodo Design (2026). https://amododesign.com/notes/2026-09-14-disk-wiping-speed/
9. Amodo-Design/PoSE-Memory-Wiping (GitHub repository), Amodo Design (2026). https://github.com/Amodo-Design/PoSE-Memory-Wiping
10. Empirical Evaluation of Memory-Erasure Protocols, R. Gil-Pons et al. (2025). https://www.scitepress.org/Papers/2025/135548/135548.pdf