# 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-0012,M-0024,M-0022

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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Hardware-attested weight binding | Operational use | Published attack testing | Semi-trusted | Independent red-team | Existing features | 1 / 0 / 0 | hidden | unspecified | not involved |
| Bounding unexplained information in outputs | Research demonstration | Published attack testing | Adversarial | Independent red-team | Retrofit device | 0 / 1 / 0 | depends | depends | not involved |
| Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 0 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### 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.

### Bounding unexplained information in outputs

Limits the hidden information a facility's outputs can carry by measuring how much of those outputs the declared computation fails to predict. ([Bounding unexplained information in outputs](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for bounding how much hidden information can leave in checked inference outputs.
- Security evidence: Published attack testing. 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: independent red-team. Category: Isolation & system architectures.
- What the verifier sees: model weights depends; inputs and outputs depends; training data not involved. Depends on where recomputation runs: in a sealed enclosure, or with zero-knowledge proofs, the verifier need not see the weights or the traffic.

### Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities

Shielding, filtering, jamming and inspecting an AI facility to limit hidden physical communication around monitored network links. ([Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/side-channel-suppression/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure.
- 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: 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. Shields and filters a facility; it does not handle model 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

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Bounding unexplained information in outputs
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities

**No new hardware needed**

- Hardware-attested weight binding

**Failures since mitigated**

- Launch-state attestation does not by itself cover weights loaded later (in Hardware-attested weight binding) [1][11]


## 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**

- Hardware-attested weight binding: Independent red-team
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: Independent red-team
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Analysis


## 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/) [2][3][7][8][9][10]. 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**

- Prompt-controlled entropy inflation widens the covert channel (known failure, demonstrated attack, in Bounding unexplained information in outputs; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/evidence/flaws/1/) [14][15]. Gumbel-based inference verification tolerates token choices that honest GPU nondeterminism could produce, and the size of that tolerated set grows with the model's output entropy. Kezins, an independent researcher, showed that an adversary who controls the prompt distribution can raise output entropy and roughly double the bits leaked per token. Across six models of 1 to 32 billion parameters, this cut the slowdown from 146–254 times under benign prompts to 60–118 times. Kezins argues that architectures built on the same unexplained-information bound inherit this attack surface, and recommends calibrating tolerances against local token entropy rather than benign traffic.

  Related mechanism: Deterministic and bit-exact inference (R3, not in the proposal). Bit-exact replay would remove the tolerance for numerical noise that sets the size of this channel. The record notes that it needs full hardware and software metadata.

**Scope limitations**

- 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/) [1][12]. 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.
- Information the declared computation explains is not bounded (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Bounding unexplained information in outputs; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/evidence/flaws/2/) [13][16]. The bound limits unexplained bits only. Outputs that the declared computation fully explains can still carry valuable information: a compression study notes that an adversary with inference access can extract more proprietary information per bit than naive transmission allows.
- Channels other than checked outputs are outside the bound (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Bounding unexplained information in outputs; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/evidence/flaws/3/) [14][17]. The inference-verification scheme treats side channels as out of scope. A low-trust system design argues that suppressing physical covert bandwidth below kilobits per second is much more achievable than aiming for zero, and that a malicious device can leak one bit of information by deliberately outputting a wrong result.

  Related mechanism: Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities (R1, in the proposal). Physical side channels need separate suppression, which is this mechanism's purpose.
- 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/) [18]. Cankaya notes that keeping attenuation high while passing high-power airflow, cabling and optical links adds complexity beyond existing shielded-enclosure specifications.

**Open questions**

- The facility-level design is untested (open question, open question, in Bounding unexplained information in outputs; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/bounding-unexplained-information/evidence/flaws/4/) [13]. The compute-verification architecture is described with protocol details, potential attacks and prototyping plans, but no prototype results have been published.
- 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/) [18]. 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.
- 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/) [18]. 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.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for bounding physical covert channels out of a verified enclosure


## 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.
- **Deterministic and bit-exact inference** (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for reproducing open-model inference from receipts in Gensyn's information-market service)
  - Bears on the open significant failure "Prompt-controlled entropy inflation widens the covert channel" in Bounding unexplained information in outputs. Bit-exact replay would remove the tolerance for numerical noise that sets the size of this channel. The record notes that it needs full hardware and software metadata.
  - Bounding unexplained information in outputs waits on it: Tolerance for numerical nondeterminism sets the size of the residual channel; bit-exact replay would remove it but needs full hardware and software metadata.
- **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.
- **Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization** (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for monitoring inter-node traffic with operator-run software on four GPUs)
  - Bounding unexplained information in outputs waits on it: The prover's compute must be isolated so that all traffic passes through the verifier's interlock; any unmonitored path voids the bound.
- **Sampled inference recomputation** (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for checking untrusted workers' activations against the declared model, prompt and precision)
  - Bounding unexplained information in outputs depends on it.
- **Network taps and certifiers** (Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for committing a complete record of cluster traffic, so declared inference can be checked)
  - Bounding unexplained information in outputs 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 Hardware-attested weight binding
- Sampled inference recomputation (Operational use (legacy code R3), assessed for checking untrusted workers' activations against the declared model, prompt and precision), needed by Bounding unexplained information in outputs
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization (Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for monitoring inter-node traffic with operator-run software on four GPUs), needed by Bounding unexplained information in outputs
- 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 Bounding unexplained information in outputs

**Blockers**

- Hardware-attested weight binding: Attestation that resists physical attackers, for the enclave variant. (hardware trust; waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads) [7]
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: The prover's compute must be isolated so that all traffic passes through the verifier's interlock; any unmonitored path voids the bound. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization) [13]
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: Physical side channels need separate suppression, and one design treats a low residual bandwidth, rather than zero, as the realistic target. (coverage & hidden compute; waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities) [14][17]
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: Tolerance for numerical nondeterminism sets the size of the residual channel; bit-exact replay would remove it but needs full hardware and software metadata. (protocol soundness; waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference) [15][17]
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: Recomputation over confidential weights and inputs needs a protected setting: prover recomputation in a verifier-controlled enclosure, verifier recomputation in a prover-controlled enclosure, or zero-knowledge proofs. (privacy & leakage) [13]
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: No prototype of the facility-level architecture exists to red-team. (adversarial validation) [13]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: No prototype or red-team exists; the design is a first-pass viability study. (adversarial validation) [18]
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Volume costs of TEMPEST-grade power-line filters are uncertain, because existing products are mostly made to order. (performance & compatibility) [18]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for Bounding unexplained information in outputs; hidden by Hardware-attested weight binding; not involved in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; unspecified for none.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for Bounding unexplained information in outputs; hidden by none; not involved in Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; unspecified for 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, Bounding unexplained information in outputs and Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities; unspecified for none.

## Implementations

- 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)
- Bounding unexplained information in outputs: none on the map
- 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. How Tinfoil Proves Exactly What Model Is Running, Tinfoil Team (2026). https://tinfoil.sh/blog/2026-02-03-proving-model-identity
2. PAL*M: Property Attestation for Large Generative Models, P. Chantasantitam et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16199
3. A primer on secure enclaves, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/secure-enclave-primer
4. Backend infrastructure, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/attestation-architecture
5. How verification works in Tinfoil, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/verification-in-tinfoil
6. modelwrap: Reproducible dm-verity read-only image of Huggingface models, Tinfoil (2026). https://github.com/tinfoilsh/modelwrap
7. TEE.fail: Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition, J. Chuang et al. (2026). https://tee.fail/
8. Battering RAM: Low-Cost Interposer Attacks on Confidential Computing via Dynamic Memory Aliasing, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). https://batteringram.eu/
9. RMPocalypse: How a Catch-22 Breaks AMD SEV-SNP, B. Schlüter & S. Shinde (2025). https://rmpocalypse.github.io/
10. SEV-SNP RMP Initialization Vulnerability (AMD-SB-3020), AMD (2025). https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-3020.html
11. 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
12. Attestable Audits: Verifiable AI Safety Benchmarks Using Trusted Execution Environments, C. Schnabl et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23706
13. Verifying AI Compute by Bounding Unexplained Information Exfiltration, J. Petrie & Y. Mühlhäuser (2026). https://openreview.net/forum?id=qtgG5HZSsk
14. Verifying LLM Inference to Detect Model Weight Exfiltration, R. Rinberg et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02620
15. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23375
16. Haiku to Opus in Just 10 bits: LLMs Unlock Large Compression Gains, R. Rinberg et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02343
17. 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
18. 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