# 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-0010,M-0017&ready=R2

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.

- **Minimum development status: Research demonstration.** Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one. A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws.

15 of 25 mechanisms on the map pass these filters.

## 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 (excluded by the filters) | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Existing features | 0 / 4 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |
| On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters | Research demonstration | Published attack testing | Semi-trusted | Red-teamed | Existing features | 0 / 2 / 0 | depends | depends | depends |
| Tamper evidence for verifier devices | Research demonstration | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 2 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |

## 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.
- Development: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for bounding how far a chip is from trusted landmark servers when checked.
- 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: 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.
- Filter conflict: Development status: Proposed. Minimum: Research demonstration.

### On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters

Uses on-chip measurements, such as task timings, whether data sits in chip memory, and performance counters, as evidence of what AI chips are running. ([On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/on-chip-telemetry/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for workload evidence from GPU counters and timing, assuming authentic measurements.
- 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: partial. Attack testing: red-teamed. Category: On-chip & hardware-enabled.
- What the verifier sees: model weights depends; inputs and outputs depends; training data depends. Counters do not read weights or data, but richer counters can leak secrets through side channels.

### Tamper evidence for verifier devices

Enclosures, seals and sensors that make physical interference with verification hardware visible, or that destroy the hardware's secrets when tampering occurs. ([Tamper evidence for verifier devices](https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/))

- Assessment: mechanism family.
- Development: Research demonstration (legacy code R2), assessed for detecting probing of proposed verifier hardware, using server and electronics prototypes as evidence.
- 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. Protects verifier devices; it does not handle model data.


## Properties

**Built for an adversarial prover**

- Tamper evidence for verifier devices

**No new hardware needed**

- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters

Not counted as properties, because the filters exclude them: Chip location verification.


## 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: Analysis (excluded by filters)
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters: Red-teamed
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: Analysis


## Limits

**Excluded by the filters**

- Chip location verification: Development status: Proposed. Minimum: Research demonstration.

**Open significant failures**

- 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/) [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 (known failure, demonstrated attack, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/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 (known failure, theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/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 (known failure, theoretical argument, in Chip location verification; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/chip-location-verification/evidence/flaws/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.
- Adversarially disguised fine-tuning partly evades classification (known failure, demonstrated attack, in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/on-chip-telemetry/evidence/flaws/2/) [10]. Across 20 evasion strategy families in five monitor-evader rounds, the classifier's accuracy against the most challenging disguised workloads held out from training was 43–87%. White-box LoRA fine-tuning was the only evasion family detected less than half the time. The evaluation covered single nodes, PyTorch-level evasion and NVIDIA hardware.
- Counters leak information about protected workloads (known failure, theoretical argument, in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/on-chip-telemetry/evidence/flaws/4/) [11][12]. Performance counters have been used as a side channel against TEEs, for example in CounterSEVeillance. NVIDIA disables performance counters in full confidential-computing mode, stating that they could provide an avenue for side-channel attacks. Richer counters for verification therefore pull against confidentiality.
- Seals are often defeated with simple methods (known failure, demonstrated attack, in Tamper evidence for verifier devices; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/evidence/flaws/1/) [20][21]. 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.
- Attack classes outside published models (known failure, open question, in Tamper evidence for verifier devices; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/evidence/flaws/3/) [13][14][22]. 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.

**Scope limitations**

- Software-read telemetry can be forged by the operator (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/on-chip-telemetry/evidence/flaws/1/) [8][10]. NVML-based classification assumes trustworthy telemetry. Without a tamper-resistant read path, an authenticated telemetry channel and secure boot of the monitoring software, an operator who controls the full software stack could forge counter values. Monfared et al. start from the same premise: current GPUs expose little trusted telemetry and can be modified or virtualized.

  Related mechanism: Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors (R1, not in the proposal). A guarantee processor on the chip would give the tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path the flaw says is missing.
- Timing challenges do not identify the individual chip (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/on-chip-telemetry/evidence/flaws/3/) [8]. GEMM and VDF challenges can be answered by identical GPUs elsewhere, and floating-point fingerprints distinguish GPU models, not individual devices. GPU virtualization adds timing leakage that prevents attributing compute use.
- Security depends on inspection protocols (scope limitation, theoretical argument, in Tamper evidence for verifier devices; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/tamper-evidence-for-verifier-devices/evidence/flaws/2/) [18][21]. 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.

**Open questions**

- No quantified error rates or formal thresholds for timing primitives (open question, open question, in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters; https://trustbutveri.fyi/mechanisms/on-chip-telemetry/evidence/flaws/5/) [8]. Monfared et al. state that false-positive and false-negative rates are not quantified and leave hardware-specific formal thresholds to future work.

**Not yet demonstrated**

- Chip location verification: Proposed (legacy code R1), assessed for bounding how far a chip is from trusted landmark servers when checked


## 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.

- **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)
  - Chip location verification depends on it.
  - On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters depends on it.
- **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). Excluded by the filters: development: Proposed
  - On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters waits on it: Shipping accelerators need a tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path.


## 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 On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters

**Shared foundations**

- TEE remote attestation for AI workloads, relied on by Chip location verification and On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters

**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][23]
- 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]
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters: Shipping accelerators need a tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path. (hardware trust; waits on Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors) [9][10]
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters: NVIDIA's full confidential-computing mode disables the hardware performance counters its profiling tools use, so telemetry that needs them conflicts with it. (privacy & leakage) [11][12]
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters: Continuous challenge puzzles cost power and throughput on production workloads. (performance & compatibility) [8]
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters: Evaluation has not gone beyond single nodes, framework-level evasion and one vendor's hardware. (adversarial validation) [10]
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: No tamper-evident enclosure has been designed for AI verifier hardware at retrofit scale. (hardware trust) [19]
- 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) [14]
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: Active monitoring needs power, and visual inspection of large enclosures faces access limits. (access & governance) [18]
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices: No evaluation has been published in the AI verification setting. (adversarial validation) [19]


## What the verifier sees

- Model weights: shown by none; depends on the design for On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters; hidden by none; not involved in Chip location verification and Tamper evidence for verifier devices; unspecified for none.
- Inputs and outputs: shown by none; depends on the design for On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters; hidden by none; not involved in Chip location verification and Tamper evidence for verifier devices; unspecified for none.
- Training data: shown by none; depends on the design for On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters; hidden by none; not involved in Chip location verification and Tamper evidence for verifier devices; unspecified for none.

## Implementations

- Chip location verification: [Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/) (R1, standard)
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters: none on the map
- 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. 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. Timing and Memory Telemetry on GPUs for AI Governance, S. K. Monfared et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09369
9. Guaranteeable Memory: An HBM-Based Chiplet for Verifiable AI Workloads, J. Petrie (2025). https://openreview.net/forum?id=uc79kOv0MV
10. Detecting Hidden ML Training With Zero-Overhead Telemetry, R. Rahman & S. Tajdari (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19262
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. NVIDIA Secure AI with Blackwell and Hopper GPUs (White Paper), NVIDIA (2025). https://docs.nvidia.com/nvidia-secure-ai-with-blackwell-and-hopper-gpus-whitepaper.pdf
13. Anti-Tamper Radio: System-Level Tamper Detection for Computing Systems, P. Staat et al. (2022). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9833631/
14. Secure Physical Enclosures from Covers with Tamper-Resistance, V. Immler et al. (2019). https://tches.iacr.org/index.php/TCHES/article/view/7334
15. ImpedanceVerif: On-Chip Impedance Sensing for System-Level Tampering Detection, T. Mosavirik et al. (2023). https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/946
16. 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
17. PHYSEC SEAL: Change detection for maximum safety, PHYSEC GmbH (2026). https://www.physec.de/en/solutions/physec-seal/
18. Tamper-Indicating Enclosures, A Current Survey, H. A. Smartt & Z. N. Gastelum (2015). https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1256541
19. 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
20. Physical Security and Tamper-Indicating Devices, R. G. Johnston & A. R. E. Garcia (1996). https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/459707
21. 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
22. Anti-Tamper Radio Meets Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface for System-Level Tamper Detection, M. S. Tabar et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14279
23. Hardware-Level Governance of AI Compute: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Regulatory Compliance and Treaty Verification, S. Ansari (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04712