# 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-0018,M-0012&tested=analysis

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.

- **Attack testing: Published analysis.** Keeps mechanisms whose strongest published attack testing is at least this. The strongest published attempt to break the mechanism for its verification use: a security analysis, red-teaming by its developers or collaborators, or a red team independent of them.

24 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 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Retrofit device | 0 / 0 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |
| Chip location verification | Proposed | Published security analysis | Adversarial | Analysis | Existing features | 0 / 4 / 0 | not involved | not involved | not involved |
| Hardware-attested weight binding | Operational use | Published attack testing | Semi-trusted | Independent red-team | Existing features | 1 / 0 / 0 | hidden | unspecified | not involved |

## Claims

No claims chosen.

## Mechanisms

### 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.

### 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.

### 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.


## 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**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities
- Chip location verification

**No new hardware needed**

- Chip location verification
- Hardware-attested weight binding

**Failures since mitigated**

- Launch-state attestation does not by itself cover weights loaded later (in Hardware-attested weight binding) [9][19]


## 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: Analysis
- Chip location verification: Analysis
- Hardware-attested weight binding: Independent red-team


## 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/) [10][11][15][16][17][18]. 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**

- 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/) [2][7]. 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/) [2][5]. 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/) [2][5]. 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/) [2][5][6]. 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.

**Scope limitations**

- 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/) [1]. Cankaya notes that keeping attenuation high while passing high-power airflow, cabling and optical links adds complexity beyond existing shielded-enclosure specifications.
- 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/) [9][20]. 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.

**Open questions**

- 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/) [1]. 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/) [1]. 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
- 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.

- **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.
- **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.
  - Chip location verification 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 Chip location verification and Hardware-attested weight binding

**Shared foundations**

- TEE remote attestation for AI workloads, relied on by Chip location verification and Hardware-attested weight binding

**Blockers**

- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: No prototype or red-team exists; the design is a first-pass viability study. (adversarial validation) [1]
- 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) [1]
- Chip location verification: No public code or reproducible end-to-end location results are available for the reported H100 prototype. (adversarial validation) [3][4]
- Chip location verification: Per-chip keys must be provisioned and protected against extraction; hardware-integrated, tamper-resistant versions still need R&D. (hardware trust) [2][7][21]
- 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) [2]
- Chip location verification: A trusted landmark network must be built and secured, and who should operate it, under what oversight, is unsettled. (access & governance) [2][5]
- Hardware-attested weight binding: Attestation that resists physical attackers, for the enclave variant. (hardware trust; waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads) [15]


## What the verifier sees

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

## 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)
- Chip location verification: [Lucid sovereignty (location) certificates](https://trustbutveri.fyi/implementations/lucid-location-certificates/) (R1, standard)
- 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)

## Sources

1. 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
2. Location Verification for AI Chips, A. Brass & O. Aarne (2024). https://www.iaps.ai/research/location-verification-for-ai-chips
3. Location Verification for AI Chips (issue brief), A. Brass (2025). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64edf8e7f2b10d716b5ba0e1/t/6827b67275666f3757f134ea/1747433075281/Location+Verification+two-pager.pdf
4. Ping-based Location, Ulyssean (2025). https://ping-location.info/
5. 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
6. Sovereignty Certificates: draft specification, version 0.1.0, Sovereignty Certificates Working Group (2025). https://github.com/Lucid-Computing/sovereignty-certificate-specification
7. GPU Fingerprinting for Location Verification, W. Tee & J. Happel (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01930
8. 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
9. How Tinfoil Proves Exactly What Model Is Running, Tinfoil Team (2026). https://tinfoil.sh/blog/2026-02-03-proving-model-identity
10. PAL*M: Property Attestation for Large Generative Models, P. Chantasantitam et al. (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16199
11. A primer on secure enclaves, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/secure-enclave-primer
12. Backend infrastructure, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/attestation-architecture
13. How verification works in Tinfoil, Tinfoil (2026). https://docs.tinfoil.sh/verification/verification-in-tinfoil
14. modelwrap: Reproducible dm-verity read-only image of Huggingface models, Tinfoil (2026). https://github.com/tinfoilsh/modelwrap
15. TEE.fail: Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition, J. Chuang et al. (2026). https://tee.fail/
16. Battering RAM: Low-Cost Interposer Attacks on Confidential Computing via Dynamic Memory Aliasing, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). https://batteringram.eu/
17. RMPocalypse: How a Catch-22 Breaks AMD SEV-SNP, B. Schlüter & S. Shinde (2025). https://rmpocalypse.github.io/
18. SEV-SNP RMP Initialization Vulnerability (AMD-SB-3020), AMD (2025). https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-3020.html
19. 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
20. Attestable Audits: Verifiable AI Safety Benchmarks Using Trusted Execution Environments, C. Schnabl et al. (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23706
21. Hardware-Level Governance of AI Compute: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Regulatory Compliance and Treaty Verification, S. Ansari (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04712