Proposal Explorer
ResetA verification proposal from the AI Verification Tech Map, from its records of 2026-10-09. https://trustbutveri.fyi/explorer/?mechanisms=M-0013,M-0010,M-0014&implementations=M-0014:I-0011
Analysis
Applied filters: none. Every filter is set to Any.
Overview
| Mechanism | Development | Security evidence | Open failures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Network taps and certifiers | Proposed | Published security analysis | 2 significant |
| On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters | Research demo | Published attack testing | 2 significant |
| Bandwidth limits and compartmentalizationAI 2040 inference-only verification stack | Proposed | No published adversarial analysis recorded | 1 significantFamily context below |
- Open failures: n critical n significant n minor
Claim coverageNo claims yet
Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.
Properties2 built for an adversarial prover
- Built for an adversarial prover
- Network taps and certifiers and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
- No new hardware needed
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
- Failures since mitigated
- Verifier dictionary attacks on hashes in Network taps and certifiers 1
Attack testing2 mechanisms with published 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.
Limits1 family with findings to check · 7 scope limitations · 1 open question · 2 not yet demonstrated · 3 mechanisms with open significant failures
- Family findings
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
Context for AI 2040 inference-only verification stack. 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.
Low-communication training reduces the bandwidth training needs in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
DiLoCo matched fully synchronous training on 8 workers while communicating 500 times less. Rahman writes that this family of methods theoretically allows large-scale training with less than 100 Mbps. Lucid includes these methods in its bounds, but notes that extreme activation compression, architectures with unusually small inter-layer widths, or modular paradigms could erode the margin. 20 21 22
Open question · Theoretical argument. On the record
Operator control of pod routing collapses the bound in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
Lucid's analysis finds that if the operator can freely assign pods to routers, it could dedicate a whole cell of 100 or more pods to one pipeline stage. The bound then falls to about 90–220x uncompressed and as low as about 25x with compression. The proposed mitigation, auditor-controlled random assignment that is periodically re-randomized, has not been implemented. 22
Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Undeclared local storage raises per-pod capacity in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
More memory or storage per pod helps an adversary. Lucid requires per-pod storage to be declared, capped and physically inspected. 22
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
Training within one pod is not covered in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
Lucid's bounds concern pre-training models larger than the pods are sized for. Training models that fit in one pod, fine-tuning and reinforcement-learning post-training within one pod are outside the modelled threat. 22
Scope limitation · Open question. On the record
Parallel scale-up switches are hard enforcement points in Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
In GB200 topologies, GPUs reach GPUs in other nodes through NVSwitches without a NIC on the path. Amodo notes that limits are hard to enforce there because many switches work in parallel, so compromising one or two would bypass the limit. 23
Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
- Open significant failures
5 failures in 3 mechanisms
Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity in Network taps and certifiers
Hashing cannot remove information hidden in the outputs themselves. The Secure Gateway Device paper estimates that about 0.1 bit per token remains even with seed-synchronized replay checks. For a 200k-GPU inference cluster at full load (2,000 tokens per GPU per second), that is about 40 Mbit/s of covert egress, enough to move a 1 TB model in under three days. The paper names this the core remaining challenge and points to deterministic replay or active scrubbing of hardware-induced entropy. An independent study found that an adversary who chooses the prompts roughly doubles the bits leaked per token under Gumbel-based inference verification; see Bounding unexplained information in outputs. 1 9
Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Related mechanism Operational use Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Deterministic replay is one of the two remedies the flaw's source names. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
Related mechanism Research demo Bounding unexplained information in outputs: Bounds the hidden information outputs can carry by measuring what the declared computation fails to predict. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
Residual side channels in simple passive setups in Network taps and certifiers
Amodo's analysis of its own tapped prototype lists unvalidated header fields, timing of permitted traffic and variation in response formatting as residual channels, and concludes that the passive tap must be replaced by an active one. 5
Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
Adversarially disguised fine-tuning partly evades classification in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
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. 13
Known failure · Demonstrated attack · Significant · Open. On the record
Counters leak information about protected workloads in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
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. 14 15
Known failure · Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record
A recomputation family degrades against prompt-controlling adversaries in AI 2040 inference-only verification stack
The plan's companion page names DiFR among the recomputation schemes being tested. An independent study found that Gumbel-based inference verification, the family that includes Token-DiFR, leaks roughly twice as many bits per token when the adversary chooses prompts that disrupt the text's structure, across six models of 1 to 32 billion parameters. The slowdown it imposes on a hidden-signalling adversary falls from 146–254 times under benign prompts to 60–118 times. The attack weakens the bound on hidden information in outputs, which the plan relies on to keep undeclared results from leaving. 4 9 16 19
Known failure · Demonstrated attack · Significant · Open. On the record
- Scope limitations
Some links cannot be passively tapped in Network taps and certifiers
Cankaya notes that copper-connected scale-up domains (for example NVL72 racks and TPU v7 cubes) are much harder to tap than fibre, and that optical budgets make passive taps impractical on 400GBASE-SR8 multimode links. Amodo found no taps advertised for 53 GBaud links as of May 2026. 2 10
Scope limitation · Open question. On the record
Encrypted fabrics hide plaintext from both parties in Network taps and certifiers
Cankaya notes that with TEE-protected sessions whose keys are ephemeral and managed inside the TEE, neither the operator nor the manufacturer can recover session keys after the session, so tapped traffic could not be opened for recomputation. For other encrypted fabrics, the operator can retain keys. 2
Scope limitation · Open question. On the record
Completeness rests on physical monitoring left out of scope in Network taps and certifiers
The Secure Gateway Device paper assumes the facility is physically monitored, and states that the whole architecture depends on the device being the only communication channel. It names radio emanation, power-line signalling and thermal channels as covert channels beyond that scope. 1
Scope limitation · Open question. On the record
Related mechanism Proposed Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities: Addresses the radio, power-line and thermal channels that network-level designs leave out. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
Software-read telemetry can be forged by the operator in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
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. 11 13
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
Related mechanism Proposed Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors: A guarantee processor on the chip would give the tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path the flaw says is missing. A pointer, not evidence that this failure is mitigated. Add
Timing challenges do not identify the individual chip in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
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. 11
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
The recomputation server must be trusted in AI 2040 inference-only verification stack
The plan calls the integrity of the recomputation server an extremely important aspect, and its argument that sampling verifies all outputs assumes that the server's computations and outputs can be trusted. The companion page notes that the server sits inside the prover's facility, possibly under the prover's physical control, and that hardening it against integrity attacks needs significant research. Amodo rates recomputation-server security as not on track. 4 16 18
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
Spare compute is not verified in AI 2040 inference-only verification stack
The plan states that it does not verify that spare compute is unused for unapproved workloads, because this seems very challenging. It relies instead on side-channel bounds and memory wipes, so that the only results that persist are verified inference outputs. 4
Scope limitation · Theoretical argument. On the record
- Open questions
No quantified error rates or formal thresholds for timing primitives in On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
Monfared et al. state that false-positive and false-negative rates are not quantified and leave hardware-specific formal thresholds to future work. 11
Open question · Open question. On the record
- Not yet demonstrated
- Proposed Network taps and certifiers and Proposed Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
Possible additions2 for open failures · 8 for dependencies
Mechanisms on the map that are not in the proposal. Pointers, not recommendations.
-
- Bears on the open significant failure “Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity” in Network taps and certifiers. Deterministic replay is one of the two remedies the flaw's source names.
- Network taps and certifiers waits on it. Nondeterministic inference leaves covert capacity in outputs that hashing cannot remove.
-
- Bears on the open significant failure “Output nondeterminism leaves covert capacity” in Network taps and certifiers. Bounds the hidden information outputs can carry by measuring what the declared computation fails to predict.
-
- Network taps and certifiers waits on it. Taps and gateway devices need tamper-evident housing and physical monitoring so that traffic cannot bypass them.
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization waits on it. Checking that taps are correctly installed and stay in place at scale is not a solved problem, and hardening the recomputation server inside the prover's facility needs significant research.
-
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters waits on it. Shipping accelerators need a tamper-resistant, authenticated telemetry path.
-
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization waits on it. Memory wiping may use existing algorithms, but hardware testing is at an early stage.
-
- Network taps and certifiers waits on it. Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs.
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization waits on it. There is no plan yet for quickly scaling side-channel defences on a frontier cluster; only early theoretical pieces exist.
-
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization waits on it. A fully reproducible inference stack needs substantial software and tooling, and per-packet network reproducibility may need considerable software, firmware and possibly hardware work.
-
- Network taps and certifiers depends on it.
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization depends on it.
-
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters depends on it.
Dependencies6 missing prerequisites · 3 shared foundations · 15 blockers
- Missing prerequisites
- Operational use Sampled inference recomputation needed by Network taps and certifiers and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization Add
- Operational use Deterministic and bit-exact inference needed by Network taps and certifiers Add
- Research demo Tamper evidence for verifier devices needed by Network taps and certifiers Add
- Proposed Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities needed by Network taps and certifiers Add
- Operational use TEE remote attestation for AI workloads needed by On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters Add
- Proposed Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets) needed by Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization Add
- Shared foundations
- Sampled inference recomputation relied on by Network taps and certifiers and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
- Tamper evidence for verifier devices relied on by Network taps and certifiers and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
- Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities relied on by Network taps and certifiers and Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
- Blockers
15 blockers recorded
- Network taps and certifiers
- No complete verification tap has been demonstrated at production frontend link rates, and on the tested CPU no hash algorithm reached line rate with minimum-size frames. Performance & compatibility 10 24
- Nondeterministic inference leaves covert capacity in outputs that hashing cannot remove. Evidence binding. Waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference 1
- Taps and gateway devices need tamper-evident housing and physical monitoring so that traffic cannot bypass them. Hardware trust. Waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices 1 3
- Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities 1
- Red-teaming by specialists is called for but has not been reported. Adversarial validation 1
- 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 12 13
- 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 14 15
- Continuous challenge puzzles cost power and throughput on production workloads. Performance & compatibility 11
- Evaluation has not gone beyond single nodes, framework-level evasion and one vendor's hardware. Adversarial validation 13
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
- A fully reproducible inference stack needs substantial software and tooling, and per-packet network reproducibility may need considerable software, firmware and possibly hardware work. Performance & compatibility. Waits on Whole-workload recomputation (reproducible packets) 16
- Passive optical taps work at 400G, but the 800G and 1600G line rates now arriving in data centres are undemonstrated. Performance & compatibility. Waits on Network taps and certifiers 16
- Checking that taps are correctly installed and stay in place at scale is not a solved problem, and hardening the recomputation server inside the prover's facility needs significant research. Hardware trust. Waits on Tamper evidence for verifier devices 16 18
- There is no plan yet for quickly scaling side-channel defences on a frontier cluster; only early theoretical pieces exist. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities 16
- Memory wiping may use existing algorithms, but hardware testing is at an early stage. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Memory wiping and proofs of secure erasure 16
- Robust red-teaming of recomputation schemes has not started, and most algorithm development remains academic. Adversarial validation 16 18
- Network taps and certifiers
What the verifier sees1 unspecified · 2 depend on design
From the family or selected implementation's record.
- Model weights
Depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers and On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters.
Unspecified for Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization. Check the implementation record.
- Inputs and outputs
Depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers and On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters.
Unspecified for Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization. Check the implementation record.
- Training data
Depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers and On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters.
Unspecified for Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization. Check the implementation record.
Exposure notes
- Network taps and certifiers: Only hashes leave the site; records picked for a challenge are opened for replay at a verification facility.
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters: Counters do not read weights or data, but richer counters can leak secrets through side channels.
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization, AI 2040 inference-only verification stack: This Explorer has no asset-specific exposure assessment for this implementation. Check its source and deployment assumptions.
Implementations4 systems
- Network taps and certifiers
- Proposed AI 2040 inference-only verification stack Proposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- Proposed Low-trust AI compute verification system overview Proposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- Proposed SASH confidential network logger Research prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH)
- On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters
- None on the map
- Bandwidth limits and compartmentalization
- Proposed AI 2040 inference-only verification stack Proposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- Proposed RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design Proposed architecture, RAND
Sources24 cited
- Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). Original
- The Fundamentals and Feasibility of Secure Network Taps for Verifying AI Datacenter Use, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
- A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
- Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). Original
- Fitting a Network TAP to our Inference Verification Prototype, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Amodo-Design/Inference-Recomputation-Prototype (GitHub repository), Amodo Design (2026). Original
- inference-verification: Inference Verification Prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). Original
- Internationalising AI Verification, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). Original
- Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). Original
- Network Tapping for AI Verification: A Technical Assessment, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Timing and Memory Telemetry on GPUs for AI Governance, S. K. Monfared et al. (2026). Original
- Guaranteeable Memory: An HBM-Based Chiplet for Verifiable AI Workloads, J. Petrie (2025). Original
- Detecting Hidden ML Training With Zero-Overhead Telemetry, R. Rahman & S. Tajdari (2026). Original
- On TEEs for Privacy-Preserving Monitoring in AI Governance, Gloria Z (2026). Original
- NVIDIA Secure AI with Blackwell and Hopper GPUs (White Paper), NVIDIA (2025). Original
- Get Involved in Verification, AI Futures Project (2026). Original
- Verifying international AI deals: Plan A, the state-of-play, and what you can do to help, T. Milton et al. (2026). Original
- AI 2040 Plan A — Verification SITREP, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Verifying LLM Inference to Detect Model Weight Exfiltration, R. Rinberg et al. (2025). Original
- DiLoCo: Distributed Low-Communication Training of Language Models, A. Douillard et al. (2024). Original
- Does Distributed Training Undermine Compute Governance?, R. Rahman (2026). Original
- Traffic Shaping for Workload Classification, Lucid Computing (2026). Original
- The Tray as a Bandwidth Boundary, Amodo Design (2026). Original
- Network Traffic Hashing, Amodo Design (2026). Original
Share the link to this proposal. This proposal is also available as plain text and JSON.
Filter mechanisms
Filters apply to mechanisms only. They describe the setting a proposal is for, and all are off by default. A mechanism that a filter rules out is flagged and does not count towards claim coverage. Selected implementations use their own record fields. A match means not excluded; conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note. Passing a filter does not establish that the assumptions hold in a deployment.
All 25 mechanisms match.
Prover
How far can the party being checked be trusted?
The prover is the party being checked. Semi-trusted designs rely on part of its stack: usually the chip vendor's hardware root of trust, its firmware or counters, or its supply-chain records. Adversarial designs aim to hold even if it cheats wherever the checks allow, within their stated assumptions.
Keeps mechanisms whose threat model holds against at least this prover. Adversarial is the strongest assumption. Definitions
Verifier devices on site
May the verifier install its own hardware at the prover's sites?
Some mechanisms need a device the verifier owns or trusts at the prover's facility, such as a network tap, a bandwidth limiter or a sealed sensor. Choose Not allowed when the setting rules that out. Inspectors are not covered.
"Not allowed" removes mechanisms that need a retrofit device, such as a network tap or a sealed sensor. Definitions
Prover cooperation
How much must the prover take part?
Required: the prover takes part, for example by logging requests, producing proofs or opening records. Partial: some access, such as installing a device. Not required: works from outside, such as satellite imagery.
"Partial at most" removes mechanisms that need the prover's active participation. "Not required" keeps only those that work without it. Definitions
Chips
May the proposal depend on new chip designs?
New chip features take years to reach a deployed fleet and cover only chips made after they ship. Mechanisms that use shipping features, such as trusted execution environments or performance counters, stay.
"Existing chips only" removes mechanisms that need changes to future chip designs. Definitions
Minimum development status
Development status
A level describes the public evidence for a mechanism's stated use, not its cost or feasibility. R3 can still have open critical flaws.
Keeps mechanisms whose readiness level is at least this one. Definitions
Attack testing
How hard has each mechanism been attacked in public?
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.
Keeps mechanisms whose strongest published attack testing is at least this. Definitions
Keep hidden from the verifier
What must the verifier never see? Choose any.
Model weights: the checked model's parameters. Inputs and outputs: the requests a deployed model serves and its responses. Training data: what a model was trained on. Each mechanism's exposure is the editors' reading of its record: shown, depends on the design (kept, with a note), hidden, not involved, or unspecified for a selected implementation. Code and configuration are not covered yet.
Removes mechanisms that show the asset to the verifier. Conditional or unspecified exposure stays with a note and needs checking against the privacy requirement.
Claims
A claim is something one party wants to verify about another party's AI hardware or software. Each claim's number shows how the proposal addresses it.
- Addressed. A mechanism in the proposal is aimed at this claim and is not excluded by the filters.
- Partly addressed. Only supporting mechanisms, or mechanisms aimed at it that the filters exclude.
- Unaddressed. No mechanism in the proposal addresses this claim.
Addressed means a mechanism in the proposal is aimed at the claim and is not excluded by your filters. It does not mean the claim is verified: check its assessed use, development status, security evidence, assumptions and findings.
Mechanisms
A mechanism is a general technique for verifying claims. Its badge is its development status for its stated use. An optional implementation choice narrows its assumptions, assessed use and claim links to that record. Lines join it to the claims it addresses. Click a line for details.Under its name it lists the claims it is aimed at or supports.
- Aimed at the claim: verifying it is a direct purpose of the mechanism.
- Supports the claim: helps verify it without being aimed at it.
- Faint: excluded by your filters, so it does not count towards claim coverage.
Overview
One row per mechanism in the proposal. Every mark comes from that mechanism's record, as listed in the panels below; what the verifier sees is the editors' reading of the record's text. Failure counts are per mechanism. Summary counts name mechanisms with open failures, not a sum of attacks. Choosing an implementation narrows each row to that record's assessed use; family findings remain as context. 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.
What the verifier sees
For model weights, inputs and outputs, and training data. This is the editors' reading of each mechanism's record (its threat model, how it works and its limitations), not a field of the record. Shown: the verifier sees it. Depends: on the design or variant, or the verifier sees only samples. Hidden: the verifier sees only commitments, hashes, proofs or results. Not involved: the record does not handle it. Unspecified: the selected implementation has no asset-specific assessment here.
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. They are pointers, not recommendations: each brings its own readiness level and findings, and none is claimed to close a failure. Links from failures are the editors' reading of the two records.
Start from a goal
A goal is something a rule or agreement about AI sets out to achieve. Choosing one loads the claims it needs verified. Your mechanisms and filters stay as they are.
- Cap frontier training2 direct, 3 supportingKeep every AI training run below an agreed amount of compute.
- Pause frontier AI development2 direct, 3 supportingStop new AI training runs and experiments for an agreed period, while existing models stay in service.
- Deploy only evaluated models2 direct, 3 supportingDeploy powerful AI models widely only after their risks have been evaluated and judged manageable.
- Prevent catastrophic misuse2 direct, 2 supportingKeep capable AI models from helping anyone carry out catastrophic attacks, such as biological or chemical ones.
- Prevent weight theft1 direct, 1 supportingKeep the weights of capable AI models from being copied out of the facilities that hold them.
- Enforce chip export controls1 directKeep export-controlled AI chips at the destinations they were authorised for.
Start from a published design
Choosing a design loads the mechanisms its record realises or depends on. If the proposal has no claims yet, it also loads the claims that record says the design addresses.
- AI 2040 inference-only verification stack7 mechanismsProposed architecture, AI Futures Project
- Low-trust AI compute verification system overview7 mechanismsProposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
- RAND secure inference data center (SIDC) design2 mechanismsProposed architecture, RAND