Proposal Explorer

Add claims to see which ones the mechanisms address.

Built for an adversarial prover

Network taps and certifiers

No new hardware needed

Safeguard attestation

Flaws since mitigated

• Verifier dictionary attacks on hashes in Network taps and certifiers ¹⁴

Published attempts to break a system, including those that found failures. Testing history does not show that open flaws are resolved.

• Safeguard attestation: Analysis
• Network taps and certifiers: Analysis

Open significant flaws

10 flaws in 2 mechanisms

• Attestation shows a safeguard ran, not that it is effective in Safeguard attestation

  Proof of guardrail ensures that the guardrail executed, but the guardrail can still err or be jailbroken. Because the guardrail must be open source, a malicious developer can attack it with jailbreaks while still presenting a valid proof. In the authors' evaluation, Llama Guard 3 reached an F1 score of 0.56 on the unsafe class of the ToxicChat dataset. The authors state that proof of guardrail should not be interpreted or advertised as proof of safety. ¹

  Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

• Selective attestation leaves traffic uncovered in Safeguard attestation

  Attestations are issued per response. In the prototype, the agent offers them when it receives high-stakes questions, so nothing shows that unattested traffic went through the same path. PAL*M's authors note that a prover could cherry-pick favourable executions, and suggest verifier-published nonces or requesting only session-level proofs. A governance analysis notes that auditors also need assurance that all activity is accounted for, since a host could start a second confidential virtual machine that bypasses monitoring. ^{1 4 9}

  Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

  Related mechanism R2 On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters: On-chip counters are a proposed route to evidence about everything a chip runs, including a second virtual machine that skips the safeguard. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. Add

• Measurements may omit behaviour-relevant configuration or runtime changes in Safeguard attestation

  Every component that influences inference behaviour must be covered by the launch measurement, including feature flags, environment variables and invocation arguments. A launch measurement also does not show that a program keeps running as measured if the kernel is later compromised. ⁹

  Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

• Components outside the attested boundary in Safeguard attestation

  In the proof-of-guardrail experiments, the guardrail model and the agent's backend model were both reached through external APIs, and the authors leave the decision to trust those APIs to the verifier. The measured wrapper must also have no vulnerability that lets the unmeasured agent bypass the guardrail, for example by executing arbitrary commands inside the enclave. The code's README states that the enclave does not currently restrict the agent's arbitrary command execution, which could be used to bypass guardrails. ^{1 2}

  Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

• Memory-bus interposition extracts attestation keys and forges attestations in Safeguard attestation

  Applies to variants using the affected Intel or AMD trust roots. PAL*M excludes physical attacks. A TDX-backed safeguard claim against a physical host attacker would be defeated, but these studies do not demonstrate a break of the AWS Nitro proof-of-guardrail prototype or of verifier-side recomputation.

  The TEE findings cover DDR5 attacks on Intel TDX, the H100 relay demonstration, DDR4 attacks on AMD SEV-SNP, and software-only SEV-SNP forgery before AMD's fixes. These are inherited hardware limits; a governance analysis explains why physical access matters in a treaty setting. ^{1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13}

  Response: Intel and AMD place the physical attack class outside their threat models, according to the researchers. AMD reports firmware fixes for RMPocalypse.

  Demonstrated attack · Significant · Open · Inherited finding. On the record · Related finding in TEE remote attestation for AI workloads

  Related mechanism R1 Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors: A tamper-protected enclosure around the chip is the proposed answer when the party that holds the hardware may attack it physically. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. Add

• 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. ^{14 21}

  Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. On the record

  Related mechanism R3 Deterministic and bit-exact inference: Deterministic replay is one of the two remedies the flaw's source names. A pointer, not evidence that this flaw is mitigated. Add

  Related mechanism R2 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 flaw is mitigated. Add

• 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. ^{15 22}

  Open question · Significant · Open. 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. ¹⁵

  Open question · Significant · Open. On the record

• 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. ¹⁷

  Theoretical argument · Significant · Open. 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. ¹⁴

  Open question · Significant · Open. On the record

  Related mechanism R1 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 flaw is mitigated. Add

Not yet demonstrated

R1 Network taps and certifiers

Mechanisms on the map that are not in the proposal. Pointers, not recommendations. ?

• R3 Deterministic and bit-exact inference Add
  • Bears on the open significant flaw “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.
• R2 Bounding unexplained information in outputs Add
  • Bears on the open significant flaw “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.
• R2 On-chip telemetry from timing, memory and performance counters Add
  • Bears on the open significant flaw “Selective attestation leaves traffic uncovered” in Safeguard attestation. On-chip counters are a proposed route to evidence about everything a chip runs, including a second virtual machine that skips the safeguard.
• R1 Hardware-enabled guarantees (flexHEG) and guarantee processors Add
  • Bears on the open significant flaw “Memory-bus interposition extracts attestation keys and forges attestations” in Safeguard attestation. A tamper-protected enclosure around the chip is the proposed answer when the party that holds the hardware may attack it physically.
• R1 Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities Add
  • Bears on the open significant flaw “Completeness rests on physical monitoring left out of scope” in Network taps and certifiers. Addresses the radio, power-line and thermal channels that network-level designs leave out.
  • Network taps and certifiers waits on it. Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs.
• R3 Model identity attestation Add
  • Safeguard attestation waits on it. Safeguard evidence must be bound to the model actually served, which depends on model-identity attestation.
• R3 TEE remote attestation for AI workloads Add
  • Safeguard attestation waits on it. Frontier model inference typically needs several GPUs, GPU confidential computing is less mature than CPU support, and CPU inference, which an enclave prototype had to use, ran about 100 times slower than GPU inference.
  • Safeguard attestation waits on it. Trust rests on a small number of hardware vendors, and a per-CPU Intel attestation key has been extracted by physical attack.
• R2 Tamper evidence for verifier devices Add
  • Network taps and certifiers waits on it. Taps and gateway devices need tamper-evident housing and physical monitoring so that traffic cannot bypass them.
• R3 Sampled inference recomputation Add
  • Network taps and certifiers depends on it.

Missing prerequisites

• R3 TEE remote attestation for AI workloads needed by Safeguard attestation Add
• R3 Model identity attestation needed by Safeguard attestation Add
• R3 Sampled inference recomputation needed by Network taps and certifiers Add
• R3 Deterministic and bit-exact inference needed by Network taps and certifiers Add
• R2 Tamper evidence for verifier devices needed by Network taps and certifiers Add
• R1 Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities needed by Network taps and certifiers Add

Blockers

10 blockers recorded

• Safeguard attestation
  • No published design shows that all of a provider's traffic passes through the attested safeguard path; current evidence covers individual attested responses. Coverage & hidden compute ^{1 9}
  • Frontier model inference typically needs several GPUs, GPU confidential computing is less mature than CPU support, and CPU inference, which an enclave prototype had to use, ran about 100 times slower than GPU inference. Performance & compatibility. Waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads ^{9 23}
  • Trust rests on a small number of hardware vendors, and a per-CPU Intel attestation key has been extracted by physical attack. Hardware trust. Waits on TEE remote attestation for AI workloads ^{7 9}
  • Safeguard evidence must be bound to the model actually served, which depends on model-identity attestation. Evidence binding. Waits on Model identity attestation ^{23 24}
  • No independent red-team or audit of a safeguard-attestation system has been published, and the available prototypes are described by their authors as proofs of concept that have not been stress-tested by a counterparty. Adversarial validation ^{2 6}
• 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 ^{22 25}
  • Nondeterministic inference leaves covert capacity in outputs that hashing cannot remove. Evidence binding. Waits on Deterministic and bit-exact inference ¹⁴
  • 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 ^{13 14}
  • Radio, power-line and thermal channels are not addressed by network-level designs. Coverage & hidden compute. Waits on Side-channel suppression for isolated facilities ¹⁴
  • Red-teaming by specialists is called for but has not been reported. Adversarial validation ¹⁴

From the family or selected implementation's record. ?

Model weights

Depends on the design for Safeguard attestation and Network taps and certifiers.

Inputs and outputs

Depends on the design for Safeguard attestation and Network taps and certifiers.

Training data

Depends on the design for Network taps and certifiers.

Not involved: Safeguard attestation.

Safeguard attestation

None on the map

Network taps and certifiers

• R1 AI 2040 inference-only verification stack Proposed architecture, AI Futures Project
• R1 Low-trust AI compute verification system overview Proposed architecture, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
• R1 SASH confidential network logger Research prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH)

1. Proof-of-Guardrail in AI Agents and What (Not) to Trust from It, X. Jin et al. (2026). Original
2. Verifiable-ClawGuard: proof-of-guardrail reference code, SaharaLabsAI (2026). Original
3. Safety Without Compromising on Privacy, D. McCann-Sayles et al. (2026). Original
4. PAL*M: Property Attestation for Large Generative Models, P. Chantasantitam et al. (2026). Original
5. Enabling Verifiably-Scoped Monitoring through Large Language Models and Trusted Compute, B. Penchas et al. (2026). Original
6. Auditor-in-a-Box: Tools for Third-Party Auditing, R. Rinberg & B. Penchas (2026). Original
7. TEE.fail: Breaking Trusted Execution Environments via DDR5 Memory Bus Interposition, J. Chuang et al. (2026). Original
8. DDRop: Active Memory Interposer Attacks on Confidential VMs by Dropping DDR5 Writes, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). Original
9. On TEEs for Privacy-Preserving Monitoring in AI Governance, Gloria Z (2026). Original
10. Battering RAM: Low-Cost Interposer Attacks on Confidential Computing via Dynamic Memory Aliasing, J. De Meulemeester et al. (2026). Original
11. RMPocalypse: How a Catch-22 Breaks AMD SEV-SNP, B. Schlüter & S. Shinde (2025). Original
12. SEV-SNP RMP Initialization Vulnerability (AMD-SB-3020), AMD (2025). Original
13. A System Overview for Near-Term, Low-Trust AI Compute Verification, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
14. Fingerprinting All AI Cluster I/O Without Mutually Trusted Processors, N. Cankaya et al. (2026). Original
15. The Fundamentals and Feasibility of Secure Network Taps for Verifying AI Datacenter Use, N. Cankaya (2026). Original
16. Verification Plan, R. Dean (2026). Original
17. Fitting a Network TAP to our Inference Verification Prototype, Amodo Design (2026). Original
18. Amodo-Design/Inference-Recomputation-Prototype (GitHub repository), Amodo Design (2026). Original
19. inference-verification: Inference Verification Prototype, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). Original
20. Internationalising AI Verification, Singapore AI Safety Hub (SASH) (2026). Original
21. Adversarial Entropy Inflation Against Gumbel-Based Inference Verification, N. Kezins (2026). Original
22. Network Tapping for AI Verification: A Technical Assessment, Amodo Design (2026). Original
23. Attestable Audits: Verifiable AI Safety Benchmarks Using Trusted Execution Environments, C. Schnabl et al. (2025). Original
24. How Tinfoil Proves Exactly What Model Is Running, Tinfoil Team (2026). Original
25. Network Traffic Hashing, Amodo Design (2026). Original