Private compute & AI
Lit Protocol vs Fortanix
Review workload approvals without control-plane access.
Compare CCM’s role-managed build approvals with runtime authorization recorded on a public chain.
Scope: Fortanix Confidential Computing Manager (CCM), with platform-specific attestation; Lit Protocol using the ChainSecured method.
Lit assessment
Why choose Lit
Give partners and auditors a direct view of approved runtime versions, without provisioning them into Lit’s management tools. Lit records deployment approvals on Base, where another party can inspect the governing contract and its transactions. Choose Lit when release authorization must be independently reviewable by organizations outside the team operating the workload.[1][2]
Tradeoffs to weigh
Fortanix already checks code identity and supports confidential workloads. Lit’s case is public governance of the runtime, not exclusive use of attestation. AI deployment still requires a workload-specific assessment of hardware, model handling, and outputs.
Architecture, side by side
| Dimension | Fortanix | Lit (ChainSecured mode) |
|---|---|---|
| Software identity | CCM registers application measurements and validates enclave attestations. Measurements depend on the hardware platform and application build.[3][4] | A verifier can compare the attested environment with the expected, image-pinned application configuration.[5] |
| Approvals | CCM’s documented workflow lets Administrator or Editor roles approve domains and builds; approved applications can obtain CCM-issued TLS certificates.[6] | The KMS checks runtime measurements against contract whitelists. Those approval records are available on Base.[1] |
| Governance | Application approvals, node enrollment, certificate issuance, and audit events are managed through the CCM control plane.[3] | Hosted release approvals use a documented Lit-controlled 2-of-4 Safe without a timelock. Approvals are public and separate from deployment.[2] |