Edit:
I now see that you are referring to someone attacking the module, rather than the module having a backdoor. I agree that insurance is a good way to avoid financial loss, but it doesn't at all address the backdoor issue.
> The issue of trust is solved if you can find a trustworthy intermediary
No it isn't solved at all, because that assumption breaks down very easily, especially now that we know for a fact how invasive surveillance and backdoors have become.
For example, a Chinese company who would like to use such a product would reject a certification by a US or European insurance company, and rightly so. The same applies to a US company with Chinese insurance. The requirements for trust become exceedingly more difficult to meet once you start dealing with military contractors, law enforcement, etc. So where do you propose insuring the hardware module? The US? What if China proves to be a larger market? How about if you want to sell the tech in the EU? It's a rabbit hole of "trust" imo.
This is why an objective verification function would make things much more straightforward for chip designers and fabless semiconductor IP companies. And if you can objectively verify the hardware at runtime, you get even more useful guarantees.
I completely understand that the use of a trustworthy third-party is sometimes necessary, such as in X.509, but when it comes to circuit design, I think we need to and can do better than that.
