A Survey of Secure Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a dominant paradigm for enhancing large language models with external knowledge. By coupling retrieval mechanisms with generative models, RAG systems improve factual grounding and adaptability across domains. However, integrating retrieval pipelines introduces new security and privacy risks that extend beyond conventional language modeling threats. Sensitive information may be exposed through retrieval indices, query logs, context construction, or federated updates, while adversarial manipulation of knowledge bases can undermine trust in generated outputs. This survey provides a comprehensive examination of privacy and security challenges across RAG systems deployed in centralized, on-device (Micro-RAG), federated, and hybrid paradigms. We present a unified taxonomy of threat surfaces spanning the retrieval, context construction, and generation stages and systematically analyze attack classes, including membership inference, index inference, poisoning, gradient leakage, and collusion. We further review architectural, algorithmic, and cryptographic defenses, highlighting privacy-utility trade-offs and deployment considerations. Finally, we outline open research challenges toward building trustworthy, secure, and resilient RAG systems for real-world applications.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by retrieving relevant information from external knowledge bases to provide more accurate, contextually informed, and up-to-date responses. However, this reliance on external knowledge introduces significant security vulnerabilities, as many RAG systems (e.g., Google Search) rely on large and unsanitized data repositories (e.g., Reddit). In this paper, we unveil a novel threat in which attackers steer the RAG system's response by injecting malicious passages into its knowledge base. When a user's query contains attacker-specified trigger words, the RAG retrieves and refers to these malicious passages, enabling the attacker to steer the response without altering the user input or modifying the RAG weights. BadRAG operates in two phases: (i) malicious passages are optimized to be retrieved exclusively when trigger words appear in user queries; (ii) these passages are meticulously crafted to achieve adversarial generation objectives, including denial of service, sentiment manipulation, context leakage, and tool misuse. Our experiments show that injecting just 10 malicious passages (0.04% of the external corpora) achieves a 98.2% retrieval success rate and increases negative response rates from 0.22% to 72% for queries containing triggers.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) lets a large language model answer questions using documents retrieved from an external knowledge base at query time. This makes RAG useful for private data, fast-changing information, and reducing hallucination, but it also means the model's answer is only as trustworthy as whatever the retriever hands it. If the knowledge base accepts writes from more than one party, an attacker needs only a handful of adversarial documents to steer the model toward a chosen wrong answer. PoisonedRAG demonstrated this: as few as five crafted documents flip an undefended system's answer roughly 90% of the time, and three natural single-stage defenses (perplexity filtering, query paraphrasing, knowledge-base expansion) leave attack success at 30% or higher. We built TriShieldRAG to close that gap. Rather than relying on one checkpoint, we place three independent, formally specified rings across the pipeline: an Ingest Guard that screens documents for lexical and statistical poisoning signatures; a Retrieval Scorer that re-ranks the retrieved set by a provenance and consistency-weighted trust score; and a Cross-LLM Consensus stage that polls three architecturally diverse language models (Claude, Mistral Small, Llama 3.2) and allows one bounded re-retrieval on disagreement. We derive the conditions under which Rings 2 and 3 are expected to work: a minority-poison assumption and an explicit provenance-tag assumption. Our reported configuration is consistent with this analysis, though we have not yet run the controlled poison-fraction sweep needed to confirm it independently. Evaluated against the non-adaptive attacker from the original PoisonedRAG, over a 5,000-document Wikipedia knowledge base with 10 target questions, the full pipeline reduces attack success rate from roughly 91% to roughly 13% while preserving accuracy on benign queries.