SilentRetrieval: Hijacking Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Semantically-Preserving Adversarial Data Poisoning

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems ground large language models (LLMs) in external corpora, but this reliance exposes them to corpus poisoning: maliciously injected passages that manipulate retrieved evidence. We introduce RAGuard, a layered defense against \emph{factual} corpus-poisoning attacks on RAG pipelines. The first layer adversarially fine-tunes a dense retriever on synthetic poisoned documents (fabricated facts, contradictions, and reasoning traps), teaching it to downrank malicious passages before generation. The second layer, the Zero-Knowledge Inference Patch ZKIP, is a label-free, black-box filter: for each retrieved document, it performs a leave-one-out decode and scores the document by the semantic shift and output-entropy change that its removal induces. ZKIP requires no poison labels, no ground-truth answers, and no access to model internals; it compares the model's own answers under counterfactual contexts. On poisoned Natural Questions at 5--30% poison ratios, adversarial retriever training alone reduces but does not eliminate attack success, while ZKIP drives the measured attack success rate to 0.000 in every defended configuration, keeping Recall@5 within 0.03 of the clean-corpus baseline. Supervised analyses on both Natural Questions and BEIR (NFCorpus) confirm that the counterfactual signals ZKIP relies on carry learnable poison structure. The defense costs $k{+}1$ generator passes per query ($6\times$ for $k{=}5$); we analyze batching and early-stopping approximations that reduce this overhead. We also show that keyword-preserving poisons leave lexical retrievers such as BM25 essentially unaffected, an observation that delineates the boundary of the threat model. Code, datasets, and evaluation harnesses are released for reproducibility.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds large language models in external corpora, but implicit trust in retrieved documents creates a critical attack surface: PoisonedRAG shows that a handful of crafted passages can dominate dense retrieval and steer generation toward attacker-chosen answers. We present the Tri-Layer Sieve, a middleware defense that sanitizes retrieved evidence through cross-embedding-space clustering with an independent judge model, structural filtering of trigger-payload artifacts, and LLM consistency verification. The design exploits a key weakness of retrieval-stage poisoning: a single document must satisfy one embedding geometry, one internal Trigger-Payload structure, and one generation objective - rarely all three simultaneously, a fragility that persists even against an adaptive attacker who paraphrases around it. On Natural Questions, HotpotQA, and MS-MARCO with Contriever retrieval (k=50), the Sieve reduces black-box Attack Success Rate from 67.0/87.0/64.0% to 3.0/14.0/4.0%, mitigates white-box HotFlip attacks from ~74% to 27.8% on NQ with Layer 3 enabled, and drives poisoned-document MRR to 0.000, while restoring clean accuracy from 13-33% under attack to 58-76%. Under an architecture-aware adversary who paraphrases triggers to evade the structural filter, enabling the consistency layer halves adaptive ASR (32.0% to 15.0% on NQ) while raising clean accuracy by 18 points, at an added latency of ~16-19 s/query under live retrieval.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems are vulnerable to corpus poisoning: an attacker who inserts a crafted document into the retrieval corpus can steer the underlying large language model (LLM) toward an attacker-chosen wrong answer. Prior single-document attacks typically avoid explicitly naming and refuting the correct answer inside the poisoned passage. In this paper, we examine a complementary design and propose \emph{DenialRAG}, a single-document poisoning attack that explicitly names the correct answer, denies it, and presents an attacker-controlled explanation for favoring the wrong answer. By placing both the correct answer and the corresponding poisoned answer inside the same retrieved passage, DenialRAG embeds the conflict directly into the context seen by the generator. We evaluate DenialRAG against four published single-document poisoning attacks across three open-domain question-answering datasets, eight target LLMs from four vendors, and five inference-time defenses. The results show that attack effectiveness is strongly model-dependent: DenialRAG achieves the highest attack success rate (ASR) on all three Mistral-7B datasets and remains effective on several other target LLMs, while other attacks dominate in some model regimes. Defense results show meaningful ASR reductions but non-uniform protection, with each defense leaving residual ASR in some settings. Component-level and cross-model analyses further identify the embedded denial as the most influential tested component and show that different poisoning mechanisms lose effectiveness at different rates across model groups. Together, these results show that RAG poisoning risk cannot be fully characterized by a single attack family or a single target model.