The Injection Paradox: Brand-Level Suppression in Safety-Trained LLM Recommendations via RAG Context Injection

Allowing large language models (LLMs) to retrieve information from a set of trusted documents can increase reliability and reduce hallucination. However, recent work has demonstrated that retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can have unintended side effects on the overall safety of the generated responses, when prompted for harmful or dangerous content. A clearer understanding of the mechanisms leading to this result is needed, as increasing numbers of end users turn to RAG to incorporate corporate documents and knowledge bases into LLM-based systems. We introduce RAG-Safety-Bench, a benchmark to measure the safety impact of RAG on LLM models. By removing the confounding effect of retriever quality, and cleanly separating the problem into four conditions -- non-RAG, RAG with an oracle document containing the answer to the harmful request, RAG with documents related to the harmful request but without the specific answer, and RAG with random, safe documents -- the benchmark isolates the impacts of different factors in the observed safety degradation. We report results across five open-source LLMs, showing an inverse relationship between benign and unsafe capability, strong evidence that baseline safety guardrails do not lead to downstream safety guarantees in the RAG case, and model-specific support for previous findings that even benign documents can lead to unsafe generation in retrieval-enabled systems.

LLMs see the world as a single stream of text, partitioned into roles like <user> or <tool>. We trace prompt injection to role confusion: models perceive the source of text from how it sounds, not its labeled role. A command hidden in a webpage hijacks an agent simply because it sounds like <user> text, despite its <tool> label. We design role probes to measure how LLMs internally perceive "who is speaking," and find that injected text occupies the same representational space as the trusted role it imitates. We demonstrate this with CoT Forgery, a zero-shot attack that injects fabricated reasoning into user prompts and tool outputs. Models mistake the forgery for their own thoughts, yielding 60% attack success against frontier models with near-zero baselines. Strikingly, the degree of role confusion predicts attack success before a single token is generated. This mechanism generalizes beyond CoT Forgery to standard agent prompt injections, revealing prompt injection as a measurable consequence of role perception. To the model, sounding like a role is indistinguishable from being one. Project page and writeup: https://role-confusion.github.io

Safety alignment in LLMs aims to align models with human values, but which values take precedence when they conflict? We investigate this question in the context of tool-calling LLM agents deployed in regulated industries, where agents processing confidential documents may encounter content that triggers safety-trained values (e.g., public welfare) that conflict with deployment-context instructions (e.g., internal logging). To empirically verify this phenomenon, we build a benchmark of 128 scenarios across 16 domains. We find that safety-aligned open-source models override their deployment instructions up to 43.4% of the time, engaging in whistleblowing, data exfiltration, and evidence tampering when processing documents that suggest organizational wrongdoing. We also find that abliteration reduces rates of external whistleblowing. These results reveal a fundamental tension in pluralistic alignment, where the same safety training that protects users can cause agents to act against deployment instructions in ways that create unpredictable liability risks. We release our benchmark as a framework to support evaluation of agent behavior under competing legitimate interests.