Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves large language models by grounding them in external evidence, but this exposes them to knowledge-poisoning attacks, where misinformation injected into retrieved documents influences model outputs. We investigate whether deliberative reasoning reduces susceptibility to poisoned evidence using two metrics: Cordon Rate, which measures cases where detected misinformation nevertheless influences the final answer, and Leakage Rate, which measures implicit influence from poisoned context despite explicit instructions to disregard it. We evaluate six model configurations on 200 SciFact questions, including DeepSeek-V4-Flash and Qwen3.6-Plus with reasoning disabled and enabled. Enabling reasoning reduces conditional susceptibility: DeepSeek-V4-Flash reduces Cordon Rate from 0.211 to 0.107 and Leakage Rate from 0.235 to 0.140, despite overall attack success rising from 0.233 to 0.298. These results show that poison detection, attack success, and resistance to contextual influence are distinct capabilities, and that deliberative reasoning reduces behavioral impact of corrupted evidence conditional on detection, even as it renders explicit poison identification less reliable.
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.
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.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) increasingly underpins high-stakes applications, yet remains vulnerable to Confundo-style poisoning where adversarially optimized documents manipulate generated outputs. Existing defenses assume that detecting poisoned evidence prevents harm. We show this assumption is incorrect: models exhibit a monitoring-control gap -- they can detect contradictions in retrieved evidence yet still act on poisoned claims. We introduce the Cordon Principle -- no agent capable of final synthesis may access untrusted natural-language evidence -- and realize it through CORDON-MAS, a compartmentalized framework that enforces this principle architecturally by separating evidence extraction, cross-source audit, and answer synthesis into agents with asymmetric memory privileges. Across five BEIR datasets, CORDON-MAS reduces attack success rate by 92.4% relative to undefended RAG. This reframes RAG poisoning from a detection problem to an information-flow control problem.