Search: “rag”

6 stories in the last 30d

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll AI safety & security 6 Research 5 AI tools & infra 4 AI industry 3 AI research 2 Industry 1 Model release 1 Threat actor 1

SeverityAll critical 0 high 1 medium 1 low 0 info 21

When the prompt becomes the payload: A practical pen-testing guide for GenAI, LLM and RAG applications

CSO Online publishes a practical penetration-testing guide for GenAI, LLM, and RAG applications, covering prompt injection, retrieval poisoning, and tenant isolation testing.

The guide frames LLM applications as attack graphs spanning prompts, retrieval layers, vector stores, tools, identities, and downstream APIs, arguing that conventional web testing misses instruction-vs-data channel risks. It builds on OWASP prompt injection guidance (direct vs. indirect injection) and NIST's 2025 adversarial machine-learning taxonomy, noting that RAG and fine-tuning do not remove injection risk. Recommended practices include documenting trust transitions across components, using canaries and synthetic records to avoid test side effects, running multi-turn and obfuscated injection campaigns, and verifying chains from poisoned documents to observable state changes. It also details testing RAG pipelines via controlled document poisoning across metadata, OCR layers, and code comments, plus cross-tenant isolation checks on retrieved document IDs.

CSO OnlineSep 9, 10:00 UTC · 8d agoAI safety & security1

CiteShade: Citation Laundering in Multi-Source Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Its Counterfactual Defense

CiteShade attack makes RAG models cite trusted sources for attacker-chosen wrong answers, raising wrong-answer rate from 0.01 to 0.68.

CiteShade is presented as the first citation laundering attack against multi-source retrieval-augmented generation: an attacker controlling a single source induces a wrong answer falsely attributed to a trusted source, even while correct evidence remains in context. The attack is formalized via three necessary conditions (retrieval, generation, citation) constructible without any instructions, raising wrong-answer rate from 0.01 to 0.68 on multi-hop QA, with source deletion confirming the malicious source as causal driver. Vulnerability tracks a model's citation propensity rather than scale, reaching CLR 0.84 with explicit instruction and 0.64 without on the most citation-prone model. Perplexity filtering and citation-support checking prove insufficient; the authors propose a counterfactual defense verifying which source actually drove the answer.

arXiv cs.CRSep 14, 14:41 UTC · 2d agoAI safety & security1

ToxicRAG: Compromising Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems via Single-Shot Knowledge Poisoning Attacks

ToxicRAG shows a single narrative-form poisoned document can steer RAG answers, achieving 0.61-0.91 attack success rates across four LLMs.

The attack injects one document per target question written as a coherent knowledge-update narrative that acknowledges the previously accepted answer, introduces fabricated events that appear to invalidate it, and attributes the attacker-chosen answer to purported authorities. An optional answer-focused self-validation loop revises candidates when a surrogate LLM fails to reproduce the target answer. Across 100 target questions each from Natural Questions, HotpotQA, and MS-MARCO, with four victim LLMs and four dense retrievers, ToxicRAG achieves attack success rates of 0.61-0.91 and matches or exceeds the strongest baseline by 0 to 11 percentage points.

arXiv cs.CRSep 10, 04:42 UTC · 7d agoAI safety & security1

10 most critical LLM vulnerabilities

OWASP updated its Top 10 LLM application vulnerabilities, ranking prompt injection first and elevating excessive agency to third amid agentic adoption.

OWASP refreshed its Top 10 list of critical vulnerabilities in LLM applications, for the first time incorporating real-world incident data alongside expert voting. Prompt injection and sensitive information disclosure remain first and second, while excessive agency jumped from sixth to third as agentic systems that call APIs and execute code proliferate. Unbounded consumption of AI resources rose in prominence, while improper output handling dropped to the bottom as output sanitization becomes widespread. The list includes remediation guidance such as strict output schemas, human-in-the-loop approvals, and least-privilege credentials held in application code.

CSO OnlineSep 10, 08:25 UTC · 7d agoAI safety & security

How to Secure Enterprise AI: From Adoption to Incident Readiness

Sygnia-backed guidance urges a lifecycle approach to enterprise AI security, citing survey data that AI adoption is outpacing governance and incident readiness.

The Hacker News published Sygnia-sponsored guidance on securing enterprise AI across its lifecycle, from use-case definition and vendor selection to deployment and incident readiness. It cites Sygnia's 2026 CISO survey of 600 senior leaders: 63% expect AI fully embedded by 2027, 73% say their organization would not be fully ready for a significant cyberattack, and 67% of executives believe unapproved AI tools already caused a breach. The piece highlights shadow AI, ad hoc integrations, and over-permissioned AI agents as key attack surface risks, noting only 38% of organizations report a comprehensive AI policy.

The Hacker NewsSep 2, 11:30 UTC · 15d agoAI safety & security

What 90 days and a small budget can buy in AI agent security

Versa Field CISO details hidden costs of self-hosting open-weight models and a 90-day AI agent security plan of inventory, blast-radius reduction and testing.

In a Help Net Security interview, Prasad Tharippala, Field CISO at Versa, argues running open-weight models in-house improves control but shifts hardening, patching, access control, monitoring and incident response onto the buyer, with underestimated costs in GPU infrastructure, licensing review, EU AI Act compliance and scarce AI/ML security skills. On red-teaming AI agents, he recommends testing prompt injection, indirect injection, excessive permissions, data leakage, memory and RAG poisoning, malicious tool outputs, cross-agent trust abuse and infrastructure attack paths, mapped to OWASP agentic guidance and MITRE ATLAS. He highlights the handoff between chained agents as a major risk zone and stresses exercising human approval, shutdown and rollback controls under test conditions. For teams with 90 days and small budgets, he ranks inventory, blast radius reduction and ongoing testing as the priority order.

Help Net SecurityAug 28, 00:00 UTC · 20d agoAI safety & security