Evaluating RAGs
Operational guidance for testing retrieval quality, permission boundaries, poisoning risk, and downstream answer safety in RAG systems.
Permission leaks masked as retrieval relevance issues.
Indirect prompt injection through documents, tickets, or web content.
Poisoned knowledge stores driving confident but unsafe answers.
Built For
Teams building internal knowledge assistants and search copilots.
Security reviewers assessing document-connected AI systems.
Platform teams owning vector stores, ingestion pipelines, and retrieval logic.
Use Cases
Test retrieval relevance, access control, and source grounding together.
Assess how poisoning and hidden instructions affect downstream answers.
Create evaluation workflows that reflect real document and user behavior.
Related Content
LLM and RAG Data Poisoning: Infiltrating Autonomous AI Models
How do threat actors execute Indirect Prompt Injections and Data Poisoning in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) architectures?
What is a Vector Database? Its Role in AI and LLM Security
How do Vector Databases, the heart of modern AI (LLM) projects, actually work? Discover everything you need to know to prevent data leakage and...
AI Compliance Crisis: Navigating GDPR/KVKK in RAG Architectures
Discover the severe data privacy risks of Enterprise RAG models. Learn how to align Large Language Models with GDPR mandates like the 'Right to be...
Related Advisories
Frequently Asked Questions
Why separate RAG evaluation from general LLM testing?
Because retrieval quality, ingestion controls, source permissions, and context poisoning create a distinct attack surface.
Can this support regulated data environments?
Yes. RAG evaluation becomes especially important when assistants can touch legal, financial, healthcare, or internal company documents.
Need help validating this attack surface?
Talk with Eresus Security about scoped testing, threat modeling, and remediation priorities for this workflow.
Talk to Eresus