.svg)
Most RAG systems are already leaking sensitive data, while teams keep shipping them anyway, untested, unchecked, and loaded with production access. Security’s either brought in too late or not at all, and the assumption is that prompt engineering or access controls will somehow cover the gaps. Reality check: they won’t.
These systems pull from internal wikis, customer records, and knowledge bases you’d never let a junior engineer touch unsupervised, yet they go live with zero validation. You don’t find out what got exposed until someone else does, and by then, you’ve got a breach, a compliance issue, and a PR problem you didn’t plan for.
So, what if I give you a straight-up assessment playbook that works for real RAG pipelines instead of just the sanitized diagrams in slide decks?
RAG setups aren’t like your usual GenAI deployments. You’re not just sending prompts to a model and getting text back. You’re wiring in vector databases, internal knowledge bases, and document retrieval layers. All of which bring their own baggage. That means the risks show up in places security teams aren’t used to looking, and most off-the-shelf frameworks don’t cover what actually matters.
RAG pipelines store indexed chunks of your internal data to make responses more relevant, but those chunks often include sensitive material that should have never been ingested in the first place.
You end up with vector stores full of:
This data doesn’t go through the same approval, sanitization, or access control that your production systems use. It just ends up searchable by anyone with access to the model, and there’s usually no visibility into what’s being served back.
When users start pasting ticket summaries, debug logs, and system context into the prompt, that’s where trouble builds up. These logs can contain:
These logs aren’t always encrypted or access-controlled, and they rarely get reviewed. Over time, they turn into an unmonitored repository of high-value, user-generated data that attackers (or auditors) could easily flag.
It’s one thing to connect a RAG system to your internal wiki. It’s another to make sure the model only pulls from what the user is actually allowed to see. That’s where most setups fall short.
Here’s how the gaps show up:
Once retrieval happens, the model doesn’t ask questions. It just generates responses from whatever it can find, even if the data should have been off-limits.
You’re not even close to covering what a real RAG deployment touches if your threat model stops at the LLM layer. You need to assess the entire flow, from ingestion to indexing to generation, or you’re flying blind.
Most teams assume they’ve locked things down because permissions are set, logging is on, and access is technically scoped. But in RAG pipelines, the real exposure happens at the ingestion and retrieval layers where sensitive data gets indexed without context, and recalled without oversight.
Every time someone drops a PDF into your RAG system, there’s a good chance it contains content that shouldn’t be indexed at all. Financial statements, product roadmaps, investor decks, and internal policy docs routinely include:
Once those files are chunked and vectorized, no one’s opening them again to check what got stored. That data becomes part of the system’s searchable memory, and the worst part is, no one tracks how often it gets returned.
Developers are practical. They paste hardcoded secrets into internal wikis to explain how a system works, or leave environment-specific tokens in troubleshooting guides. When you index these spaces for better GenAI responses, you index those secrets too.
Typical leaks in engineering content include:
Support tickets expose live user data without warning
Support systems are another high-risk ingestion point. They contain the most honest, raw, and specific data about your customers including what they’re using, what broke, and who reported it.
Common exposure paths from ticket data include:
Even with role-based access on the ticketing system itself, RAG retrieval bypasses those boundaries once the data is ingested.
Here’s the reality: if your ingestion pipeline is connected to a system with human-generated content, it’s almost guaranteed that sensitive material is already in your vector store. Before expanding your RAG footprint, take a hard look at:
You don’t need to boil the ocean, but you do need to know which sources pose the biggest risk, and whether they’re returning more than they should when queried.
This is where most RAG implementations fail: they trust the data without inspecting what’s inside. That’s how you leak sensitive information while thinking everything’s working as expected.
Most RAG security assessments are too shallow. They focus on prompt filtering and output review, while ignoring the upstream architecture that introduces the real risk. If you want to know whether your system leaks sensitive data, you need to walk through it like a red team would: from what gets ingested, to what can be queried, to what gets exposed on the way out.
Before testing anything, get clear on what your system is actually storing. That means reviewing every data source connected to your retrieval pipeline and inspecting what was indexed, instead of just what was supposed to be.
Key things to identify:
This step often reveals ingestion pipelines no one was tracking and data no one realized was exposed. Your vector store should be treated as a live dataset, not a static reference index.
Security teams tend to think in terms of exploits, but most RAG data leaks don’t require one. All it takes is a well-crafted prompt. You need to know what happens when the model is asked normal-sounding questions that trigger unexpected results.
Focus your testing on:
Track what the model returns, how specific the outputs are, and whether it pulls data from documents the querying user should never see.
Once you know what’s in the system and what can be retrieved, it’s time to map who can access it. This phase is all about what actually works in production.
Questions to answer:
You’re basically looking for gaps between intended access and real access.
You can’t assess a RAG system without watching what it outputs in response to live prompts. This isn’t just about prompt injection, but about verifying whether a well-meaning prompt pulls sensitive data because the retrieval system was never hardened.
Focus on output-level risk by:
This step is where most of the surprises show up, especially when you simulate usage patterns from customer success, engineering, or support teams.
You’re mapping how sensitive data enters the system, how it’s indexed, how it’s retrieved, and how it’s served. This kind of assessment is operational, and it gives you the visibility to fix real risks before they show up in production.
Even with decent tooling and good intentions, most teams leave vulnerabilities that turn into security issues later. The problem is that the architecture is complex, the data flows are messy, and the risks don’t show up until someone runs the wrong prompt or indexes the wrong repo.
Once data gets embedded into a vector store, it usually stays there forever. Teams rarely set retention policies, and fewer still track how old or stale those embeddings are. That becomes a problem when:
Without lifecycle controls, your RAG system keeps serving data that should have been retired.
Most GenAI security conversations mention prompt injection, but few teams are testing for it seriously in RAG pipelines. Yes, it’s a prompt-level concern, but it’s also an ingestion issue too. Attackers can embed malicious instructions or misleading content into documents that later get retrieved and executed as part of the prompt chain.
Missed defenses include:
Without those checks, prompt injection and poisoning are easy to miss until something breaks.
Everyone wants better context, so teams start indexing dev wikis, Jira tickets, staging logs, and test environments. That’s where leaks begin. These sources often include:
Once that content enters the vector store, it becomes part of the generation layer, and anyone who phrases a prompt the right way might get it back.
A lot of teams assume their embedding model will just know what not to store. It won’t. Embedding is not classification. It doesn’t flag sensitive data or enforce policy. It simply transforms content into a search-friendly format.
The common failure modes here:
Embedding is a format change. Treating it like a filter gives you a false sense of security.
These blind spots are all avoidable, but they only get fixed when someone owns them. Left alone, they turn into high-severity issues that don’t show up on traditional risk assessments. You can’t just secure the LLM layer and call the job done. You have to look at where the data starts, how it moves, and where it gets reused.
Security doesn’t need to block your teams to be effective. The right approach is to build guardrails that move with engineering, instead of against it. That means embedding checks directly into your ingestion, testing, and deployment workflows so risk is handled early, consistently, and without extra meetings.
Here’s how to operationalize RAG security with real coverage and minimal drag.
The ingestion layer is where most RAG pipelines quietly fail. Teams ingest PDFs, Confluence pages, Jira exports, and ticket dumps without knowing what’s inside. A production-ready RAG pipeline needs automated pre-ingestion classifiers that inspect content before it gets embedded.
Key implementation points:
Your vector store is only as clean as the pipeline feeding it. And most pipelines are indexing unreviewed data by default.
Prompt injection doesn’t need to be theoretical. You can test for it just like you would test for SQL injection: with known bad inputs and expected safe outputs.
Make it part of CI/CD by:
These tests should run in the same environment as your staging RAG stack and be version-controlled alongside code changes.
Most threat models are useless against RAG unless you give teams the patterns to look for. Build and maintain a dedicated library of RAG-specific abuse cases, and make them a required input to design reviews and architecture sign-off.
Include abuse cases like:
Each abuse case should include:
You can’t validate RAG systems by reviewing code alone. You need runtime tests that simulate real prompts and validate actual responses. This should be a gating requirement especially for user-facing GenAI features.
To operationalize this:
This is how you stop undiscovered data leaks from reaching production.
The teams shipping GenAI features weekly don’t have time for manual reviews or retroactive red teams. You need controls that run continuously, detect drift early, and align with how engineers already work.
That means:
RAG pipelines are fast-moving and high-risk systems. If you’re not embedding controls early, you’ll be chasing problems after they ship, and those problems rarely show up where you’re looking.
Most teams overestimate how secure their RAG systems are because the risks don’t show up in traditional scans, threat models, or access control audits. The assumption is that retrieval is just a helper layer, when in reality, it becomes a shadow API into internal data that few teams monitor, and even fewer test properly.
Expect attackers to shift focus from LLM prompt injection to RAG system exploitation. It will only get worse from here. These systems expose far more context, touch more real data, and have far less guardrail maturity. And because many are being built by teams outside traditional AppSec oversight, security visibility is dropping while adoption accelerates.
This isn’t a problem to delegate or defer if you’re responsible for securing GenAI in your organization. RAG security needs to be designed, tested, and owned with the same urgency as your external APIs or customer-facing apps.
You need real assessment, mapped to your actual pipelines, data sources, and workflows.
To go deeper, we45 run RAG System Security Assessments purpose-built for engineering and security teams shipping GenAI features. You get hands-on validation, not generic guidance with clear, actionable insight into where your system stands and what needs to change.
RAG systems expose unique risks because they combine LLMs with live access to internal data. Key risks include leaking sensitive content from vector stores, retrieving documents without proper access control, prompt injection through ingested content, and unintended exposure via model outputs. These risks often go undetected in traditional LLM assessments.
Vector stores retain embedded representations of your internal data. If these stores include PII, credentials, or confidential documents, they become a searchable memory layer that can be exploited. Without retention policies or access filters, these stores expose long-forgotten or unreviewed data to anyone with prompt access.
Yes. In RAG systems, prompt injection can be embedded in the retrieved content itself. Since the model assembles a prompt using data from the retrieval layer, malicious inputs from indexed documents can alter the model’s behavior without requiring user input. Most teams fail to monitor this vector.
RAG systems often leak: Unredacted financials and PII from PDFs Hardcoded secrets and API keys from engineering wikis Customer logs and personal identifiers from support tickets These sources get indexed without proper sanitization and are later retrieved in model outputs.
A proper RAG security assessment includes: Reviewing data ingestion pipelines for sensitive content Testing prompt behavior for accidental data leakage Auditing access controls across retrieval and output layers Monitoring real-world outputs for privacy or compliance violations This goes beyond static analysis and needs to simulate real user prompts and data flows.
Common blind spots include: No retention policies on vector store data Trusting embedding models to filter sensitive content Indexing staging environments without content review Ignoring prompt injection risks in retrieved documents These lead to silent failures that only surface under active testing.
Security can scale with delivery by: Automating data classification before ingestion Including prompt-injection canaries in CI pipelines Adding RAG-specific abuse cases to threat modeling Gating releases with privacy-focused output tests This keeps security aligned with engineering workflows.
Most do not. Traditional frameworks focus on model safety, output filtering, and prompt validation. They rarely account for ingestion-layer risks, retrieval access control, or data lifecycle in vector stores. RAG systems require a different approach that includes full-pipeline visibility.
CISOs should ask: What data is being ingested, and who reviewed it? How are we preventing sensitive data from being indexed? What testing exists for prompt injection and abuse cases? Are outputs being logged and monitored for privacy violations? These questions help reveal whether security is designed into the pipeline or treated as an afterthought
