RAG Pipeline Security Assessment
Retrieval-augmented generation trusts its data store. We test yours for poisoning, indirect injection through ingested documents, and access-control gaps that leak the wrong data to the wrong user.
What is RAG Pipeline Security Assessment?
Retrieval-augmented generation trusts its data store, and attackers know it. We test your RAG pipeline for poisoning, indirect injection through ingested documents, and access-control gaps that leak the wrong data to the wrong user.
Retrieval-augmented generation is only as trustworthy as the documents it retrieves, and that trust is exploitable. An attacker who can get content into your knowledge base — a support ticket, an uploaded file, a scraped page — can plant instructions the model later follows, or exploit weak retrieval access control to surface data one user should never see through another's query. We test the pipeline end to end.
RAG assessments also expose a subtle access-control problem teams rarely design for: retrieval often ignores who's asking. If the vector store returns the most relevant chunk regardless of the requester's permissions, one user's query can surface another's confidential document. Testing retrieval with different identities is the only way to catch this, and it's frequently the most serious RAG finding.
RAG Pipeline Security Assessment is a manual, exploit-driven assessment: real people attacking your target the way an adversary would, then proving each finding with a working proof of concept. It is not an automated scan with a logo on it — the point is to find and demonstrate the issues that actually put you at risk, and hand your team a clear plan to fix them.
Why it matters
AI systems introduce an entirely new attack surface on top of the classic ones. Prompt injection, unsafe tool use and data leakage are already being exploited in production, and traditional testing doesn't cover them.
A rag pipeline security assessment engagement replaces guesswork with evidence. Instead of hoping your controls hold, you get a ranked, reproducible picture of where they don’t — before someone hostile finds the same gaps.
Industries & use cases
RAG assessments matter for enterprise knowledge assistants, customer-support AI, and any product that grounds an LLM in documents users or third parties can influence.
What we test
Manual, exploit-driven coverage focused on real impact — not scanner noise.
- Indirect injection via ingested content
- Knowledge-base poisoning
- Retrieval access-control gaps
- Cross-user and cross-tenant leakage
- Source-trust and provenance issues
- Output-handling risks
Signs you should run a rag pipeline security assessment
If any of these apply, testing is overdue.
- You ground an LLM in documents or a knowledge base
- Users or third parties can add content to that store
- Different users should see different data
- You handle confidential or multi-tenant documents
- You've never tested retrieval access control
Common vulnerabilities we find
The issues that show up again and again in rag pipeline security assessment — and the ones that actually get exploited.
Indirect injection via documents
Ingested content carrying instructions the model later follows.
Knowledge-base poisoning
Malicious entries steering answers or exfiltrating data.
Retrieval access gaps
Users retrieving documents they should not see.
Cross-user/tenant retrieval leakage
Retrieval that ignores per-user access control and returns restricted documents.
Source-trust and provenance gaps
No distinction between trusted and untrusted ingested content.
Permission-blind retrieval
The store returns relevant content without checking the requester's access.
Prompt leakage through retrieved context
Sensitive instructions or data surfaced via retrieval.
Poisoned embeddings/data source
Manipulated content steering answers or exfiltrating data.
Example attack chain
Real impact rarely comes from one bug — it comes from chaining several. A representative example:
Why choose webhook.press
Attacker mindset
We’re offensive security people who also build the free tools bug-bounty hunters use daily. We test the way real adversaries do — and prove it.
No scanner theatre
You get findings a human exploited and verified, ranked by real business risk — not an unfiltered tool dump padded to look thorough.
Fixed price, free retest
A clear quote after scoping, a report your team and auditors can use, and a free retest to confirm the fixes hold.
Our methodology
A structured, transparent process aligned to OWASP and PTES — with a named point of contact throughout.
Scoping & rules of engagement
We agree the exact targets, depth, timing and constraints for your rag pipeline security assessment, and set clear rules of engagement so testing is safe and predictable.
Reconnaissance & mapping
We enumerate the full attack surface — endpoints, roles, technologies and trust boundaries — and threat-model where an attacker would focus.
Manual testing & exploitation
We attack by hand, verifying and chaining weaknesses into real impact. Automated tooling supports coverage; humans find the logic and authorization bugs it can’t.
Analysis & risk rating
Each finding is validated, rated by real business risk rather than raw scanner severity, and de-duplicated so you get signal, not noise.
Reporting
You receive an executive summary for leadership and a technical section with reproducible PoCs, evidence and concrete, stack-specific remediation.
Free retest
After you remediate, we re-test the closed findings to confirm they are actually fixed — at no extra cost.
What you get
Reproducible PoCs
Every finding ships with a working proof and step-by-step reproduction your engineers can replay and verify.
Risk-ranked findings
Prioritised by real business impact, so you fix what matters first instead of drowning in low-severity noise.
Actionable remediation
Concrete, stack-specific fixes and guidance — not generic “apply best practice” filler.
Free retest
We re-check the closed findings after remediation and confirm they’re resolved.
The report is written for two audiences at once: an executive summary that a non-technical stakeholder can act on, and a detailed technical section — findings, evidence, CVSS and reproduction — that your developers and auditors can use directly.
Manual testing, not just a scan
Automated scanners are fast and useful for coverage, but they only find patterns they already know, and they flood you with false positives. They cannot understand your business logic, chain several small issues into a breach, or tell you which alert actually matters. Our rag pipeline security assessment is led by experienced testers who exploit findings by hand and rank them by the damage they’d really do — the difference between a 300-page tool dump and a short list of things worth fixing.
Standards & compliance
Our rag pipeline security assessment reports are written to support the frameworks your auditors and customers care about — including SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, and the EU’s NIS2 and DORA. Each engagement produces clear, independent evidence of testing with scope, methodology and findings documented the way assessors expect, so the same test both hardens your systems and helps satisfy your obligations.
Frameworks we follow
Recognised methodologies, adapted to your target — never a rigid checklist.
- OWASP — Web Security Testing Guide, ASVS and the API Security Top 10
- PTES — the Penetration Testing Execution Standard
- NIST SP 800-115 — technical guide to security testing
- OSSTMM — Open Source Security Testing Methodology Manual
- MITRE ATT&CK — to frame real-world adversary techniques
FAQ
What's the RAG-specific risk?
Attackers put instructions in documents your model later retrieves — turning your own knowledge base into an injection vector.
Do you test access control on retrieval?
Yes — whether users can retrieve documents they shouldn't, a common and serious RAG flaw.
What's the RAG-specific risk?
Attackers place instructions in documents your model later retrieves, turning your own knowledge base into an injection vector.
Do you test retrieval access control?
Yes — whether users can retrieve documents they shouldn't, a common and serious RAG flaw.
Do you test retrieval with different user identities?
Yes — proving whether one user can retrieve another's documents is a core, high-impact test.
Do you assess ingestion?
Yes — poisoning and indirect injection enter through what you ingest, so ingestion is in scope.
How long does a rag pipeline security assessment take?
Most focused engagements run one to two weeks depending on scope; we agree the exact timeline during scoping.
Is a retest included?
Yes — after you remediate, we re-check the closed findings to confirm they’re fixed, at no extra cost.
How do you price it?
Per engagement, based on scope and depth — you get a fixed quote after a short scoping call. No cookie-cutter packages.
Why teams trust our rag pipeline security assessment
Aligned to recognised standards
Testing follows OWASP, PTES, NIST SP 800-115 and MITRE ATT&CK, and reports support SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, NIS2 and DORA.
Every engagement includes
Reproducible PoCs, risk-ranked findings, concrete remediation, a named point of contact, a free retest, and a summary letter of attestation.
Confidential by default
Work is covered by an NDA, scoped with clear rules of engagement, and data is handled with care throughout — including residency requirements.
Sample report available on request — see our reporting format and depth before you commit. Ask for a sample →
Get a quote for RAG Pipeline Security Assessment
Tell us about the target — we’ll come back with scope and a fixed price. Manual, exploit-driven testing with reproducible proof and a free retest.