RAG Access Can Leak
Retrieval can expose the wrong chunks, wrong tenants, poisoned context, stale sources, or sensitive data.
Buyer fear
Our AI assistant might leak private documents or trust poisoned context.
Primary service
AI Product Security Assessment
Supporting services
Best for
Why This Matters
The business and security pressure.
RAG security fails at the boundary between search, authorization, and model behavior. You need to test the whole retrieval path.
Review Surfaces
Systems and surfaces in scope.
Listed surfaces are common review targets, not partnership, certification, or endorsement claims. Marketplace readiness support does not replace official review.
Common Failure Modes
What usually breaks.
Wrong chunks are retrieved
Cross-tenant filters fail
Poisoned docs influence answers
Citations look right but reference stale or unauthorized sources
What We Do
The work mapped to the service path.
Test retrieval authorization, tenant boundaries, source integrity, poisoned context, citation quality, sensitive data exposure, and RAG policy controls
Verify chunk-level access boundaries
Check citation trust and source freshness
Package leakage evidence
Workbench Instruments
Products used to deliver or demonstrate the work.
Deliverables Produced
Artifacts buyers can inspect.
RAG Authorization Review
Retrieval Boundary Test Plan
Poisoned Context Findings
Citation Integrity Report
Sensitive Data Leakage Evidence
What Good Looks Like
Concrete outcomes.
Retrieval authorization is tested
Source provenance is visible
Poisoning scenarios are covered
Tenant boundaries are documented
Related services
Related research
Caveat
Based on analyzed job-description signals and scoped engagement evidence, not proof of any individual company's internal security maturity.
Turn this brief into scoped work.
The CTA follows the primary service path so the next step is commercially clear.