Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM68040
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-16
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Kings College of Engineering, Punalkulam
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Kings College of Engineering, Punalkulam
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Kings College of Engineering, Punalkulam
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Kings College of Engineering, Punalkulam
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Kings College of Engineering, Punalkulam
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Kings College of Engineering, Punalkulam
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) connects large language models (LLMs) to external documents, websites, repositories, and organizational knowledge bases. Although retrieval improves factual grounding, it also exposes the model to untrusted text that may contain instructions designed to override the application’s intended behaviour. This threat, commonly described as prompt injection, may appear directly in a webpage or indirectly inside a file, email, code comment, or hidden markup. This paper proposes PromptShield, a context-aware screening framework placed between retrieval and generation. It combines provenance tagging, structural parsing, instruction-intent classification, risk scoring, and policy-aware sanitization. Instead of blocking every imperative sentence, it examines whether a passage targets the assistant, conflicts with the user’s task, requests a protected action, or attempts to change the instruction hierarchy. Low-risk evidence is retained, suspicious spans may be sanitized, and high-risk passages are quarantined. The paper defines the threat model, system architecture, dataset plan, candidate detection methods, evaluation metrics, and deployment safeguards. As no implementation experiment is claimed, the results section specifies a reproducible evaluation plan rather than reporting invented measurements. PromptShield aims to provide a practical foundation for secure RAG applications while balancing attack detection, evidence retention, latency, and usability.
KEYWORDS
PromptShield proposes a context-aware approach to prompt-injection screening in retrieval-augmented AI systems. Its main idea is to preserve the distinction between instructions that govern the application and text retrieved as evidence. Provenance, structural analysis, semantic classification, risk scoring, and policy-aware sanitization work together to reduce the chance that untrusted passages redirect the model. The framework also requires independent tool authorization, careful logging, source-separated evaluation, and explicit measurement of benign-evidence retention. The approach is modular and suitable for a final-year CSE prototype that begins with local documents and gradually adds classifier-based screening. Because the framework has not yet been experimentally validated, its effectiveness remains a research question rather than a proven result. A completed implementation should use a well-labelled benchmark, report actual metrics, analyse errors, and state its limitations clearly. Secure RAG requires layered controls and continuous evaluation; prompt screening is valuable, but it cannot replace application-level security
[1] P. Lewis et al., “Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 9459–9474, 2020. [2] K. Greshake et al., “Not What You’ve Signed Up For: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection,” in Proc. AISec Workshop, 2023. [3] OWASP Foundation, “LLM01: Prompt Injection,” OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications, 2025. [4] T. Brown et al., “Language Models are Few-Shot Learners,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020. [5] S. Yao et al., “ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models,” in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. [6] L. Ouyang et al., “Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, 2022. [7] A. Vaswani et al., “Attention Is All You Need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017. [8] T. Wolf et al., “Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing,” in EMNLP: System Demonstrations, pp. 38–45, 2020. [9] M. Mitchell et al., “Model Cards for Model Reporting,” in Proc. Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 220–229, 2019. [10] T. Gebru et al., “Datasheets for Datasets,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 86–92, 2021.
Publication Date
10/16/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
5
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...