Imagine buying a smoke detector that works perfectly—detects smoke, sounds the alarm, passes every inspection—but also has a hidden microphone streaming audio to a foreign server. It's not broken. It's not hacked. It's doing exactly what its maker intended, and that's the problem. This paper asks: what if your car is that smoke detector? Yoo and Kim formalize what automotive cybersecurity has been quietly ignoring. The entire trust architecture of V2X (vehicle-to-everything) communication, UNECE WP.29 regulations, and ISO/SAE 21434 assumes the manufacturer is benign. Certificates prove authenticity. Behavioral monitoring catches anomalies. But a vehicle designed from scratch to spy, exfiltrate, or context-trigger malicious actuation is authentic—it has real certificates, real firmware signatures, real behavioral profiles. It passes every check because it was built to pass every check. The core contribution is an Entity-Centric Threat Model with three interlocking subcomponents. First, four Malign Entity Archetypes: peer-benign purpose-malicious vehicles (the headline threat—factory-fresh cars with hidden agendas), compromised vehicles (traditional hack targets), reappropriated genuine components (real parts used outside authorized contexts), and imitated vehicles or components (spoofed identities). The taxonomy is clean and the first archetype is the novel one—everything else maps to known threat categories. Second, a Behaviour-Locus Matrix maps covert, overt, and concealment actions across hardware, software, and network layers. This is the structural contribution: it gives analysts a grid to systematically enumerate where hidden functionality can live and how it can hide. Third, a Behavioural Interaction Model traces the lifecycle of malicious capability from dormant to activated to manifested to observed-or-concealed. The activation is context-triggered—think geofenced behavior changes or time-delayed payloads. The paper exposes two specific assurance gaps that existing standards cannot close. Authenticity does not establish declared-purpose conformance: a valid certificate proves who made the vehicle, not what it's secretly doing. And malicious functionality can evade behavioral detection because the vehicle's visible behavior is genuinely normal—the covert channel is orthogonal to anything peers or monitoring systems can observe. What's notably absent is any empirical validation. There is no simulation, no proof-of-concept exploit, no red-team exercise. This is a conceptual framework paper—a taxonomy and analytical scaffolding, not a demonstration. The value depends entirely on whether the framework proves useful for structuring real threat analysis. The acceptance at IEEE PRDC 2026 suggests the dependable computing community considers the framing timely. The geopolitical subtext is unmistakable, though the paper is careful not to name it. When the EU and US debate restricting Chinese-manufactured connected vehicles, the technical concern is exactly this: vehicles that are authentic, certified, and behaviorally compliant—but potentially purpose-malicious by design. This paper gives that concern a formal vocabulary.
