The Growing Relevance of Hardware Integrity in Connected Mobility

The automotive industry, and the broader world of critical infrastructure, has just received two clear warnings about the threat of hidden, undocumented hardware features. 

These hidden commands can open the door to unauthorized access, data breaches, and even remote control of critical systems. This puts millions of connected vehicles and smart devices at risk. The potential impact includes compromised safety, operational disruption, and exposure of sensitive data, with threats ranging from malicious implementations at the OEM level to large-scale supply chain attacks.

First, the recent disclosure of CVE-2025-27840 revealed 29 undocumented commands in a widely used Bluetooth and Wi-Fi module, found in millions of vehicles and IoT devices. While these commands are most easily triggered through physical access (such as via USB or UART), research indicates that remote exploitation could be possible under certain conditions, such as if an attacker has already gained root access, installed malware, or delivered a malicious firmware update that exposes low-level device interfaces. 

Then, headlines broke about “kill switches” allegedly embedded in Chinese-manufactured solar panels sold worldwide, raising concerns of remote sabotage at a national scale.

While these incidents come from different sectors, the bottom line is the same: undocumented and potentially remotely exploitable hardware components represent a growing, cross-industry challenge that merits close attention.

What Do Engineered Backdoors Mean for Connected Vehicles

Unlike most vulnerabilities that arise from accidental coding errors or oversights, CVE-2025-27840 stems from 29 undocumented Host Controller Interface (HCI) commands. This design choice introduces a different class of threat; one that is harder to detect and control through conventional software-focused security measures.

This concern echoes the high-profile critical vulnerability CVE-2024-3094, which was published last year and received the highest possible severity score. It attracted widespread media attention far beyond the security research community. In that case, malicious code was deliberately inserted into a widely used open-source library as part of a sophisticated supply chain attack. 

Both incidents highlight how backdoors and hidden functionality, rather than accidental bugs, can undermine the trust and integrity of critical systems across industries.

For automotive OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers, this discovery fundamentally shifts the threat landscape:

• Supply chain trust is at risk: The presence of hidden, remotely accessible features in a mass-market chip undermines confidence in even the most established vendors.
• Compliance is under threat: Regulations such as UNECE WP.29 R155 and ISO/SAE 21434 now require organizations to implement end-to-end cybersecurity platforms, including hardware and supply chain risk assessments. In the US, new rules finalized in January 2025 prohibit the import or sale of connected vehicle systems and autonomous driving systems with ties to China or Russia. These bans, which target components like Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and autonomous driving modules, will take full effect by 2030 for hardware and as soon as 2027 for software. This evolving regulatory landscape means organizations must go beyond surface-level checks to ensure compliance and avoid costly disruptions.
• The attack surface has expanded: Attackers can exploit these commands for remote control, malware injection, and device impersonation, bypassing traditional software-focused controls.
• Security must be embedded by design: Embedding security practices throughout the product lifecycle, including hardware supply chain management, enhances resilience against emerging threats and helps meet regulatory expectations.

The Link Between “Kill Switches” in Solar Panels and the Automotive Industry

While the headlines about “kill switches” in solar panels highlight the national security threats of hidden hardware controls, the automotive sector faces a parallel and equally urgent threat. Hardware backdoors, whether introduced during manufacturing or embedded in firmware, can silently compromise critical vehicle systems and enable remote control or sabotage, often without detection by standard security audits.

For automotive manufacturers and suppliers, the implications are profound:

• Hardware backdoors can bypass software protections and encryption, allowing attackers to disable safety features, manipulate vehicle behavior, or exfiltrate sensitive data, all without leaving a software trail.
• Just as a “kill switch” could disrupt an entire solar grid, a hidden backdoor in a vehicle component could be triggered remotely, potentially affecting entire fleets or brands.
• The complexity and globalization of automotive supply chains make it difficult to guarantee that every component is free from malicious modifications or undocumented features. This challenge is amplified by the new US restrictions mentioned previously. These policies reflect a growing recognition that hardware-level threats compromise not just individual companies but national security and economic stability.

This is not a theoretical concern. Upstream’s 2025 Global Automotive Cybersecurity Report highlights a sharp rise in large-scale cyberattacks affecting millions of vehicles and connected mobility assets, illustrating how attackers increasingly exploit embedded systems and supply chain vulnerabilities. Tools like Upstream’s AutoThreat® PRO, which monitors deep and dark web forums for mobility-specific threats and vulnerabilities, provide critical insights into emerging threats like undocumented hardware commands and supply chain exploits. These platforms enable cybersecurity teams to proactively identify, prioritize, and mitigate threats that conventional software-focused tools might miss.

A New Way for Automotive to Approach Hardware Supply Chain 

The twin revelations of CVE-2025-27840 and the solar panel “kill switches” highlight an important shift in how automotive organizations might approach hardware supply chain security. Rather than assuming trust, leaders may find value in adopting a mindset of transparency, rigorous validation, and continuous vigilance. This approach is not only a best practice, but is increasingly required by both international and national regulations.

Automotive companies could consider:

• Encouraging suppliers to disclose all hardware and firmware features, including any undocumented or proprietary commands, to build a clearer picture of potential risks and to demonstrate compliance with regulations like R155, ISO/SAE 21434, and new US trade laws.
• Expanding audit and testing processes to include deep hardware and firmware analysis alongside traditional software assessments, supporting both security and regulatory obligations.
• Engaging actively with industry peers and regulators to share insights, develop best practices, and collectively strengthen defenses against emerging threats, while staying aligned with evolving legal requirements.
• Preparing incident response plans that specifically address hardware-level vulnerabilities, including scenarios involving remote control or sabotage, to meet regulatory expectations for threat management and response.

By exploring these approaches, organizations can enhance their resilience, align with regulatory requirements, and better safeguard their vehicles, customers, and brand reputation. Platforms such as Upstream’s AutoThreat® PRO further support compliance efforts by mapping threat intelligence findings directly to regulatory frameworks, simplifying audits, and demonstrating proactive threat management.