👻 EDR Evasion: Unhooking the Kernel

Abstract

This article dissects the architectural flaws inherent in many modern Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solutions, specifically focusing on userland hooking mechanisms. We investigate sophisticated techniques, such as indirect syscall execution and API unhooking, employed by high-value threat actors to achieve persistence and functional invisibility. The goal is to move beyond generic bypass theory and provide deep technical analysis for security professionals building resilient defenses against advanced persistent threats (APTs).

High-Retention Hook

I remember spending three days chasing a simple dropper sample that kept vanishing. Not crashing, not terminating gracefully, but genuinely disappearing from memory right before execution, leaving zero forensic trace of its payload. I initially blamed my sandbox setup, convinced it was timing out. It wasn't. The sample was expertly checking for the tell-tale signs of userland security instrumentation: the injected DLLs, the modified function prologues, and the hooks placed by the EDR. It didn't need to fight the EDR; it simply saw the surveillance, unhooked itself, and then continued execution in the blind spot. It was a painful, yet necessary, realization that our tools often rely on structural vulnerabilities that attackers exploit with surgical precision.

Research Context

The modern security landscape is dominated by EDR and XDR platforms. They represent a significant advancement over legacy antivirus by focusing on behavior, telemetry, and correlation. A fundamental component of nearly all EDR solutions running on Windows involves placing hooks (usually via DLL injection) into sensitive user-mode APIs (like ntdll.dll or kernel32.dll). This allows the EDR agent to inspect parameters, log activity, and block malicious calls before they transition to the kernel. This method is fast and effective against run-of-the-mill malware.

However, this reliance on userland hooking creates an exploitable architectural dependency. If the security product needs to manipulate code in user memory to monitor it, a sufficiently skilled threat actor can manipulate it back to remove the monitoring. It’s an arms race where the defender’s instrumentation is often the attacker’s most reliable detection mechanism.

Problem Statement

The core security gap lies in the predictable nature of userland API hooking. When an EDR places a jump instruction at the start of a critical API function (the "hook"), it redirects execution to its own monitoring code. Malware that needs to evade detection realizes it only has to accomplish one task: execute the kernel-level system call (syscall) directly, bypassing the monitored API stub entirely.

Current EDR visibility often fails when malware utilizes techniques that completely circumvent the standard Windows Application Programming Interface (API) layer. This includes dynamic resolution of syscall numbers, direct kernel interaction, and memory reflection techniques to restore original, unhooked function prologues—often referred to as "unhooking."

Methodology or Investigation Process

To demonstrate and analyze these evasions, our methodology involved setting up a controlled environment. We used a modern Windows 10 VM provisioned with a simulated, hook-based monitoring agent (mimicking basic EDR function interception on ntdll.dll and kernel32.dll).

Our investigative focus centered on the indirect syscall mechanism, popularized by techniques like Halos Gate and recently refined approaches. Instead of relying on the standard flow (User Application -> Hooked API -> System Call Dispatcher), we leveraged custom shellcode to:

1. Locate the syscall instruction (syscall or sysenter) within ntdll.dll dynamically.
2. Determine the specific system call number (SSN) required for the desired function (e.g., NtAllocateVirtualMemory). This required parsing the Export Address Table (EAT) and sometimes the function stubs themselves.
3. Execute the syscall directly using assembly language stubs, loading parameters into the correct registers (RCX, RDX, R8, R9) before jumping to the syscall instruction.

Tools used included x64dbg for runtime analysis, custom C/Assembly loaders for proof-of-concept testing, and ProcMon to confirm the absence of expected user-mode API calls, while still observing the kernel-level operation.

Findings and Technical Analysis

The analysis confirmed that bypassing userland hooks is technically straightforward for malware written specifically for this purpose.

1. Syscall Resolution: By dynamically resolving the System Service Number (SSN) at runtime—often via manual parsing of the exported functions in ntdll.dll—the malware ensures it does not rely on static import tables, which can be easily monitored. This activity aligns closely with MITRE ATT&CK T1562.001 (Impair Defenses).
2. Indirect Execution: Once the SSN is found, the malware executes the system call instruction directly. This jump completely bypasses the EDR’s jump instruction placed at the start of the standard API function stub. The EDR only sees the final result (e.g., memory allocated) but loses critical telemetry regarding who called the function and with what parameters.
3. Unhooking Self-Defense: More sophisticated samples first check the first few bytes (the prologue) of critical API functions. If they find an unexpected jump instruction (the EDR hook), they use legitimate memory manipulation calls (or often indirect syscalls themselves) to overwrite the hooked prologue with the original, clean bytes of the legitimate Windows function. This ensures that any subsequent system interaction—or injection into another process—is completely invisible to the EDR.

This mechanism is a critical component of many advanced implant loaders, offering a substantial advantage in long-term operational security for threat actors.

Risk and Impact Assessment

When userland evasion techniques are successfully deployed, the primary risk is total defensive blindness. Security products lose the ability to perform fine-grained parameter inspection, limiting them to retrospective file hash checks or general behavioral pattern matching (which the attacker is also tuning to avoid).

Real-World Case Study: The impact of these low-level evasion tactics was starkly illustrated in campaigns linked to highly sophisticated state-sponsored actors, such as those utilizing advanced Cobalt Strike loaders or custom implants derived from tools like Ghost/Flame. These groups do not rely on standard DLL imports; their loaders are designed to execute core functions (like memory allocation, thread creation, or process injection) using direct syscalls. For example, during analysis of implants related to the SolarWinds compromise (attributed to APT29/Cozy Bear), researchers noted a high degree of custom execution flow designed explicitly to frustrate user-mode inspection tools, ensuring the malware could dwell for extended periods without triggering behavioral alerts based on API monitoring. The failure here was relying too heavily on observable user-mode events instead of verifiable kernel-level telemetry.

Mitigation and Defensive Strategies

Defending against indirect syscalls and userland unhooking requires moving defense closer to the kernel:

1. Kernel Callbacks and Filter Drivers: EDRs must increasingly rely on kernel-mode controls, specifically registered kernel callbacks (e.g., using CmRegisterCallback for registry operations or PsSetCreateProcessNotifyRoutineEx for process creation). This approach monitors activity after the syscall has executed but before the operation completes, a layer the attacker cannot bypass without triggering a true kernel vulnerability (a much harder endeavor).
2. Hardware-Assisted Controls: Leveraging features like Intel CET (Control-flow Enforcement Technology) and virtualization-based security (VBS) can provide execution integrity guarantees that are nearly impossible for userland malware to circumvent.
3. Anomaly and Behavior Analysis: Instead of focusing purely on how an API is called, focus on the resulting behavior. Is a legitimate process suddenly allocating RWX memory and jumping into it? Is a standard utility making network connections atypical of its function? These behavioral anomalies can be detected even if the specific syscall was bypassed.
4. Signature Hardening: Developers of security products must employ techniques like code signing requirements, process protection mechanisms (PPL), and memory integrity checks to make it exceptionally difficult for malware to restore the original function prologues.

Researcher Reflection

The experience of analyzing evasive malware taught me a crucial lesson: security research is not about finding the next big zero-day, but about understanding the design philosophy of the adversary. Threat actors are economically rational; they will target the cheapest, most reliable vulnerability, which, currently, is the reliance on userland instrumentation. Our job as defenders is to raise the adversary's cost of entry by forcing them into complex, noisy, or privileged execution paths. If we continue to rely solely on userland hooks, we are simply providing a predictable roadmap for bypass.

Conclusion

Userland API hooking has served the security industry well, but the time for architectural evolution is now. Sophisticated threat actors have mastered indirect syscall execution and unhooking, transforming a robust defense mechanism into a predictable vulnerability. Future defensive strategies must prioritize kernel-level telemetry, hardware enforcement, and holistic behavioral modeling to maintain visibility in the face of surgically precise evasion tactics.

Discussion Question

Given the technical difficulties and potential instability of kernel-mode monitoring, what is the most practical and scalable hybrid approach (combining userland and kernel checks) that security vendors should adopt in the next generation of EDR systems?

Written by - Harsh Kanojia

LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/harsh-kanojia369/

GitHub - https://github.com/harsh-hak

Personal Portfolio - https://harsh-hak.github.io/

Community - https://forms.gle/xsLyYgHzMiYsp8zx6