T1106: Native API
Adversaries may interact with the native OS application programming interface (API) to execute behaviors. Native APIs provide a controlled means of calling low-level OS services within the kernel, such as those involving hardware/devices, memory, and processes.[1][2] These native APIs are leveraged by the OS during system boot (when other system components are not yet initialized) as well as carrying out tasks and requests during routine operations.
Adversaries may abuse these OS API functions as a means of executing behaviors. Similar to Command and Scripting Interpreter, the native API and its hierarchy of interfaces provide mechanisms to interact with and utilize various components of a victimized system.
Native API functions (such as NtCreateProcess) may be directed invoked via system calls / syscalls, but these features are also often exposed to user-mode applications via interfaces and libraries.[3][4][5] For example, functions such as the Windows API CreateProcess() or GNU fork() will allow programs and scripts to start other processes.[6][7] This may allow API callers to execute a binary, run a CLI command, load modules, etc. as thousands of similar API functions exist for various system operations.[8][9][10]
Higher level software frameworks, such as Microsoft .NET and macOS Cocoa, are also available to interact with native APIs. These frameworks typically provide language wrappers/abstractions to API functionalities and are designed for ease-of-use/portability of code.[11][12][13][14]
Adversaries may use assembly to directly or in-directly invoke syscalls in an attempt to subvert defensive sensors and detection signatures such as user mode API-hooks.[15] Adversaries may also attempt to tamper with sensors and defensive tools associated with API monitoring, such as unhooking monitored functions via Disable or Modify Tools.
Analyst context for executives and security teams
Native API abuse matters because it is not a niche tool or command; it is the normal operating-system interface used to start processes, load modules, manage memory, and interact with devices. That makes it useful to adversaries and difficult for defenders to separate from legitimate software behavior. For leaders, the key question is whether endpoint controls and SOC telemetry can see suspicious execution behavior even when activity avoids obvious command-line patterns or attempts to bypass user-mode API monitoring.
Executive priority
Treat T1106 as a core execution-visibility risk across Windows, Linux, and macOS. ATT&CK maps this technique to multiple groups and campaigns, including espionage and financially motivated activity, so coverage should be prioritized as a broad defensive capability rather than a malware-specific rule. Budget and assurance discussions should focus on endpoint behavior prevention, execution prevention, and evidence that monitoring still works when direct or indirect syscalls and unusual library/module loading are involved.
Technical view
T1106 sits in the Execution tactic and covers adversary use of native OS APIs, user-mode libraries/frameworks, and direct or indirect syscalls to execute binaries, run commands, load modules, or perform other low-level system actions. Because MITRE does not provide official detection text for this technique, teams should validate coverage using the related detection strategy DET0529: behavioral detection of native API invocation via unusual DLL loads and direct syscalls. Detection engineering should correlate process creation, module/library loads, API/syscall-related endpoint events, and signs of monitoring tamper or unhooking where available.
Likely telemetry
- Process creation and parent/child process lineage across Windows, Linux, and macOS
- Command-line and executable launch metadata where available
- Module, shared library, and DLL load events, especially unusual loads tied to execution behavior
- Endpoint behavioral telemetry for API calls, syscall patterns, memory/process operations, and code/module loading
- Framework-mediated execution evidence such as .NET on Windows and Cocoa/Foundation/Core Services activity on macOS where collected
Detection direction
- Confirm whether endpoint telemetry can observe behavior below command and scripting layers, since native API use may not produce obvious shell activity.
- Use DET0529-style analytics to look for unusual DLL or module loads and direct syscall patterns, but tune carefully because native APIs are used constantly by legitimate software.
- Correlate API/syscall indicators with process lineage, newly executed binaries, loaded modules, and command execution outcomes rather than alerting on API use alone.
- Validate blind spots in user-mode API-hook based monitoring, because ATT&CK notes adversaries may use assembly/direct syscalls to subvert such sensors.
- Include monitoring for defensive-tool tampering associated with API monitoring, consistent with the technique’s reference to Disable or Modify Tools behavior.
Mitigation priorities
- Prioritize execution prevention controls so only trusted or authorized code can run where business processes allow, aligning to M1038.
- Deploy or validate endpoint behavior prevention capabilities that analyze process, file, API-call, and endpoint behavior patterns, aligning to M1040.
- Harden monitoring resilience by ensuring endpoint sensors report health and tamper conditions, not just detections.
- Apply controls consistently across Windows, Linux, and macOS assets where those platforms are in scope.
- Use incident response exercises to test whether suspicious native API execution can be reconstructed from available telemetry.
Analyst notes and limits
This technique is important because it describes an execution substrate used by normal software and by adversaries. The relationship set is broad, including campaigns such as Operation Honeybee, Operation Sharpshooter, Operation Wocao, Operation Dream Job, and Operation Digital Eye, and groups including Turla, Lazarus Group, Sandworm Team, menuPass, Gamaredon Group, APT37, APT38, TA505, Kimsuky, BlackTech, and others. That breadth supports prioritizing resilient behavioral visibility rather than relying only on signatures or command-line detections.
MITRE provides no official detection text for T1106 in the supplied object. Practical detection quality depends on local endpoint sensor depth, operating-system audit configuration, ability to capture module/library loads and syscall/API-related behavior, and environment-specific baselines for legitimate software. The supplied data does not support claims of current exploitation, customer exposure, or guaranteed detection coverage.
Native API
Adversaries may interact with the native OS application programming interface (API) to execute behaviors. Native APIs provide a controlled means of calling low-level OS services within the kernel, such as those involving hardware/devices, memory, and processes.[1][2] These native APIs are leveraged by the OS during system boot (when other system components are not yet initialized) as well as carrying out tasks and requests during routine operations.
Adversaries may abuse these OS API functions as a means of executing behaviors. Similar to Command and Scripting Interpreter, the native API and its hierarchy of interfaces provide mechanisms to interact with and utilize various components of a victimized system.
Native API functions (such as NtCreateProcess) may be directed invoked via system calls / syscalls, but these features are also often exposed to user-mode applications via interfaces and libraries.[3][4][5] For example, functions such as the Windows API CreateProcess() or GNU fork() will allow programs and scripts to start other processes.[6][7] This may allow API callers to execute a binary, run a CLI command, load modules, etc. as thousands of similar API functions exist for various system operations.[8][9][10]
Higher level software frameworks, such as Microsoft .NET and macOS Cocoa, are also available to interact with native APIs. These frameworks typically provide language wrappers/abstractions to API functionalities and are designed for ease-of-use/portability of code.[11][12][13][14]
Adversaries may use assembly to directly or in-directly invoke syscalls in an attempt to subvert defensive sensors and detection signatures such as user mode API-hooks.[15] Adversaries may also attempt to tamper with sensors and defensive tools associated with API monitoring, such as unhooking monitored functions via Disable or Modify Tools.
How security teams should use this page
Treat this object as behavior context, not an attribution claim. Validate the related groups, software, data sources, and mitigations against official ATT&CK relationships and your own telemetry before making control-coverage decisions.
Groups, software, and campaigns
G1051: Medusa Group
Medusa Group has been active since at least 2021 and was initially operated as a closed ransomware group before evolving into a Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) operation. Some reporting indicates that certain attacks may still be conducted directly by the ransomware’s core developers. Public sources have also referred to the group as “Spearwing” or “Medusa Actors.” [1] [2] Medusa Group employs living-off-the-land techniques, frequently leveraging publicly available tools and common remote management software to conduct operations. The group engages in double extortion tactics, exfiltrating data prior to encryption and threatening to publish stolen information if ransom demands are not met. [3] For initial access, Medusa Group has exploited publicly known vulnerabilities, conducted phishing campaigns, and used credentials or access purchased from Initial Access Brokers (IABs). The group is opportunistic and has targeted a wide range of sectors globally. [4]
G0126: Higaisa
Higaisa is a threat group suspected to have South Korean origins. Higaisa has targeted government, public, and trade organizations in North Korea; however, they have also carried out attacks in China, Japan, Russia, Poland, and other nations. Higaisa was first disclosed in early 2019 but is assessed to have operated as early as 2009.[1][2][3]
G0032: Lazarus Group
Lazarus Group is a North Korean state-sponsored cyber threat group attributed to the Reconnaissance General Bureau (RGB). [1] [2] Lazarus Group has been active since at least 2009 and is reportedly responsible for the November 2014 destructive wiper attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment, identified by Novetta as part of Operation Blockbuster. Malware used by Lazarus Group correlates to other reported campaigns, including Operation Flame, Operation 1Mission, Operation Troy, DarkSeoul, and Ten Days of Rain.[3]
North Korea’s cyber operations have shown a consistent pattern of adaptation, forming and reorganizing units as national priorities shift. These units frequently share personnel, infrastructure, malware, and tradecraft, making it difficult to attribute specific operations with high confidence. Public reporting often uses “Lazarus Group” as an umbrella term for multiple North Korean cyber operators conducting espionage, destructive attacks, and financially motivated campaigns.[4][5][6]
G0078: Gorgon Group
Gorgon Group is a threat group consisting of members who are suspected to be Pakistan-based or have other connections to Pakistan. The group has performed a mix of criminal and targeted attacks, including campaigns against government organizations in the United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, and the United States. [1]
G0010: Turla
Turla is a cyber espionage threat group that has been attributed to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB). They have compromised victims in over 50 countries since at least 2004, spanning a range of industries including government, embassies, military, education, research and pharmaceutical companies. Turla is known for conducting watering hole and spearphishing campaigns, and leveraging in-house tools and malware, such as Uroburos.[1][2][3][4][5]
G0114: Chimera
G0098: BlackTech
BlackTech is a suspected Chinese cyber espionage group that has primarily targeted organizations in East Asia--particularly Taiwan, Japan, and Hong Kong--and the US since at least 2013. BlackTech has used a combination of custom malware, dual-use tools, and living off the land tactics to compromise media, construction, engineering, electronics, and financial company networks.[1][2][3]
G0034: Sandworm Team
Sandworm Team is a destructive threat group that has been attributed to Russia's General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) Main Center for Special Technologies (GTsST) military unit 74455.[1][2] This group has been active since at least 2009.[3][4][5][6]
In October 2020, the US indicted six GRU Unit 74455 officers associated with Sandworm Team for the following cyber operations: the 2015 and 2016 attacks against Ukrainian electrical companies and government organizations, the 2017 worldwide NotPetya attack, targeting of the 2017 French presidential campaign, the 2018 Olympic Destroyer attack against the Winter Olympic Games, the 2018 operation against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and attacks against the country of Georgia in 2018 and 2019.[1][2] Some of these were conducted with the assistance of GRU Unit 26165, which is also referred to as APT28.[7]
S0396: EvilBunny
S1179: Exbyte
S0141: Winnti for Windows
Winnti for Windows is a modular remote access Trojan (RAT) that has been used likely by multiple groups to carry out intrusions in various regions since at least 2010, including by one group referred to as the same name, Winnti Group.[1][2][3][4]. The Linux variant is tracked separately under Winnti for Linux.[5]
S0453: Pony
S0687: Cyclops Blink
Cyclops Blink is a modular malware that has been used in widespread campaigns by Sandworm Team since at least 2019 to target Small/Home Office (SOHO) network devices, including WatchGuard and Asus. Cyclops Blink is assessed to be a replacement for VPNFilter, a similar platform targeting network devices.[1][2][3]
S0268: Bisonal
Bisonal is a remote access tool (RAT) that has been used by Tonto Team against public and private sector organizations in Russia, South Korea, and Japan since at least December 2010.[1][2]
S0084: Mis-Type
Mis-Type is a backdoor hybrid that was used in Operation Dust Storm by 2012.[1]
S0678: Torisma
Torisma is a second stage implant designed for specialized monitoring that has been used by Lazarus Group. Torisma was discovered during an investigation into the 2020 Operation North Star campaign that targeted the defense sector.[1]
S0627: SodaMaster
SodaMaster is a fileless malware used by menuPass to download and execute payloads since at least 2020.[1]
S0629: RainyDay
S0154: Cobalt Strike
Cobalt Strike is a commercial, full-featured, remote access tool that bills itself as “adversary simulation software designed to execute targeted attacks and emulate the post-exploitation actions of advanced threat actors”. Cobalt Strike’s interactive post-exploit capabilities cover the full range of ATT&CK tactics, all executed within a single, integrated system.[1]
In addition to its own capabilities, Cobalt Strike leverages the capabilities of other well-known tools such as Metasploit and Mimikatz.[1]
S1013: ZxxZ
C0022: Operation Dream Job
Operation Dream Job was a cyber espionage operation likely conducted by Lazarus Group that targeted the defense, aerospace, government, and other sectors in the United States, Israel, Australia, Russia, and India. In at least one case, the cyber actors tried to monetize their network access to conduct a business email compromise (BEC) operation. In 2020, security researchers noted overlapping TTPs, to include fake job lures and code similarities, between Operation Dream Job, Operation North Star, and Operation Interception; by 2022 security researchers described Operation Dream Job as an umbrella term covering both Operation Interception and Operation North Star.[1][2][3][4]
C0006: Operation Honeybee
Operation Honeybee was a campaign that targeted humanitarian aid and inter-Korean affairs organizations from at least late 2017 through early 2018. Operation Honeybee initially targeted South Korea, but expanded to include Vietnam, Singapore, Japan, Indonesia, Argentina, and Canada. Security researchers assessed the threat actors were likely Korean speakers based on metadata used in both lure documents and executables, and named the campaign "Honeybee" after the author name discovered in malicious Word documents.[1]
C0061: Operation Digital Eye
Operation Digital Eye was conducted in June and July of 2024 by suspected People's Republic of China (PRC)-nexus threat actors targeting business-to-business IT service providers in Southern Europe. Operation Digital Eye activity included the use of Visual Studio Code tunnels for command and control (C2) and custom lateral movement capabilities. Overlaps in tooling between Digital Eye and previous China-nexus campaigns, Operation Soft Cell and Operation Tainted Love, indicate the potential use of shared vendors or digital quartermasters.[1]
All related ATT&CK context
Mitigation direction
Object version and sync metadata
The fields below describe the current mirrored snapshot. When Glexia retains multiple ATT&CK source imports, you can open the table to compare the same object across releases (hashes and MITRE timestamps). For MITRE’s own release notes and roadmap, see ATT&CK resources — Updates .
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
| Release | Bundle imported | Object version | Modified | Status | Raw hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.1 | 2.3 | Current bundle | 26c79e9e4462… |
Mirrored ATT&CK source object
The raw object is retained through the mirrored ATT&CK source bundle and object hash. The raw endpoint returns the exact object from the mirrored bundle when available.
External references and citations
MITRE external references are preserved separately from Glexia analysis so citations remain traceable to their original source records.
-
[1]
NT API Windows
The NTinterlnals.net team. (n.d.). Nowak, T. Retrieved June 25, 2020.
Open source URL -
[2]
Linux Kernel API
Linux Kernel Organization, Inc. (n.d.). The Linux Kernel API. Retrieved June 25, 2020.
Open source URL -
[3]
OutFlank System Calls
de Plaa, C. (2019, June 19). Red Team Tactics: Combining Direct System Calls and sRDI to bypass AV/EDR. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
Open source URL -
[4]
CyberBit System Calls
Gavriel, H. (2018, November 27). Malware Mitigation when Direct System Calls are Used. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
Open source URL -
[5]
MDSec System Calls
MDSec Research. (2020, December). Bypassing User-Mode Hooks and Direct Invocation of System Calls for Red Teams. Retrieved September 29, 2021.
Open source URL -
[6]
Microsoft CreateProcess
Microsoft. (n.d.). CreateProcess function. Retrieved September 12, 2024.
Open source URL -
[7]
GNU Fork
Free Software Foundation, Inc.. (2020, June 18). Creating a Process. Retrieved June 25, 2020.
Open source URL -
[8]
Microsoft Win32
Microsoft. (n.d.). Programming reference for the Win32 API. Retrieved March 15, 2020.
Open source URL -
[9]
LIBC
Kerrisk, M. (2016, December 12). libc(7) — Linux manual page. Retrieved June 25, 2020.
Open source URL -
[10]
GLIBC
glibc developer community. (2020, February 1). The GNU C Library (glibc). Retrieved June 25, 2020.
Open source URL -
[11]
Microsoft NET
Microsoft. (n.d.). What is .NET Framework?. Retrieved March 15, 2020.
Open source URL -
[12]
Apple Core Services
Apple. (n.d.). Core Services. Retrieved June 25, 2020.
Open source URL -
[13]
MACOS Cocoa
Apple. (2015, September 16). Cocoa Application Layer. Retrieved June 25, 2020.
Open source URL -
[14]
macOS Foundation
Apple. (n.d.). Foundation. Retrieved July 1, 2020.
Open source URL -
[15]
Redops Syscalls
Feichter, D. (2023, June 30). Direct Syscalls vs Indirect Syscalls. Retrieved September 27, 2023.
Open source URL -
[16]
mitre-attack T1106Open source URL
Source: MITRE ATT&CK®. © 2026 The MITRE Corporation. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Glexia is not affiliated with or endorsed by MITRE.