Windows is watching: Anti-piracy tool fingers Scattered Spider suspect 15%

By Thomas Claburn37%

7/7/2026, 8:47:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Confirmation Bias, and Overconfidence Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.3% saturation with 127 hits. Analysis detected 772 faulty-reasoning hits from 522 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.8% and a BS Rank of 15% (18,775 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.80% of the article peer group.

Your Windows is watching you. 
The US Justice Department's complaint against Peter Stokes for alleged involvement in the Scattered Spider hacking group offers a reminder that it's difficult to hide online activity from Microsoft's operating system (or any other). 
Scattered Spider, according to US authorities, targeted numerous companies in the US by compromising employee accounts in order to access more than 100 corporate networks and exfiltrate or encrypt data that would be ransomed for payment. 
The group is said to have obtained over $100 million in ransom payments. 
The complaint, arrest, and extradition of Stokes relied in part on a Microsoft Windows Global Device Identifier (GDID), among other telemetry records, to link online activity to the suspect. 
"According to a Microsoft representative, a Global Device Identifier in the Windows ecosystem is a persistent, device-level identifier designed to uniquely identify an installation of a Windows operating system on a device, either a physical device (e.g., a mobile phone or laptop) or virtual machine, across certain Microsoft services and scenarios," explained FBI special agent Ali Sadiq in an affidavit accompanying the DOJ's criminal complaint. 
The court filing also notes that Microsoft made criminal referrals to the DOJ implicating Stokes. 
It points to an October 2024 referral that cites online service telemetry that company security researchers believe linked Stokes to other hacking group members. 
Social media posts relevant to Scattered Spider, supposedly sent and received by Stokes, look unlikely to help his defense. 
The affidavit says that members of Scattered Spider used a web tunneling tool called ngrok to avoid network barriers and maintain access to compromised servers, as well as a VPN service called Tzulo. 
Investigators obtained IP address records from ngrok and the VPN provider and then obtained records from Microsoft that matched the time when that ngrok account had been set up on a Windows machine through a specific GDID. 
"According to Microsoft records, on or about May 12, 2025, at 19:21 UTC  when, according to ngrok records, the ngrok account was created  the device with the GDID accessed, among other ngrok pages, 'https://dashboard.ngrok.com/signup,' the ngrok page to set up an ngrok account," the affidavit explains. 
The GDID also linked to an IP address in Estonia where Stokes resided. 
The Windows GDID, or at least the infrastructure for it, is said to date back to the release of Windows 10 in 2015. 
The GDID itself doesn't show up much in online documentation until 2021 or thereabouts. 
According to a developer writeup posted to GitHub, wlidsvc (Microsoft Account service) provisions the device with login.live.com and gets back a device PUID. 
The identifier is then stored in the registry. 
The Connected Devices Platform (cdp.dll / CDPSvc) reads it and registers it into the Device Directory Service (DDS) graph. 
And after that, Delivery Optimization reports it as the documented UCDOStatus.GlobalDeviceId. 
Apple maintains similar identifiers, including a hardware UUID and a DSID (Destination Signaling Identifier) tied to iCloud, among others. 
Linux also supports a machine-id. 
And when presented with a lawful demand for information, most service providers will cooperate and provide whatever information they store. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.6%Thomas Claburn: 4.0%The Register: 3.3%Confirmation Bias13.6%This article: 9.2%Thomas Claburn: 0.7%The Register: 1.0%Anchoring Bias9.2%This article: 11.7%Thomas Claburn: 4.4%The Register: 3.2%Availability Heuristic11.7%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.3%The Register: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.8%Thomas Claburn: 0.3%The Register: 1.3%Hindsight Bias3.8%This article: 12.6%Thomas Claburn: 2.5%The Register: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias12.6%This article: 2.7%Thomas Claburn: 7.3%The Register: 5.0%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.4%The Register: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.6%Thomas Claburn: 1.6%The Register: 0.8%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 1.0%The Register: 3.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Thomas Claburn: 2.9%The Register: 2.6%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 12.5%Thomas Claburn: 13.6%The Register: 8.2%Negativity Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 2.9%The Register: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.4%The Register: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Thomas Claburn: 0.6%The Register: 1.9%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.3%The Register: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.3%The Register: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.3%Thomas Claburn: 6.0%The Register: 4.2%Appeal to Authority24.3%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 1.6%The Register: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 1.0%The Register: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.4%The Register: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.0%Thomas Claburn: 6.5%The Register: 6.2%Hasty Generalization14.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 1.4%The Register: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.4%The Register: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.6%Thomas Claburn: 1.8%The Register: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.6%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 5.7%The Register: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.6%Thomas Claburn: 0.3%The Register: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.6%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.2%The Register: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 2.3%The Register: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.0%Thomas Claburn: 2.1%The Register: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.9%The Register: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 3.7%The Register: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.0%Thomas Claburn: 2.1%The Register: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection1.0%This article: 1.7%Thomas Claburn: 1.4%The Register: 7.3%Biased Writer Voice1.7%This article: 4.8%Thomas Claburn: 0.7%The Register: 1.5%Indoctrination4.8%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Claburn: 0.0%The Register: 2.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

522 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers41%attributed speech306writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageUS Justice Department • 34 words • 0.0% coverageUS authorities • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAli Sadiq • 65 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAli Sadiq • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageAli Sadiq • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

US Justice Department

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words16% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Indoctrination-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%US Justice Department: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%US Justice Department: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%US Justice Department: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.