STLPR0%

As Canvas hack disrupts schools across Missouri, experts worry about copycat attacks 78%

By Chad Davis0%

5/8/2026, 10:23:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 71 hits. Analysis detected 816 faulty-reasoning hits from 428 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.9% and a BS Rank of 78% (5,009 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.10% of the article peer group.

Access to an online portal used by universities across the country, including schools in Missouri, has been restored following a cyberattack. 
Instructure, the parent company behind course management portal Canvas, announced the hack Thursday. 
The portal provides course materials and notes used by students, teachers and professors. 
More than 8,000 schools use the portal. 
Instructure developers said Thursday evening that most of its services were back online. 
ShinnyHunters, the computer hacker network, published a ransom note claiming to have stolen data from its users and threatening to publish it by May 12. 
“I don't know whether it will happen or not, but also [whether] there is any negotiation, we don't know yet,” University of Missouri Science and Technology professor Sejun Song said. 
The group, which is primarily made up of teenagers and young adults from the US and the United Kingdom, also made headlines for hacking Ticketmaster in 2024. 
Song said the hackers exploited vulnerabilities within the Canvas portal through the company's Free-for-Teacher accounts. 
The University of Missouri-St. 
Louis said Friday morning that the software is back online, though some functions that interact with Canvas are still unavailable. 
The university said it will monitor updates and assess any potential impact on operations. 
A spokesperson for St. 
Louis University said it also will continue to monitor the situation. 
“The university communicated with students, faculty and staff during the disruption and focused on supporting teaching and learning as access was restored,” a spokesperson for SLU said. 
Song said the ransomware attack differs from other attacks because the hacker group did not encrypt its files; instead, it stole a large amount of data and threatened to publish it unless an agreement is reached. 
The breach came during an inopportune time when most universities are in the middle of final exams. 
Song said he's also worried about potential copycat and sequel attacks. 
ShinnyHunters claims to have stolen the records of almost 300 million users. 
Instructure said there's no evidence that financial data, passwords or Social Security numbers were compromised. 
Song suggested stronger security measures are needed to prevent future attacks, including utilizing Zero Trust Architecture, which requires authentication for everyone in the same network. 
He also recommends stronger API tools, which build and maintain connections between programs. 
Song said he's paying attention to future attacks that involve artificial intelligence. 
“What I'm really worrying about is the possibility of marrying with AI tools and then future exploitation,” Song said. 
“Those things will break all the systems; those things are really worrisome.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Chad Davis: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Chad Davis: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic4.4%This article: 14.3%Chad Davis: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic14.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Chad Davis: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias15.9%This article: 2.8%Chad Davis: 8.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.8%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.1%Chad Davis: 4.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias16.1%This article: 9.8%Chad Davis: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias9.8%This article: 16.6%Chad Davis: 9.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias16.6%This article: 6.3%Chad Davis: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Chad Davis: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.3%This article: 6.3%Chad Davis: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Chad Davis: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.3%Chad Davis: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority9.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.2%Chad Davis: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope7.2%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Chad Davis: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 9.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.3%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof9.3%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.0%Chad Davis: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal4.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.9%Chad Davis: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.9%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.8%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground5.8%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.0%Chad Davis: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote7.0%This article: 11.4%Chad Davis: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection11.4%This article: 2.8%Chad Davis: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice2.8%This article: 8.9%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination8.9%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chad Davis: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

428 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers68%attributed speech139writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageInstructure • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageInstructure • 13 words • 0.0% coverageShinnyHunters • 25 words • 0.0% coverageSejun Song • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageSejun Song • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSt. Louis University • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSLU • 27 words • 0.0% coverageSejun Song • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSejun Song • 11 words • 0.0% coverageShinnyHunters • 12 words • 0.0% coverageInstructure • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSejun Song • 25 words • 100.0% coverageSejun Song • 13 words • 100.0% coverageSejun Song • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSejun Song • 19 words • 100.0% coverageSejun Song • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sejun Song

100%flagged-word coverage
173 attributed words60% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Quote-first Misdirection+28.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sejun Song: 28.3%28.3%Indoctrination+22.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sejun Song: 22.0%22.0%Unattributed Quote+17.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sejun Song: 17.3%17.3%Biased Writer Voice+6.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sejun Song: 6.9%6.9%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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