Windows now uses AI to find and help fix vulnerabilities 56%

By Sean Endicott43%

7/9/2026, 10:45:17 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 30.8% saturation with 132 hits. Analysis detected 1,093 faulty-reasoning hits from 429 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.3% and a BS Rank of 56% (9,741 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the article peer group.

Microsoft is using AI to protect Windows against attackers. 
The development represents an arms race because AI is also being used increasingly to find vulnerabilities modern tech, as highlighted by The Hacker News . 
Hackers can use AI to find and take advantage of vulnerabilities that could then be weaponized. 
It's not just discovery that's been sped up, reverse engineering security flaws is now a quicker process because of AI. 
That means attackers can find flaws and quickly take advantage of them before traditional methods of protection could take effect. 
To combat those malicious actors and evolving tactics, Microsoft is deploying MDASH (Multi-Model Agentic Scanning Harness) at scale across Windows. 
Pavan Davuluri, EVP of Windows and Devices at Microsoft, shared a blog post about the new methods the company is using to protect Windows. 
"The fastest way to reduce customer exposure is to find issues before attackers can use them," said Davuluri. 
"Windows is expanding its ability across the platform to find issues earlier, accelerate the engineering work to fix them, strengthen validation, and deliver timely, high-quality updates that keep customers protected." 
Using AI to identify potential flaws, prioritize fixes, and scale discovery across the codebase of Windows lets Microsoft quickly roll out protection to customers. 
To scale MDASH to Windows, a dedicated cloud infrastructure was set up for scanning for potential flaws. 
A separate prove pipeline then is used to eliminate false positives. 
The Windows engineering team can then act on the most likely candidates that need addressing. 
Microsoft will expand its use of AI for scanning and proving to other parts of the company. 
Using AI to improve work 
When Microsoft announced 4,800 layoffs across the company, its leaders emphasized that the eliminated roles are not being replaced by AI. 
People across a wide range of sectors are concerned about automation taking human jobs. 
The approach Microsoft is using to scan for issues and streamline the selection process of candidates to address represents AI helping people rather than replacing workers. 
When speaking of improving internal systems and practices, Davuluri said, "That means using AI to help identify potential issues earlier in the development process, while relying on human expertise to evaluate findings, make risk-based decisions and ensure fixes meet the quality bar customers expect." 
The end result is that more security updates will be included in each security release, which should protect PCs from the growing number of attacks. 
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.7%Sean Endicott: 3.2%Windows Central: 4.2%Confirmation Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.4%Windows Central: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Sean Endicott: 3.1%Windows Central: 4.6%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Sean Endicott: 2.7%Windows Central: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias9.1%This article: 7.2%Sean Endicott: 5.5%Windows Central: 5.0%Framing Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 1.6%Windows Central: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.2%Sean Endicott: 1.6%Windows Central: 0.9%Status Quo Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.4%Sean Endicott: 6.7%Windows Central: 8.0%Optimism Bias15.4%This article: 3.7%Sean Endicott: 1.3%Windows Central: 3.0%Pessimism Bias3.7%This article: 4.7%Sean Endicott: 7.2%Windows Central: 8.6%Negativity Bias4.7%This article: 4.9%Sean Endicott: 1.7%Windows Central: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.6%Windows Central: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.9%Windows Central: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 19.3%Sean Endicott: 3.3%Windows Central: 4.1%Halo Effect19.3%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 1.3%Windows Central: 2.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.7%Sean Endicott: 2.5%Windows Central: 3.7%Appeal to Authority17.7%This article: 6.1%Sean Endicott: 2.7%Windows Central: 1.7%False Dilemma6.1%This article: 3.7%Sean Endicott: 1.0%Windows Central: 1.0%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.8%Sean Endicott: 6.7%Windows Central: 8.5%Hasty Generalization5.8%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.3%Sean Endicott: 1.9%Windows Central: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion3.3%This article: 14.2%Sean Endicott: 0.9%Windows Central: 0.9%Begging the Question14.2%This article: 16.1%Sean Endicott: 1.7%Windows Central: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.1%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.9%Sean Endicott: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.5%Burden of Proof4.9%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 3.7%Windows Central: 4.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 30.8%Sean Endicott: 2.8%Windows Central: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)30.8%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.5%Windows Central: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.8%Sean Endicott: 1.9%Windows Central: 3.0%Unattributed Quote12.8%This article: 4.2%Sean Endicott: 0.9%Windows Central: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.2%This article: 21.9%Sean Endicott: 13.5%Windows Central: 13.9%Biased Writer Voice21.9%This article: 6.1%Sean Endicott: 0.8%Windows Central: 1.9%Indoctrination6.1%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.9%Sean Endicott: 7.1%Windows Central: 6.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.9%

429 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers52%attributed speech205writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMicrosoft • 20 words • 100.0% coveragePavan Davuluri • 24 words • 100.0% coveragePavan Davuluri • 18 words • 100.0% coveragePavan Davuluri • 30 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMicrosoft • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMicrosoft • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coveragePavan Davuluri • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Pavan Davuluri

100%flagged-word coverage
116 attributed words52% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice+27.0 ptsWriter: 19.5%Pavan Davuluri: 46.6%46.6%Quote-first Misdirection+15.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Pavan Davuluri: 15.5%15.5%Unattributed Quote+5.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Pavan Davuluri: 15.5%15.5%Indoctrination-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%Pavan Davuluri: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%Pavan Davuluri: 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.