You are using the term "satan" as if it is a being with independent thoughts, desires, and will. This is a mistake. It is actually "the accuser" or the "yeitzer harah". Thus, it can be considered that a person is confronted by all the various situations and problems in the world is confronted by the "Satan". It is the commonly accepted view that "satan" is no more than any other mal'ach assigned to a role in the world. It can be a natural event, a person, a set of desires in a human being, or a supernatural entity created to perform a task. The idea of "rebellion" is impossible as only humans have free will and can choose to go against Hashem. The idea of an "evil" independent entity is Zoroastrian (dual "gods" good and evil) or Christian (an "angel" that rebelled and acts on its own) not Jewish or Muslim (the Jinn are created bings [like angels?] who rebelled]. The same concept may exist in other religions, but I do not know about them. "Satanism" appears to be Christianity with the worshipers choosing to follow the "bad guy".
Consider Avraham and Yitzchak on the way to the Akeidah in which he is confronted by "satan" to give all the arguments that might lead him to turn back. This can be a metaphor for all the thoughts that a human being confronted with this trial could use to rationalize not doing it. At the end he appears as a river. This is a metaphor for a human being saying "I tried, but it was impossible to reach the mountain".
Since Human beings have free will, Hashem can confront us with a situation at times that requires us to make a choice. Rabbi Dessler points out that everyone has a "nekudas bechirah" (a point of choice). That is certain events will never challenge us since we will not think of doing them. Some mitzvos do not reward us since we will never think of not doing them. Only those cases where we actually have to think about it and make a conscious decision are actually elements of our "Bechiras Chofshis" (free choice).
A person who has kept kosher all of his life, would not be tempted to go eat in a McDonalds. A mugger may pass the "test" of not killing his victim. At each test, the pivot point changes as a result of the actions of the person. Eventually those points which are tests for a person will either be done or avoided automatically and a new set of tests confronted.
One rationalization that people often use is "It's not my fault, I was prevented from doing the right thing by an outside force".
I do not have sources here to quote, so I am just putting in what I have learned over the years.