Cases News 6 Years to Make a Fan, G370A Budget Case, & Phanteks Technical Fan Discussion, ft. CTOJune 9, 2025Last Updated: 2025-06-09We cover Phanteks’ new G370A budget case, the XT M3, and the Evolv X2 MatrixThe HighlightsPhanteks’ new X2 Matrix case has 900 LEDs and is aiming to be around $200Phanteks’ G370A is a $60 case that includes 3x120mm fansThe company has a new T30-140 fan that required 6 years of engineering to makeTable of ContentsAutoTOC Grab a GN Tear-Down Toolkit to support our AD-FREE reviews and IN-DEPTH testing while also getting a high-quality, highly portable 10-piece toolkit that was custom designed for use with video cards for repasting and water block installation. Includes a portable roll bag, hook hangers for pegboards, a storage compartment, and instructional GPU disassembly cards.IntroWe visited Phanteks’ suite at Computex 2025 and the company showed off several cases along with a fan that took the company roughly 6 years to make.Editor's note: This was originally published on May 21, 2025 as a video. This content has been adapted to written format for this article and is unchanged from the original publication.CreditsHostSteve BurkeCamera, Video EditingMike GaglioneVitalii MakhnovetsWriting, Web EditingJimmy ThangPhanteks Matrix CasesWe’ve talked about Phanteks’ X2 case in the past but the company was showing off its new Matrix version, which has matrix LEDs. The X2 Matrix has 900 LEDs in a 10x90 layout. It’s supposed to be about $30 to $40 more expensive than the base X2, which means it should end up around $200.  The interesting thing about the case is that the LEDs wrap around the chassis. In terms of communication, the LEDs connect to the motherboard via USB 2.0 and use SATA for power. This allows Phanteks to bypass a WinRing 0 type situation. Another Matrix case had 600 of them in a 10x60 LED configuration and is supposed to be about $120. Phanteks also has software that allows you to reconfigure what the LEDs display. When we got to the company’s suite, it had been programmed to say, “Gamers Nexus here,” which was cool to see. We also saw that the LEDs can also be used to highlight CPU temperature. Phanteks G370A Grab a GN15 Large Anti-Static Modmat to celebrate our 15th Anniversary and for a high-quality PC building work surface. The Modmat features useful PC building diagrams and is anti-static conductive. Purchases directly fund our work! (or consider a direct donation or a Patreon contribution!)Phanteks also showed off its G370A case, which is a $60 case that includes 3x120mm fans in the front coupled with a mesh front that offers 38% hole porosity. The company tells us that manufacturing typically offers around 25% porosity.  It has a glass side panel and the back side panel of the case is just steel and has no ventilation. Taking a look at the placement of the front fans, we asked Phanteks why they weren’t higher on the case so the bottom fan could get more exposure to the bottom power supply shroud area and the answer the company gave us was simply clearance for a 360mm radiator at the top. There’s not a lot of room for the air coming into the shroud. Some of it will go through the cable pass-through if it’s empty. The back of the case features a drive mount.XTM3The company also showed off a Micro ATX case called the XTM3. It comes with 3 fans and is $70. For its front panel, it has a unique punch out for its fans. The top panel is part standard ventilation but it does have one side that provides less airflow, which covers where the PSU would exhaust out of. The side panel does have punch-outs for the PSU, however. We don’t test power supplies, though that may change in the future. Power supplies can take a lot of thermal abuse, however, so we’re not super concerned here.  The case should be shipping in the next month or so and is 39.5 liters, which includes the feet. We appreciate that as not a lot of companies will factor that in. There’s also a lot of cable management depth on the back and the case also supports BTF. In addition, there’s a panel that clamps down all of the power supply cables. T30 FanPhanteks’ T30 fan took the company 6 years to make and is a 140mm fan. The company is competing with Noctua in the high-end fan space, but is going for a grey theme instead of brown. Phanteks CTO Tenzin Rongen Interview Visit our Patreon page to contribute a few dollars toward this website's operation (or consider a direct donation or buying something from our GN Store!) Additionally, when you purchase through links to retailers on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission.Finally, we interviewed Phanteks CTO Tenzin Rongen to discuss technical details behind the company’s long-developed fans. Make sure to check it out in our video.

Donald Trump’s military parade in Washington this weekend — a show of force in the capital that just happens to take place on the president’s birthday — smacks of authoritarian Dear Leader-style politics (even though Trump actually got the idea after attending the 2017 Bastille Day parade in Paris).Yet as disconcerting as the imagery of tanks rolling down Constitution Avenue will be, it’s not even close to Trump’s most insidious assault on the US military’s historic and democratically essential nonpartisan ethos.In fact, it’s not even the most worrying thing he’s done this week.On Tuesday, the president gave a speech at Fort Bragg, an Army base home to Special Operations Command. While presidential speeches to soldiers are not uncommon — rows of uniformed troops make a great backdrop for a foreign policy speech — they generally avoid overt partisan attacks and campaign-style rhetoric. The soldiers, for their part, are expected to be studiously neutral, laughing at jokes and such, but remaining fully impassive during any policy conversation.That’s not what happened at Fort Bragg. Trump’s speech was a partisan tirade that targeted “radical left” opponents ranging from Joe Biden to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. He celebrated his deployment of Marines to Los Angeles, proposed jailing people for burning the American flag, and called on soldiers to be “aggressive” toward the protesters they encountered.The soldiers, for their part, cheered Trump and booed his enemies — as they were seemingly expected to. Reporters at Military.com, a military news service, uncovered internal communications from 82nd Airborne leadership suggesting that the crowd was screened for their political opinions.“If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,” one note read.To call this unusual is an understatement. I spoke with four different experts on civil-military relations, two of whom teach at the Naval War College, about the speech and its implications. To a person, they said it was a step towards politicizing the military with no real precedent in modern American history.“That is, I think, a really big red flag because it means the military’s professional ethic is breaking down internally,” says Risa Brooks, a professor at Marquette University. “Its capacity to maintain that firewall against civilian politicization may be faltering.”This may sound alarmist — like an overreading of a one-off incident — but it’s part of a bigger pattern. The totality of Trump administration policies, ranging from the parade in Washington to the LA troop deployment to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s firing of high-ranking women and officers of color, suggests a concerted effort to erode the military’s professional ethos and turn it into an institution subservient to the Trump administration’s whims. This is a signal policy aim of would-be dictators, who wish to head off the risk of a coup and ensure the armed forces’ political reliability if they are needed to repress dissent in a crisis.Steve Saideman, a professor at Carleton University, put together a list of eight different signs that a military is being politicized in this fashion. The Trump administration has exhibited six out of the eight.“The biggest theme is that we are seeing a number of checks on the executive fail at the same time — and that’s what’s making individual events seem more alarming than they might otherwise,” says Jessica Blankshain, a professor at the Naval War College (speaking not for the military but in a personal capacity).That Trump is trying to politicize the military does not mean he has succeeded. There are several signs, including Trump’s handpicked chair of the Joint Chiefs repudiating the president’s claims of a migrant invasion during congressional testimony, that the US military is resisting Trump’s politicization.But the events in Fort Bragg and Washington suggest that we are in the midst of a quiet crisis in civil-military relations in the United States — one whose implications for American democracy’s future could well be profound.The Trump crisis in civil-military relations, explainedA military is, by sheer fact of its existence, a threat to any civilian government. If you have an institution that controls the overwhelming bulk of weaponry in a society, it always has the physical capacity to seize control of the government at gunpoint. A key question for any government is how to convince the armed forces that they cannot or should not take power for themselves.Democracies typically do this through a process called “professionalization.” Soldiers are rigorously taught to think of themselves as a class of public servants, people trained to perform a specific job within defined parameters. Their ultimate loyalty is not to their generals or even individual presidents, but rather to the people and the constitutional order.Samuel Huntington, the late Harvard political scientist, is the canonical theorist of a professional military. In his book The Soldier and the State, he described optimal professionalization as a system of “objective control”: one in which the military retains autonomy in how they fight and plan for wars while deferring to politicians on whether and why to fight in the first place. In effect, they stay out of the politicians’ affairs while the politicians stay out of theirs.The idea of such a system is to emphasize to the military that they are professionals: Their responsibility isn’t deciding when to use force, but only to conduct operations as effectively as possible once ordered to engage in them. There is thus a strict firewall between military affairs, on the one hand, and policy-political affairs on the other.Typically, the chief worry is that the military breaches this bargain: that, for example, a general starts speaking out against elected officials’ policies in ways that undermine civilian control. This is not a hypothetical fear in the United States, with the most famous such example being Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s insubordination during the Korean War. Thankfully, not even MacArthur attempted the worst-case version of military overstep — a coup.But in backsliding democracies like the modern United States, where the chief executive is attempting an anti-democratic power grab, the military poses a very different kind of threat to democracy — in fact, something akin to the exact opposite of the typical scenario.In such cases, the issue isn’t the military inserting itself into politics but rather the civilians dragging them into it in ways that upset the democratic political order. The worst-case scenario is that the military acts on presidential directives to use force against domestic dissenters, destroying democracy not by ignoring civilian orders, but by following them.There are two ways to arrive at such a worst-case scenario, both of which are in evidence in the early days of Trump 2.0.First is politicization: an intentional attack on the constraints against partisan activity inside the professional ranks.Many of Pete Hegseth’s major moves as secretary of defense fit this bill, including his decisions to fire nonwhite and female generals seen as politically unreliable and his effort to undermine the independence of the military’s lawyers. The breaches in protocol at Fort Bragg are both consequences and causes of politicization: They could only happen in an environment of loosened constraint, and they might encourage more overt political action if gone unpunished.The second pathway to breakdown is the weaponization of professionalism against itself. Here, Trump exploits the military’s deference to politicians by ordering it to engage in undemocratic (and even questionably legal) activities. In practice, this looks a lot like the LA deployments, and, more specifically, the lack of any visible military pushback. While the military readily agreeing to deployments is normally a good sign — that civilian control is holding — these aren’t normal times. And this isn’t a normal deployment, but rather one that comes uncomfortably close to the military being ordered to assist in repressing overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations against executive abuses of power.“It’s really been pretty uncommon to use the military for law enforcement,” says David Burbach, another Naval War College professor (also speaking personally). “This is really bringing the military into frontline law enforcement when. … these are really not huge disturbances.”This, then, is the crisis: an incremental and slow-rolling effort by the Trump administration to erode the norms and procedures designed to prevent the military from being used as a tool of domestic repression. Is it time to panic?Among the experts I spoke with, there was consensus that the military’s professional and nonpartisan ethos was weakening. This isn’t just because of Trump, but his terms — the first to a degree, and now the second acutely — are major stressors.Yet there was no consensus on just how much military nonpartisanship has eroded — that is, how close we are to a moment when the US military might be willing to follow obviously authoritarian orders.For all its faults, the US military’s professional ethos is a really important part of its identity and self-conception. While few soldiers may actually read Sam Huntington or similar scholars, the general idea that they serve the people and the republic is a bedrock principle among the ranks. There is a reason why the United States has never, in over 250 years of governance, experienced a military coup — or even come particularly close to one.In theory, this ethos should also galvanize resistance to Trump’s efforts at politicization. Soldiers are not unthinking automatons: While they are trained to follow commands, they are explicitly obligated to refuse illegal orders, even coming from the president. The more aggressive Trump’s efforts to use the military as a tool of repression gets, the more likely there is to be resistance.Or, at least theoretically.The truth is that we don’t really know how the US military will respond to a situation like this. Like so many of Trump’s second-term policies, their efforts to bend the military to their will are unprecedented — actions with no real parallel in the modern history of the American military. Experts can only make informed guesses, based on their sense of US military culture as well as comparisons to historical and foreign cases.For this reason, there are probably only two things we can say with confidence.First, what we’ve seen so far is not yet sufficient evidence to declare that the military is in Trump’s thrall. The signs of decay are too limited to ground any conclusions that the longstanding professional norm is entirely gone.“We have seen a few things that are potentially alarming about erosion of the military’s non-partisan norm. But not in a way that’s definitive at this point,” Blankshain says.Second, the stressors on this tradition are going to keep piling on. Trump’s record makes it exceptionally clear that he wants the military to serve him personally — and that he, and Hegseth, will keep working to make it so. This means we really are in the midst of a quiet crisis, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.“The fact that he’s getting the troops to cheer for booing Democratic leaders at a time when there’s actually [a deployment to] a blue city and a blue state…he is ordering the troops to take a side,” Saideman says. “There may not be a coherent plan behind this. But there are a lot of things going on that are all in the same direction.”See More: Politics

monkey abuse The “online monkey torture video” arrests just keep coming Authorities continue the slow crackdown. Nate Anderson – Jun 14, 2025 7:00 am | 34 Credit: Getty Images Credit: Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Today's monkey torture videos are the products of a digitally connected world. People who enjoy watching baby animals probed, snipped, and mutilated in horrible ways often have difficulty finding local collaborators, but online communities like "million tears"—now thankfully shuttered—can help them forge connections. Once they do meet other like-minded souls, communication takes place through chat apps like Telegram and Signal, often using encryption. Money is pooled through various phone apps, then sent to videographers in countries where wages are low and monkeys are plentiful. (The cases I have seen usually involve Indonesia; read my feature from last year to learn more about how these groups work.) There, monkeys are tortured by a local subcontractor—sometimes a child—working to Western specs. Smartphone video of the torture is sent back to the commissioning sadists, who share it with more viewers using the same online communities in which they met. The unfortunate pattern was again on display this week in an indictment the US government unsealed against several more Americans said to have commissioned these videos. The accused used online handles like "Bitchy" and "DemonSwordSoulCrusher," and they hail from all over: Tennessee, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. They relied on an Indonesian videographer to create the content, which was surprisingly affordable—it cost a mere $40 to commission video of a "burning hot screwdriver" being shoved into a baby monkey's orifice. After the money was transferred, the requested video was shot and shared through a "phone-based messaging program," but the Americans were deeply disappointed in its quality. Instead of full-on impalement, the videographer had heated a screwdriver on a burner and merely touched it against the monkey a few times. "So lame," one of the Americans allegedly complained to another. "Live and learn," was the response. So the group tried again. "Million tears" had been booted by its host, but the group reconstituted on another platform and renamed itself "the trail of trillion tears." They reached out to another Indonesian videographer and asked for a more graphic version of the same video. But this version, more sadistic than the last, still didn't satisfy. As one of the Americans allegedly said to another, "honey that's not what you asked for. Thats the village idiot version. But I'm talking with someone about getting a good vo [videographer] to do it." Arrests continue In 2021, someone leaked communications from the "million tears" group to animals rights organizations like Lady Freethinker and Action for Primates, which handed it over to authorities. Still, it took several years to arrest and prosecute the torture group's leaders. In 2024, one of these leaders—Ronald Bedra of Ohio—pled guilty to commissioning the videos and to mailing "a thumb drive containing 64 videos of monkey torture to a co-conspirator in Wisconsin." His mother, in a sentencing letter to the judge, said that her son must "have been undergoing some mental crisis when he decided to create the website." As a boy, he had loved all of the family pets, she said, even providing a funeral for a fish. Bedra was sentenced late last year to 54 months in prison. According to letters from family members, he has also lost his job, his wife, and his kids. In April 2025, two more alleged co-conspirators were indicted and subsequently arrested; their cases were unsealed only this week. Two other co-conspirators from this group still appear to be uncharged. In May 2025, 11 other Americans were indicted for their participation in monkey torture groups, though they appear to come from a different network. This group allegedly "paid a minor in Indonesia to commit the requested acts on camera." As for the Indonesian side of this equation, arrests have been happening there, too. Following complaints from animal rights groups, police in Indonesia have arrested multiple videographers over the last two years. Nate Anderson Deputy Editor Nate Anderson Deputy Editor Nate is the deputy editor at Ars Technica. His most recent book is In Emergency, Break Glass: What Nietzsche Can Teach Us About Joyful Living in a Tech-Saturated World, which is much funnier than it sounds. 34 Comments

Elon Musk may be gone from the Trump administration — and his friendship status with President Donald Trump may be at best uncertain — but his whirlwind stint in government certainly left its imprint. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his pet government-slashing project, remains entrenched in Washington. During his 130-day tenure, Musk led DOGE in eliminating about 260,000 federal employee jobs and gutting agencies supporting scientific research and humanitarian aid. But to date, DOGE claims to have saved the government $180 billion — well short of its ambitious (and frankly never realistic) target of cutting at least $2 trillion from the federal budget. And with Musk’s departure still fresh, there are reports that the federal government is trying to rehire federal workers who quit or were let go. For Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, DOGE’s tactics will likely end up being disastrous in the long run. “DOGE came in with these huge cuts, which were not attached to a plan,” she told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. Kamarck knows all about making government more efficient. In the 1990s, she ran the Clinton administration’s Reinventing Government program. “I was Elon Musk,” she told Today, Explained. With the benefit of that experience, she assesses Musk’s record at DOGE, and what, if anything, the billionaire’s loud efforts at cutting government spending added up to. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. What do you think Elon Musk’s legacy is? Well, he will not have totally, radically reshaped the federal government. Absolutely not. In fact, there’s a high probability that on January 20, 2029, when the next president takes over, the federal government is about the same size as it is now, and is probably doing the same stuff that it’s doing now. What he did manage to do was insert chaos, fear, and loathing into the federal workforce. There was reporting in the Washington Post late last week that these cuts were so ineffective that the White House is actually reaching out to various federal employees who were laid off and asking them to come back, from the FDA to the IRS to even USAID. Which cuts are sticking at this point and which ones aren’t?First of all, in a lot of cases, people went to court and the courts have reversed those earlier decisions. So the first thing that happened is, courts said, “No, no, no, you can’t do it this way. You have to bring them back.” The second thing that happened is that Cabinet officers started to get confirmed by the Senate. And remember that a lot of the most spectacular DOGE stuff was happening in February. In February, these Cabinet secretaries were preparing for their Senate hearings. They weren’t on the job. Now that their Cabinet secretary’s home, what’s happening is they’re looking at these cuts and they’re saying, “No, no, no! We can’t live with these cuts because we have a mission to do.”As the government tries to hire back the people they fired, they’re going to have a tough time, and they’re going to have a tough time for two reasons. First of all, they treated them like dirt, and they’ve said a lot of insulting things. Second, most of the people who work for the federal government are highly skilled. They’re not paper pushers. We have computers to push our paper, right? They’re scientists. They’re engineers. They’re people with high skills, and guess what? They can get jobs outside the government. So there’s going to be real lasting damage to the government from the way they did this. And it’s analogous to the lasting damage that they’re causing at universities, where we now have top scientists who used to invent great cures for cancer and things like that, deciding to go find jobs in Europe because this culture has gotten so bad.What happens to this agency now? Who’s in charge of it?Well, what they’ve done is DOGE employees have been embedded in each of the organizations in the government, okay? And they basically — and the president himself has said this — they basically report to the Cabinet secretaries. So if you are in the Transportation Department, you have to make sure that Sean Duffy, who’s the secretary of transportation, agrees with you on what you want to do. And Sean Duffy has already had a fight during a Cabinet meeting with Elon Musk. You know that he has not been thrilled with the advice he’s gotten from DOGE. So from now on, DOGE is going to have to work hand in hand with Donald Trump’s appointed leaders.And just to bring this around to what we’re here talking about now, they’re in this huge fight over wasteful spending with the so-called big, beautiful bill. Does this just look like the government as usual, ultimately?It’s actually worse than normal. Because the deficit impacts are bigger than normal. It’s adding more to the deficit than previous bills have done. And the second reason it’s worse than normal is that everybody is still living in a fantasy world. And the fantasy world says that somehow we can deal with our deficits by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. That is pure nonsense. Let me say it: pure nonsense.Where does most of the government money go? Does it go to some bureaucrats sitting on Pennsylvania Avenue? It goes to us. It goes to your grandmother and her Social Security and her Medicare. It goes to veterans in veterans benefits. It goes to Americans. That’s why it’s so hard to cut it. It’s so hard to cut it because it’s us. And people are living on it. Now, there’s a whole other topic that nobody talks about, and it’s called entitlement reform, right? Could we reform Social Security? Could we make the retirement age go from 67 to 68? That would save a lot of money. Could we change the cost of living? Nobody, nobody, nobody is talking about that. And that’s because we are in this crazy, polarized environment where we can no longer have serious conversations about serious issues. See More:

Jun 14, 2025Ravie LakshmananMalware / Threat Intelligence A new malware campaign is exploiting a weakness in Discord's invitation system to deliver an information stealer called Skuld and the AsyncRAT remote access trojan. "Attackers hijacked the links through vanity link registration, allowing them to silently redirect users from trusted sources to malicious servers," Check Point said in a technical report. "The attackers combined the ClickFix phishing technique, multi-stage loaders, and time-based evasions to stealthily deliver AsyncRAT, and a customized Skuld Stealer targeting crypto wallets." The issue with Discord's invite mechanism is that it allows attackers to hijack expired or deleted invite links and secretly redirect unsuspecting users to malicious servers under their control. This also means that a Discord invite link that was once trusted and shared on forums or social media platforms could unwittingly lead users to malicious sites. Details of the campaign come a little over a month after the cybersecurity company revealed another sophisticated phishing campaign that hijacked expired vanity invite links to entice users into joining a Discord server and instruct them to visit a phishing site to verify ownership, only to have their digital assets drained upon connecting their wallets. While users can create temporary, permanent, or custom (vanity) invite links on Discord, the platform prevents other legitimate servers from reclaiming a previously expired or deleted invite. However, Check Point found that creating custom invite links allows the reuse of expired invite codes and even deleted permanent invite codes in some cases. This ability to reuse Discord expired or deleted codes when creating custom vanity invite links opens the door to abuse, allowing attackers to claim it for their malicious server. "This creates a serious risk: Users who follow previously trusted invite links (e.g., on websites, blogs, or forums) can unknowingly be redirected to fake Discord servers created by threat actors," Check Point said. The Discord invite-link hijacking, in a nutshell, involves taking control of invite links originally shared by legitimate communities and then using them to redirect users to the malicious server. Users who fall prey to the scheme and join the server are asked to complete a verification step in order to gain full server access by authorizing a bot, which then leads them to a fake website with a prominent "Verify" button. This is where the attackers take the attack to the next level by incorporating the infamous ClickFix social engineering tactic to trick users into infecting their systems under the pretext of verification. Specifically, clicking the "Verify" button surreptitiously executes JavaScript that copies a PowerShell command to the machine's clipboard, after which the users are urged to launch the Windows Run dialog, paste the already copied "verification string" (i.e., the PowerShell command), and press Enter to authenticate their accounts. But in reality, performing these steps triggers the download of a PowerShell script hosted on Pastebin that subsequently retrieves and executes a first-stage downloader, which is ultimately used to drop AsyncRAT and Skuld Stealer from a remote server and execute them. At the heart of this attack lies a meticulously engineered, multi-stage infection process designed for both precision and stealth, while also taking steps to subvert security protections through sandbox security checks. AsyncRAT, which offers comprehensive remote control capabilities over infected systems, has been found to employ a technique called dead drop resolver to access the actual command-and-control (C2) server by reading a Pastebin file. The other payload is a Golang information stealer that's downloaded from Bitbucket. It's equipped to steal sensitive user data from Discord, various browsers, crypto wallets, and gaming platforms. Skuld is also capable of harvesting crypto wallet seed phrases and passwords from the Exodus and Atomic crypto wallets. It accomplishes this using an approach called wallet injection that replaces legitimate application files with trojanized versions downloaded from GitHub. It's worth noting that a similar technique was recently put to use by a rogue npm package named pdf-to-office. The attack also employs a custom version of an open-source tool known as ChromeKatz to bypass Chrome's app-bound encryption protections. The collected data is exfiltrated to the miscreants via a Discord webhook. The fact that payload delivery and data exfiltration occur via trusted cloud services such as GitHub, Bitbucket, Pastebin, and Discord allows the threat actors to blend in with normal traffic and fly under the radar. Discord has since disabled the malicious bot, effectively breaking the attack chain. Check Point said it also identified another campaign mounted by the same threat actor that distributes the loader as a modified version of a hacktool for unlocking pirated games. The malicious program, also hosted on Bitbucket, has been downloaded 350 times. It has been assessed that the victims of these campaigns are primarily located in the United States, Vietnam, France, Germany, Slovakia, Austria, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The findings represent the latest example of how cybercriminals are targeting the popular social platform, which has had its content delivery network (CDN) abused to host malware in the past. "This campaign illustrates how a subtle feature of Discord's invite system, the ability to reuse expired or deleted invite codes in vanity invite links, can be exploited as a powerful attack vector," the researchers said. "By hijacking legitimate invite links, threat actors silently redirect unsuspecting users to malicious Discord servers." "The choice of payloads, including a powerful stealer specifically targeting cryptocurrency wallets, suggests that the attackers are primarily focused on crypto users and motivated by financial gain." Found this article interesting? Follow us on Twitter  and LinkedIn to read more exclusive content we post. SHARE    

As AI faces court challenges from Disney and Universal, legal battles are shaping the industry's future | Opinion Silicon advances and design innovations do still push us forward – but the future landscape of the industry is also being sculpted in courtrooms and parliaments Image credit: Disney / Epic Games Opinion by Rob Fahey Contributing Editor Published on June 13, 2025 In some regards, the past couple of weeks have felt rather reassuring. We've just seen a hugely successful launch for a new Nintendo console, replete with long queues for midnight sales events. Over the next few days, the various summer events and showcases that have sprouted amongst the scattered bones of E3 generated waves of interest and hype for a host of new games. It all feels like old times. It's enough to make you imagine that while change is the only constant, at least it's we're facing change that's fairly well understood, change in the form of faster, cheaper silicon, or bigger, more ambitious games. If only the winds that blow through this industry all came from such well-defined points on the compass. Nestled in amongst the week's headlines, though, was something that's likely to have profound but much harder to understand impacts on this industry and many others over the coming years – a lawsuit being brought by Disney and NBC Universal against Midjourney, operators of the eponymous generative AI image creation tool. In some regards, the lawsuit looks fairly straightforward; the arguments made and considered in reaching its outcome, though, may have a profound impact on both the ability of creatives and media companies (including game studios and publishers) to protect their IP rights from a very new kind of threat, and the ways in which a promising but highly controversial and risky new set of development and creative tools can be used commercially. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool I say the lawsuit looks straightforward from some angles, but honestly overall it looks fairly open and shut – the media giants accuse Midjourney of replicating their copyrighted characters and material, and of essentially building a machine for churning out limitless copyright violations. The evidence submitted includes screenshot after screenshot of Midjourney generating pages of images of famous copyrighted and trademarked characters ranging from Yoda to Homer Simpson, so "no we didn't" isn't going to be much of a defence strategy here. A more likely tack on Midjourney's side will be the argument that they are not responsible for what their customers create with the tool – you don't sue the manufacturers of oil paints or canvases when artists use them to paint something copyright-infringing, nor does Microsoft get sued when someone writes something libellous in Word, and Midjourney may try to argue that their software belongs in that tool category, with users alone being ultimately responsible for how they use them. If that argument prevails and survives appeals and challenges, it would be a major triumph for the nascent generative AI industry and a hugely damaging blow to IP holders and creatives, since it would seriously undermine their argument that AI companies shouldn't be able to include copyrighted material into training data sets without licensing or compensation. The reason Disney and NBCU are going after Midjourney specifically seems to be partially down to Midjourney being especially reticent to negotiate with them about licensing fees and prompt restrictions; other generative AI firms have started talking, at least, about paying for content licenses for training data, and have imposed various limitations on their software to prevent the most egregious and obvious forms of copyright violation (at least for famous characters belonging to rich companies; if you're an individual or a smaller company, it's entirely the Wild West out there as regards your IP rights). In the process, though, they're essentially risking a court showdown over a set of not-quite-clear legal questions at the heart of this dispute, and if Midjourney were to prevail in that argument, other AI companies would likely back off from engaging with IP holders on this topic. To be clear, though, it seems highly unlikely that Midjourney will win that argument, at least not in the medium to long term. Yet depending on how this case moves forward, losing the argument could have equally dramatic consequences – especially if the courts find themselves compelled to consider the question of how, exactly, a generative AI system reproduces a copyrighted character with such precision without storing copyright-infringing data in some manner. The 2020s are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once AI advocates have been trying to handwave around this notion from the outset, but at some point a court is going to have to sit down and confront the fact that the precision with which these systems can replicate copyrighted characters, scenes, and other materials requires that they must have stored that infringing material in some form. That it's stored as a scattered mesh of probabilities across the vertices of a high-dimensional vector array, rather than a straightforward, monolithic media file, is clearly important but may ultimately be considered moot. If the data is in the system and can be replicated on request, how that differs from Napster or The Pirate Bay is arguably just a matter of technical obfuscation. Not having to defend that technical argument in court thus far has been a huge boon to the generative AI field; if it is knocked over in that venue, it will have knock-on effects on every company in the sector and on every business that uses their products. Nobody can be quite sure which of the various rocks and pebbles being kicked on this slope is going to set off the landslide, but there seems to be an increasing consensus that a legal and regulatory reckoning is coming for generative AI. Consequently, a lot of what's happening in that market right now has the feel of companies desperately trying to establish products and lock in revenue streams before that happens, because it'll be harder to regulate a technology that's genuinely integrated into the world's economic systems than it is to impose limits on one that's currently only clocking up relatively paltry sales and revenues. Keeping an eye on this is crucial for any industry that's started experimenting with AI in its workflows – none more than a creative industry like video games, where various forms of AI usage have been posited, although the enthusiasm and buzz so far massively outweighs any tangible benefits from the technology. Regardless of what happens in legal and regulatory contexts, AI is already a double-edged sword for any creative industry. Used judiciously, it might help to speed up development processes and reduce overheads. Applied in a slapdash or thoughtless manner, it can and will end up wreaking havoc on development timelines, filling up storefronts with endless waves of vaguely-copyright-infringing slop, and potentially make creative firms, from the industry's biggest companies to its smallest indie developers, into victims of impossibly large-scale copyright infringement rather than beneficiaries of a new wave of technology-fuelled productivity. The legal threat now hanging over the sector isn't new, merely amplified. We've known for a long time that AI generated artwork, code, and text has significant problems from the perspective of intellectual property rights (you can infringe someone else's copyright with it, but generally can't impose your own copyright on its creations – opening careless companies up to a risk of having key assets in their game being technically public domain and impossible to protect). Even if you're not using AI yourself, however – even if you're vehemently opposed to it on moral and ethical grounds (which is entirely valid given the highly dubious land-grab these companies have done for their training data), the Midjourney judgement and its fallout may well impact the creative work you produce yourself and how it ends up being used and abused by these products in future. This all has huge ramifications for the games business and will shape everything from how games are created to how IP can be protected for many years to come – a wind of change that's very different and vastly more unpredictable than those we're accustomed to. It's a reminder of just how much of the industry's future is currently being shaped not in development studios and semiconductor labs, but rather in courtrooms and parliamentary committees. The ways in which generative AI can be used and how copyright can persist in the face of it will be fundamentally shaped in courts and parliaments, but it's far from the only crucially important topic being hashed out in those venues. The ongoing legal turmoil over the opening up of mobile app ecosystems, too, will have huge impacts on the games industry. Meanwhile, the debates over loot boxes, gambling, and various consumer protection aspects related to free-to-play models continue to rumble on in the background. Because the industry moves fast while governments move slow, it's easy to forget that that's still an active topic for as far as governments are concerned, and hammers may come down at any time. Regulation by governments, whether through the passage of new legislation or the interpretation of existing laws in the courts, has always loomed in the background of any major industry, especially one with strong cultural relevance. The games industry is no stranger to that being part of the background heartbeat of the business. The 2020s, however, are turning out to be the decade in which many key regulatory issues come to a head all at once, whether it's AI and copyright, app stores and walled gardens, or loot boxes and IAP-based business models. Rulings on those topics in various different global markets will create a complex new landscape that will shape the winds that blow through the business, and how things look in the 2030s and beyond will be fundamentally impacted by those decisions.