[newleaf]

Someone can provide a better explanation, but this is similar to how breaking and entering is illegal, but the same action with a warrant isn’t.

[chris_wot]

I think the following comment has the part of the law that allows them to close the web shells:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26802130

[slt2021]

if your unpatched server is being used as a command&control server in an active offensive campaign, you can be liable for damages your server caused.

I hope that in the future there will be some fine for Server Neglect (leaving internet facing server unpatched and hosting web shells for 5 days after patch publication by vendor) and you will lose your server and all your data for such misdemeanor.

[throwaway3699]

> I hope that in the future there will be some fine for Server Neglect (leaving internet facing server unpatched and hosting web shells for 5 days after patch publication by vendor) and you will lose your server and all your data for such misdemeanor.

I can see it now: "Government stole decades of family photos and videos because my Linux/Plex server was available online."

[slt2021]

good security practice, you don't patch your servers - turn it offline at least or government will nuke it

[sneak]

There is a constitutional basis for a warrant being permitted, upon probable cause, to execute specifically and exclusively a search.

This isn't a search, it isn't a warrant, and there's no constitutional amendment that outlines the situations in which the feds are allowed to break into my computers.

[jhugo]

Did you read the article or just the headline? A judge issued a warrant. You can argue over where they should have issued one, but “it isn’t a warrant” is just wrong...

[nerdponx]

GP's point is that this should not be considered a constitutionally valid warrant, even if a judge granted it.

[not2b]

Here's the constitutional language: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." They got a warrant, specifically describing the specific places (web servers) to be searched and the particular things to be seized. Probable cause is easy, these servers were actively attacking government computers.

[behringer]

I think parent is under the impression that a search warrant is the only kind of warrant. That is not correct.

[tony101]

Why would it not be a valid warrant? The web shells are evidence of a crime.

Also, the typical remedy for a defective warrant is suppression of seized evidence, not criminal prosecution.

[sneak]

I looked closely and read it thrice to see under what authority the judiciary claimed to use in making this order.

The word warrant does not appear on that webpage.

[tony101]

Warrant signed by judge: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1386631/downl...

See pages 18 to 21.

[tony101]

Warrant signed by judge: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1386631/downl...

See pages 18 to 21.

This is a search. Specifically, the web shells are (1) evidence of a crime, (2) contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed, and (3) property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime. Any one of these three would be a valid basis for a search warrant.

[mjthompson]

Makes perfect sense to me. Hats off to the attorney that thought of that.