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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

See pages 18 to 21.