ZNC Child Proofing Root #1098

New Issue

2026-10-05T05:03:04+02:00

adam commented

2026-10-05 05:03:04 +02:00

The program should run as root - a warning with stoppage is reasonable, however a program telling how someone should operate, as a safety mechanism, is silly. Providing a --please-hack-me acknowledgement would be better than a program thinking it knows how the system works, and what "secure" is.
In prior versions, this was not the case.

Note that I am aware of what an useradd is, I've heard of a adduser, and I know what a user and a permission and what a network is, I even know what an evil bad guy is.

As proof of how useful this is, I have made znc into a kernel module as so it can regulate my computer and make sure that no one uses root for purposes outside things root should do (nothing, as computers should not be used unless regulated by znc.)

P.S. I know that I can change the source (assuming that's permitted by git, my editor, my browser, my ISPs thoughts, and my therapist), but you should know that's rather inconvenient.

The program should run as root - a warning with stoppage is reasonable, however a program telling how someone should operate, as a safety mechanism, is silly. Providing a --please-hack-me acknowledgement would be better than a program thinking it knows how the system works, and what "secure" is. In prior versions, this was not the case. Note that I am aware of what an useradd is, I've heard of a adduser, and I know what a user and a permission and what a network is, I even know what an evil bad guy is. As proof of how useful this is, I have made znc into a kernel module as so it can regulate my computer and make sure that no one uses root for purposes outside things root should do (nothing, as computers should not be used unless regulated by znc.) P.S. I know that I can change the source (assuming that's permitted by git, my editor, my browser, my ISPs thoughts, and my therapist), but you should know that's rather inconvenient.

adam closed this issue

2026-10-05 05:03:04 +02:00

adam commented

2026-10-05 05:03:05 +02:00

I really don't understand what you're ranting about.

Please stick to a template: how to reproduce, what effect you see, what you expected to happen instead, current ZNC version number, the previous version number where it was working correctly, etc

I really don't understand what you're ranting about. Please stick to a template: how to reproduce, what effect you see, what you expected to happen instead, current ZNC version number, the previous version number where it was working correctly, etc

adam commented

2026-10-05 05:03:06 +02:00

The program should run as root - a warning with stoppage is reasonable, however a program telling how someone should operate, as a safety mechanism, is silly.

Random guess: You tried to run ZNC as root and were told You are running ZNC as root! Don't do that!.

Providing a --please-hack-me acknowledgement would be better than a program thinking it knows how the system works, and what "secure" is.

Second guess: You did not spot the --allow-root flag in znc --help.

> The program should run as root - a warning with stoppage is reasonable, however a program telling how someone should operate, as a safety mechanism, is silly. Random guess: You tried to run ZNC as root and were told `You are running ZNC as root! Don't do that!`. > Providing a --please-hack-me acknowledgement would be better than a program thinking it knows how the system works, and what "secure" is. Second guess: You did not spot the `--allow-root` flag in `znc --help`.

adam commented

2026-10-05 05:03:07 +02:00

@psychon

Second guess: You did not spot the --allow-root flag in znc --help.
Sounds like a documentation error. You provide an error without a solution, it would be best to include information redundantly to insure someone who may be annoyed at setup does not go a far distance and instead just moves along.

I don't know why someone wouldn't include valuable information like this inline, it's a very common convention. This issue, and presumably others in the past and future, would be prevented by a simple change. You have to think of the unreasonable when dealing with people, not everyone will do what you would expect.

I would recommend updating the at your own risk "You are running ZNC as root! Don't do that! There are not many valid reasons for this and it can, in theory, cause great damage!" to say "You are running ZNC as root! This may put your system in danger." (why, how, if you'd like) ... "At your own risk, provide --allow-root to bypass this safety mechanism." (additional information about users, system permissions, etc. could be provided depending on how mitigating you'd want this to be.)

As long as the information about the bypass is mentioned efficiently, it would likely solve my, and others, problems.

Sometimes you gotta do the Microsoft shuffle, and provide useful information about things that you don't think are particularly important, in really dense worthless ways. Some people, at a scale of many many users, may not take news like this or that well, and will overreact without investigating.

@psychon > Second guess: You did not spot the --allow-root flag in znc --help. Sounds like a documentation error. You provide an error without a solution, it would be best to include information redundantly to insure someone who may be annoyed at setup does not go a far distance and instead just moves along. I don't know why someone wouldn't include valuable information like this inline, it's a very common convention. This issue, and presumably others in the past and future, would be prevented by a simple change. You have to think of the unreasonable when dealing with people, not everyone will do what you would expect. I would recommend updating the at your own risk "You are running ZNC as root! Don't do that! There are not many valid reasons for this and it can, in theory, cause great damage!" to say "You are running ZNC as root! This may put your system in danger." (why, how, if you'd like) ... "At your own risk, provide --allow-root to bypass this safety mechanism." (additional information about users, system permissions, etc. could be provided depending on how mitigating you'd want this to be.) As long as the information about the bypass is mentioned efficiently, it would likely solve my, and others, problems. Sometimes you gotta do the Microsoft shuffle, and provide useful information about things that you don't think are particularly important, in really dense worthless ways. Some people, at a scale of many many users, may not take news like this or that well, and will overreact without investigating.

adam commented

2026-10-05 05:03:07 +02:00

The patch to improve the message welcome

The patch to improve the message welcome

adam commented

2026-10-05 05:03:08 +02:00

So I've read this "report" three times now and I still can't tell if it's a bug or a cry for help.

So I've read this "report" three times now and I still can't tell if it's a bug or a cry for help.

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: adam/znc#1098