Proposal: Make "Isolated User" field optional in v3.19.0+

[erhanurgun]

Hi everyone,

The "Isolated User" feature was available prior to Vito version v3.19.0, but it was not mandatory at that time... Although this feature is excellent in terms of security and separation of responsibilities, it is now being implemented as a mandatory field!

As seen in the screenshot, creating a site now blocks progress if this field is empty:

The Problem:
The combination of this field being mandatory AND requiring uniqueness adds significant friction to the deployment workflow.

• It forces us to invent a unique system username for every single site we deploy.
• It complicates quick setups or simple scenarios where strict user isolation isn't a priority.

The Proposal:
I suggest making the "Isolated User" field optional.

• Why: For single-tenant servers or simple developer setups, enforcing strict user isolation adds unnecessary complexity.
• How: If left empty, the system could default to the standard user or skip the isolation logic (maintaining the previous ease of use).

This would give power users the security they need without forcing a specific workflow on everyone else.

What do you think?

[erhanurgun]

Right now, I have to use v3.18.0 because of this restriction... If this continues, I'll have to apply a patch myself and upgrade to the next version!

[erhanurgun]

It was optional in v3.18.0 and earlier, and I think it would be better to keep it that way!

[erhanurgun]

c23f88b should be corrected...

[saeedvaziry]

This is a big security concern and yet with all recommendation to use isolated users, some users' entire server got compromised because their site had security issues.

The vito user is a sudoer and doesn't require password for sudo commands.

Thats the reason we went towards making it mandatory (#980)

I strongly recommend you to use isolated users.

On v4 we're going to have nodejs or bun binaries only on isolated users so this is already set for the future and no changes to bring it back will be accepted.

Thanks

[erhanurgun]

Thank you for the detailed explanation, @saeedvaziry

My main reason for initiating this discussion was not to undermine security, but to highlight workflow friction in shared infrastructure scenarios. When different companies or teams use the same infrastructure, the requirement to manually create a unique system user for each site deployment has become a frequent complaint I hear from them...

I respectfully acknowledge the decision and roadmap for V4. Perhaps in the future, the user interface could be improved to resolve this friction while maintaining a high security standard by adding a simple "automatically generate a random unique user" button next to this field... Or a different scenario could be implemented!

Thank you for your hard work!