free support, or abc software application, or xyz bundle of software applications.
So why choose to exclude cPanel -- arguably the #1 control panel for hosts to install that allows them to create client access accounts from which the client has restricted access to their little jailed portion of the hosts server.
Both the tag wiki excerpt and the full tag wiki warn you that cpanel questions are likely to fail to meet the standards required of a question here.
This is not an arbitrary decision by a single moderator. The question has been debated at some length here and the community has slowly come round to the position that web-panel questions are off-topic for a forum that deals in professional system administration. We have even lost a highly-regarded community-elected moderator over the position.
I understand that you think cPanel questions should be on-topic here, but you should be aware that the debate has already happened. That doesn't mean it can't be re-opened, but the correct order of things is first to come to meta, ask the question, make your case, and win the day; only then should you post the question on the main site.
If - as you have - you choose to do things the other way around, you can't expect a full re-hearing in the comments fields of your subsequent complaint.
I am able to secure with an A rating using the details below, but cPanel services doesn't allow the level of flexibility in the protocols which would eliminate the problem.
Don't use a product that hampers you from doing your job. If you're required to use it for your job, and the software is not doing what it needs to do, then issue a feature request with the vendor.
There's no confusion here, either due to not reading your question nor due to conflating cPanel with cPanel/WHM.
That's a poor analogy. Windows server management tools are native to the system, designed by the same company that built the operating system. As such, they're extremely well-tested, highly-integrated, and well-supported. (I'll take this opportunity to mention that even the likes of Microsoft have seen the light with regards to the pitfalls of relying too much on a GUI for server management, as more and more Windows Server management is shifting over to text-based technologies like Powershell, WinRM, and even SSH). cPanel/WHM, on the other hand, is an attempt to bolt a GUI on top of an operating system that is designed to be managed using nothing other than an SSH client.
Just because a software is popular doesn't give it a free pass here. We're not excluding cPanel (see my below "As an aside" comment).
I understand - you asked a question, hoping for an answer. The question got closed, which hurts a bit. The fact remains that the community is very strongly against accepting cPanel questions, and has spoken time and time again on the topic, always with the same outcome.
So, where to go from here: not to beat a dead horse, but call up cPanel support. Honestly. You're paying them for their software and support, so take advantage of it. They'll be able to help you better than anyone here can.
As an aside, we very rarely close questions due to someone not contacting vendor support before coming here. Very rarely. Your question was not closed because you didn't go through cPanel support. It was closed because the mere presence of cPanel on a server makes troubleshooting this sort of thing difficult if not impossible to do without causing the entire cPanel house of cards to fall down around you.Correct as far as it goes, but it's worth emphasizing that this is precisely because Russia is a top-down, centralized empire. This is hard for Americans to grasp, because we are so distant from that type of political organization. In the US, there are of course vast gulfs of relative degrees of wealth between, say, Manhattan, ritzy areas of LA, Washington DC, the "Acela Corridor," on the one hand, and truly impoverished areas in rural Arkansas, the Appalachians, Native American reservations like the Navajo/Dine. But Russia is a million times beyond that kind of gulf, if only in that these impoverished corners of the US are as exceptional as the ultra wealthy areas, with the vast majority of the country in a general middle-class level of wealth that would be the envy of 90% of Russians outside of Moscow/St. Petersburg.

How so? Well, for starters, there's not a direct exclusion between these areas in the US - that is, Arkansas does not have poverty *because* Manhattan is wealthy or vice versa. Hollywood does not have the ability to be ritzy by keeping the Navajo mired in poverty. The American State does not extract wealth from the country as a whole to centralize it in DC, nor are its political officials - for all of their many ills on a bipartisan basis - mostly a criminal or mafia class who get by with endemic corruption. The US isn't squeaky clean by any means here (looking at you, Chicago, New Jersey, New Orleans), but it's much closer to Scandinavian levels of non-corruption than Russia, which is down near the bottom of any international ranking of corruption you wish to consult, in line with developing countries of South America, sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia.

There are many reasons for this difference. But at root, I would point to the very different histories of the US and Russia. The US never organized itself as an empire. From the very beginning of the Republic in the 18th century, the US was a federal republic governed by a Constitution and the rule of law, and enjoyed a relatively free economy. It's significant that aristocratic titles were banned by the Constitution. The federalism component allowed the US to grow without becoming especially top-heavy or centralized, so in many instances, places far from the center, like California, and more recently, Texas and Florida, could economically thrive and take off on their own.

Contrast that with Russia. Russia was a medieval empire that never even made it to the Enlightenment era that most of the rest of Europe went through.  Though Napoleon was defeated by the Russians, an unwitting by-product of his invasion was that pre-Enlightenment mentalities were confirmed and strengthened by his failed invasion, as Napoleon was identified by many - Russians and non-Russians alike - as the embodiment of Enlightenment thinking. So as a matter of political sociology, Russian society maintained the medieval notion of an all-powerful, absolute autocrat at the center, with vassal lords along the periphery supported by peasants and serfs, for many generations after that had been upended by Enlightenment-era reforms and the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America. To Russia's credit, there were signs of progress by the end of the 19th and early 20th century. There was a modest, but very real, drive toward industrialization, an emerging mercantile middle class, and the revolution of 1905 forced the Czar to share at least a symbolic component of power with the newly founded Duma. It wouldn't have been crazy to think that Russia, with all its vast untapped material wealth, would evolve toward a constitutional monarchy, with the institution of a parliamentary democracy to check the power of the Czar.

But we all know what happened next: WWI, and the rise of the Bolsheviks, who strangled all that in the cradle. From that point forward, the Soviet Union represented a truly odd political entity, in that it was built on the foundation of this old medieval empire, while trying to pretend to be anti-colonial, modern nation-state. In practice, though, it was "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." The collectivized farms ended the abortive move toward private smallholding, and revived the medieval institution of serfdom, just under a new guise and ideology, with Nomenklatura filling the vacuum left by the aristocrats. And sad to say, this only continued in different forms after 1991. Only now, instead of Russia pretending to be a modern Communist state, it pretended to be a democratic, free market economy. In short, Russia never fully got over its medieval, zero-sum notion of wealth, and its highly centralized, corrupt governance, but as this never took root in the US, it's an alien thing for us to encounter and try to understand.After being traded from the Oklahoma City Thunder, James Harden showed the Thunder what they'll be missing by going off on the Detroit Pistons in the season opener for 37 points and 12 assists, leading the Rockets to a 105-96 comeback win.
In his first game as the "foundational player" of the Houston Rockets, James Harden and his beard made the Detroit Pistons (and Thunder GM Sam Presti) all uneasy by dropping a scary good 37 points, 12 assists and six rebounds on them in 44 minutes, helping the Rockets to a nine-point win to ruin the Pistons' home opener of the 2012-2013 season.
The Pistons led after three quarters, thanks to a 23-7 run in the third's final nine minutes, but fell apart during the last 12 minutes of the game, getting outscored 33-15 and ultimately losing the game 105-96.
Harden only scored six of his 37 in the fourth, but he spent much of the final quarter creating open looks for his teammates, like Carlos Delfino, a former Piston. Five of Harden's 12 assists came in the fourth, two of which were to Delfino for wide open back-to-back daggers around the five-minute mark.
Delfino hit five threes