---
title: "Comment by VCODER on \"Account Takeover due to DNS Rebinding\" | Hashnode"
description: "nice writeup , thanks for sharing I have a question : so if the next_check() checks (verify) the cname record every time (when function called) and if it matche"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/account-takeover-due-to-dns-rebinding/66e98ac1e42f1a7e03167b3b/comment/66e995e471770e9a54e291d4"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/account-takeover-due-to-dns-rebinding/66e98ac1e42f1a7e03167b3b)

Comment [Account Takeover due to DNS Rebinding](https://hashnode.com/posts/account-takeover-due-to-dns-rebinding/66e98ac1e42f1a7e03167b3b)

[VCODER](https://hashnode.com/@vc0d3r)

[Sep 17, 2024](https://hashnode.com/posts/account-takeover-due-to-dns-rebinding/66e98ac1e42f1a7e03167b3b/comment/66e995e471770e9a54e291d4)

nice writeup , thanks for sharing

I have a question : so if the `next_check()` checks (verify) the cname record every time (when function called) and if it matches "hashnode.network" it will prevent this attack ?

and the cause of this vulnerability is because hashnode only verifies the cname record once , only when it is adding to the db, , am I correct?🤔

[Voorivex](https://hashnode.com/@Voorivex)

[Sep 17, 2024](https://hashnode.com/posts/account-takeover-due-to-dns-rebinding/66e98ac1e42f1a7e03167b3b/comment/66e995e471770e9a54e291d4#reply-66e9a6ee24917bedfe9374da)

First question: yes, but the checker function should not rely on the DNS cache. If it does, the attack will still exist

Second question: not just once. Hashnode checked the DNS record at regular intervals (every 10 minutes) which was prone to DNS Rebinding attack