Threat Intelligence

The Datadog Alert That Came From the Wrong Domain: Authenticated Brand Impersonation With All Links Pointing to Real Infrastructure

Written by Audian Paxson | May 23, 2026 11:00:00 AM
TL;DR A phishing email impersonated a Datadog automated monitor notification with the subject line referencing an OES Outbound MTA low delivery rate alert. The message was sent from alert@dtdg[.]co, a domain that is not Datadog's primary domain (datadoghq[.]com). The sending infrastructure was fully authenticated: SPF passed via em6080.dtdg[.]co, DKIM passed with selector s1 on d=dtdg[.]co, and DMARC passed. Mail was routed through SendGrid (o3.ptr4288.o3.sendgrid.dtdg[.]co, IP 149.72.169[.]25). WHOIS lookup on dtdg[.]co returned no public registration data, making it impossible to verify ownership. The email body replicated the structure of real Datadog monitor notifications, including company ID, event ID, monitor ID, and on-call mentions for Teams and PagerDuty integrations. Every action link resolved to app.datadoghq[.]com, the legitimate Datadog application. No credential forms, no attachments, no payment requests. The message included an open-tracking pixel. The attack builds a foundation of trust using real vendor links, positioning the recipient to accept future messages from the same domain that may contain malicious payloads.
Severity: Medium Brand Impersonation Reconnaissance MITRE: {'id': 'T1583.001', 'name': 'Acquire Infrastructure: Domains'} MITRE: {'id': 'T1566.002', 'name': 'Phishing: Spearphishing Link'} MITRE: {'id': 'T1036.005', 'name': 'Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location'}

The email looked like a routine Datadog monitor alert. The subject referenced an OES Outbound MTA low delivery rate. The body contained a company ID, event ID, monitor ID, and on-call mentions for Teams and PagerDuty. Every link resolved to app.datadoghq[.]com. There were no attachments, no credential forms, no payment requests.

The sender address was alert@dtdg[.]co. Not datadoghq[.]com.

Full Authentication on an Unverifiable Domain

The sending domain dtdg[.]co passed every authentication check. SPF passed via em6080.dtdg[.]co. DKIM passed with selector s1 on d=dtdg[.]co. DMARC passed. The mail was routed through SendGrid infrastructure at o3.ptr4288.o3.sendgrid.dtdg[.]co from IP 149.72.169[.]25.

A WHOIS lookup on dtdg[.]co returned no public registration data. No registrant name, no organization, no creation date visible in public records. There is no verifiable way to confirm whether this domain belongs to Datadog or to someone impersonating them. The abbreviation is plausible enough that most recipients would not question it.

This is the core problem with authenticated lookalike domains. DMARC confirms that the sending infrastructure is configured correctly for the domain in question. It does not confirm that the domain belongs to the brand it appears to represent.

Links That Pointed Exactly Where They Should

Every action link in the email resolved to app.datadoghq[.]com, the legitimate Datadog application. Login pages, monitor views, event detail pages, and profile paths all scanned clean. URL reputation engines returned safe verdicts across the board.

An email with fully authenticated headers and exclusively legitimate links produces zero signals for any security gateway that relies on URL scanning, domain reputation, or authentication results. The message is technically indistinguishable from a real vendor notification.

The Tracking Pixel and What Comes Next

The message contained an open-tracking pixel, a standard component in marketing emails but also a confirmation mechanism. When the recipient opens the email, the pixel fires and validates three things: the mailbox is active, the recipient reads vendor notifications, and the email address bypasses spam filters.

That intelligence has value. The attacker now knows this recipient will open and engage with messages from dtdg[.]co. The next email from the same domain could contain 14 legitimate links and one that redirects through an attacker-controlled intermediate to a credential harvesting page. The recipient has already been trained to trust the sender.

Themis, the Adaptive AI engine from IRONSCALES, evaluated the sender-recipient relationship, the domain's lack of verifiable ownership, and the behavioral pattern of the message. The combination of a first-time sender using a domain that closely mirrors a known vendor, with no prior communication history in the organization, triggered quarantine before the tracking pixel could confirm engagement.

See Your Risk: Calculate how many threats your SEG is missing

Indicators of Compromise

TypeIndicatorContext
Sending Domaindtdg[.]coLookalike domain, fully authenticated, no public WHOIS data
Sender Addressalert@dtdg[.]coDisplay name "Datadog Alerting"
Sending IP149.72.169[.]25SendGrid infrastructure
SendGrid Subdomaino3.ptr4288.o3.sendgrid.dtdg[.]coAuthenticated sending relay
SPF Domainem6080.dtdg[.]coSPF pass
DKIM Selectors1 (d=dtdg[.]co)DKIM pass
All Linksapp.datadoghq[.]comLegitimate Datadog application, all scanned clean
TrackingOpen-tracking pixelMailbox validation and engagement confirmation

MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

TechniqueIDRelevance
Acquire Infrastructure: DomainsT1583.001Lookalike domain registered with full authentication infrastructure
Phishing: Spearphishing LinkT1566.002Email contains links designed to build trust for future payload delivery
Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or LocationT1036.005Domain and display name match Datadog branding and notification structure
Email Attack of the Day is a daily series from IRONSCALES spotlighting real phishing attacks caught by Adaptive AI and our community of 30,000+ security professionals. Each post breaks down one attack — what it looked like, why it worked, and what you can do about it.