container audit
GTM-KXPHJ3H2
4 tags, 2 custom scripts, 3 third-party hosts — an ordinary container, near the middle of what we measure (median: 39 tags, 4 custom scripts).
- 2 custom HTML tags carrying 1 KB of JavaScript. This runs on every page the container loads on.
- 3 third-party hosts reachable from its tags.
Tags4
Custom scripts2
Third parties3
Delivered399 KB
Versions7
What we observed
A real browser loaded fibbl.com 2 months ago and recorded every request it made. This is what happened, as distinct from what the container is configured to do. It is one page load — anything that fires only deeper in the site did not fire here.
Container loaded from
googletagmanager.com — GoogleMeasurement sent to
google-analytics.com — GoogleConsent
Cookiebot answered its own API. Measurement fired beforehand but carried no identifier —
analytics_storage was denied, which is Consent Mode working as designed rather than a gap. 2 hosts appeared only after consent was granted. Google recorded gcs=G100 (all denied).Third parties contacted
25 hosts — cdn.jsdelivr.net, ajax.googleapis.com, consent.cookiebot.com, js.hs-scripts.com, www.googletagmanager.com, ik.imagekit.io, consentcdn.cookiebot.com, js.hs-analytics.net, and 17 more
dataLayer events seen
gtm.js, gtm.dom, gtm.load, gtm.click, cookie_consent_preferences, cookie_consent_statistics, cookie_consent_marketing
Where the data goes
Not observed — on the page we loaded, measurement went to Google and nowhere else. observed on fibbl.com More info »
Findings
Ordered by consequence. review has a concrete cost when it bites; info is real but depends on your setup. Seen is how common it is across the containers we have measured — reported separately on purpose, because common and harmless are different claims.
reviewNo consent signal in the container (1)
Nothing in this container sets, reads, or gates on a consent state.
WhyThe container itself neither sets a Consent Mode default, holds any tag back for consent, nor references a known consent platform. Either enforcement lives entirely outside GTM — where it cannot be audited from here — or tags fire regardless of what a visitor chose.
CheckIf a consent platform blocks scripts before GTM loads, this is fine — confirm that is actually the case. If not, tags are firing on a choice nobody recorded.
Seenseen in 52.1% of 46,522 containers measured
infoVendor IDs written into custom code (1)
1 vendor ID is pasted directly into custom HTML rather than held in a variable or template.
WhyChanging a property, pixel or account then means editing every tag that mentions it, and any one that gets missed keeps sending to the old destination indefinitely.
CheckFine if the ID never changes. If you have ever migrated a property, check that none of these still point at the old one.
Seenseen in 31.4% of 46,522 containers measured
Third parties it can reach
Each host is a party that can execute code or receive data in a visitor's browser. Follow one to see who else loads it. More info »
What the custom templates can do
Custom templates are third-party code shipped inside the container. Injecting scripts and running page globals is ordinary for them — most tag templates need it to work — so this is an inventory, not a warning. It lists the capability each template declares so you can match it against templates you meant to install.
__cvt_192749151_3 private injects code from snap.licdn.comDetected on
Sites observed loading this container. A container used across many hosts is a shared template; one on a single host is a bespoke build. Follow a site to see every container it loads.
What this audit describes
Containers change. These findings describe one specific artifact, and you can re-fetch it to check this reading.
| Container | GTM-KXPHJ3H2 |
|---|---|
| Published version | 7 — the identity of this configuration. It changes only when someone publishes. |
| Read at | 2026-08-23 17:41:58 UTC (2 months ago) |
| Source | https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id=GTM-KXPHJ3H2 |
| Body checksum | 921a6e283d5c96ba357a6001069c7e6cef5414c2fabf1e1b7faa19fb7172e5ffEvidence of the exact bytes we read, not an identity: Google varies the response per request, so re-fetching an unchanged container yields a different checksum. Compare the published version instead. |
Re-audit
This reading is from 2 months ago. A container can be republished at any time, and nothing here updates on its own — a fresh read is the only way to know whether it still says this. Running it again replaces this page in place, so the link keeps working.
Put this container under version control. Tagora exports it to a repository you own, so every change arrives as a pull request. How it works »