container audit

GTM-MLM9H55

11 tags, 3 custom scripts, 0 third-party hosts — an ordinary container, near the middle of what we measure (median: 39 tags, 4 custom scripts).

3 custom HTML tags carrying 4 KB of JavaScript. This runs on every page the container loads on.
Measurement runs through a server container on its own domain — the mark of a mature setup, and rarer than the tooling vendors imply.

Tags11

Custom scripts3

Third parties0

Delivered490 KB

Versions30

What we observed

A real browser loaded kis.lt 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 cllct.kis.lt — the site's own host

Measurement sent to cllct.kis.lt — not Google

Both wires run through infrastructure the site controls.

Forwarded to GA4 ×3 — read from the measurement id, not the hostname

Consent a consent platform is present, but our browser could not complete the accept step — so the before-and-after comparison did not run here. 2 hosts appeared only after consent was granted. Google recorded gcs=G100 (all denied).

Third parties contacted 8 hosts — cdn-cookieyes.com, rpc.sepolia.ethpandaops.io, log.cookieyes.com, qaz4.com, pagead2.googlesyndication.com, unpkg.com, www.google.com, ad.doubleclick.net

dataLayer events seen gtm.js, gtm.dom, gtm.load

Where the data goes

Confirmed — a browser watched this site send measurement data to cllct.kis.lt, not to Google. observed on kis.lt 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.

reviewWrites cookies directly (1)

1 piece of custom code set cookies in code.

WhyCookies set this way bypass GTM's consent settings, because the consent checks live in the tag templates rather than in raw JavaScript.

CheckIf any of these cookies are used for analytics or advertising, confirm they are still gated on a consent decision.

Seenseen in 21.2% of 46,522 containers measured

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

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 »

No third-party hosts were found in this container's tags.

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_KFNBV gallery injects code from connect.facebook.net, unpkg.com · runs page-level globals

Detected 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.

kis.lt

What this audit describes

Containers change. These findings describe one specific artifact, and you can re-fetch it to check this reading.

Container	`GTM-MLM9H55`
Published version	`30` — the identity of this configuration. It changes only when someone publishes.
Read at	2026-08-23 17:47:21 UTC (2 months ago)
Source	`https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id=GTM-MLM9H55`
Body checksum	`122848e0ee6110f0249ace06a92731becf161a01cafbbb5b3e1e2822547cf0b8` Evidence 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.

Re-audit GTM-MLM9H55

Check another container

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 »