container audit
GTM-W69F66G
18 tags, 15 custom scripts, 0 third-party hosts — an ordinary container, near the middle of what we measure (median: 39 tags, 4 custom scripts).
- 15 custom HTML tags carrying 15 KB of JavaScript — more than 70% of the 46,522 containers we have measured. This runs on every page the container loads on.
Tags18
Custom scripts15
Third parties0
Delivered413 KB
Versions190
What we observed
A real browser loaded bankinter.com a month 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
OneTrust answered its own API. Nothing measured until it was granted — no analytics or advertising hit left the page beforehand, and 3 fired afterwards. That is the outcome consent is meant to produce. 10 hosts appeared only after consent was granted. Google recorded
gcs=G100 (all denied).Third parties contacted
25 hosts — www.youtube.com, www.googletagmanager.com, fonts.gstatic.com, googleads.g.doubleclick.net, static.doubleclick.net, cdn.cookielaw.org, i.ytimg.com, geolocation.onetrust.com, and 17 more
dataLayer events seen
gtm.js, gtm.dom, gtm.load, OneTrustLoaded, OptanonLoaded, gtm.elementVisibility, msads_evt, sdkConfigure
Where the data goes
Not observed — on the page we loaded, measurement went to Google and nowhere else. observed on bankinter.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.
reviewWrites cookies directly (3)
3 pieces 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
infoLoads JavaScript from another host (1)
1 piece of custom code fetch and run JavaScript from another host.
WhyWhatever that host serves executes with full access to the page — it can read the DOM, cookies and form fields. The code is not in this container, so it can change at any time without any change here.
CheckConfirm you recognise every host below and that someone owns the relationship. A host you cannot name is the one to chase.
Seenseen in 54.4% of 46,522 containers measured
infoConsent configuration detected (1)
The container declares one or more consent signals.
WhyConsent handling is present in the container. This describes what the artifact declares; what actually happened on the page is measured separately, above.
CheckConfirm these settings match the consent policy you intend to enforce, and compare them with the before-and-after observation.
Seenseen in 44.6% 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.
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.
What this audit describes
Containers change. These findings describe one specific artifact, and you can re-fetch it to check this reading.
| Container | GTM-W69F66G |
|---|---|
| Published version | 190 — the identity of this configuration. It changes only when someone publishes. |
| Read at | 2026-08-22 10:48:08 UTC (a month ago) |
| Source | https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id=GTM-W69F66G |
| Body checksum | 4a8c75b197110e5d12d781429b2303ea13e55fe90782ed31908cd3c6b40070ebEvidence 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 a month 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 »