All Vendors
cmp

CookieHub

CookieHub presents as a consent management platform but exhibits consent bypass patterns across 50% of deployments. The CMP-that-circumvents-CMPs paradox creates regulatory exposure.

18 IOCs5 detections80% pre-consent5 sites
70
Vendor Risk Score

How This Briefing Works

This report opens with key findings, then maps the gaps between what CookieHub discloses and what BLACKOUT observed at runtime. From there: what it means for your organization, what to do about it, and the detection data and evidence underneath.

Key Findings

Key Findings

5 detections across 5 sites80% pre-consent activity
CRITICAL

Pre-Consent Activity

CookieHub was observed loading and executing before user consent was obtained on 80% of sites where it was detected.

GDPRePrivacy
Disclosure Gaps

Claims vs. Observed Behavior

1 gaps

pending

UNKNOWN
They Claim

“Unknown - requires claims extraction via CDT”

Observed Behavior

Runtime evidence shows C06/C07/C09 patterns in production

Customer Impact

What This Means For You

Regulators view CMP consent bypass as aggravating factor. When your compliance vendor is the compliance violation, enforcement actions carry higher penalties. GDPR Article 5(1)(f) violations compounded by bad faith demonstrated through tool selection.
Recommended Actions

What To Do About It

Role-specific actions based on observed behavior

If You Use CookieHub

  • →Audit pre-consent activity via HAR analysis
  • →Confirm no session replay before explicit opt-in
  • →Review vendor contract for liability assignment on consent violations

If You're Evaluating CookieHub

  • →Request deployment configuration showing consent enforcement
  • →Test with browser dev tools: what loads before consent interaction?
  • →Compare vendor claims about consent respect vs observed runtime behavior

Negotiation Leverage

  • →Their CMP exhibits consent bypass in 50% of BLACKOUT observations. Does contract indemnify you if their tool creates the violation?
  • →Behavioral biometrics pre-consent defeats the purpose of a consent manager. What technical controls prevent this?
  • →Session recording before banner interaction = GDPR Article 5(1)(f) violation. How do they enforce true consent-first operation?
Runtime Detections

Runtime Detections

4 BTI-C CODES

BLACKOUT observed this vendor's JavaScript executing in a live browser and classified each hostile behavior using our BTI-C (Behavioral Threat Intelligence — Capability) taxonomy. These are not theoretical risks — each code below was triggered by something we watched this vendor's code actually do.

BTI-C06Behavioral Biometrics

Keystroke/mouse tracking

BTI-C07Session Recording

Full session replay

BTI-C09Consent Bypass

Ignoring CMP signals

BTI-C13Persistence Mechanisms

Long-lived identifiers

IOC Manifest

IOC Manifest

18 INDICATORS

Indicators of compromise across 4 categories. Use for detection rules, CSP policies, or Pi-hole blocklists.

TRACK
*cdn.cookiehub.eu/gpp/v3/stub.js*
Tracking script
TRACK
*cdn.cookiehub.eu/c2/*.js*
Tracking script
TRACK
*cdn.cookiehub.eu/dist/2.8.15/gpp.js*
Tracking script
TRACK
*cdn.cookiehub.eu/client/*/en.json*
Tracking script
TRACK
cdn.cookiehub.eu/gpp/v3/stub.js
Auto-extracted from scan
TRACK
cdn.cookiehub.eu/c2/9f2842b1.js
Auto-extracted from scan
TRACK
cdn.cookiehub.eu/dist/2.8.15/gpp.js
Auto-extracted from scan
Ecosystem

Ecosystem & Supply Chain

Part of consent theater stack where CMP vendors deploy the tracking they claim to manage. Often paired with session replay (Hotjar, FullStory) and behavioral analytics (Heap, Mixpanel) in ways that undermine stated privacy controls.
Loaded By (1)
Googletagmanager
Evidence

Evidence Artifacts

Artifacts collected during analysis, available with evidence-tier access.

HAR Capture

Complete network capture with all requests and responses

IOC Manifest

18 detection signatures across scripts, domains, cookies, and network endpoints

Vendor Details