Skip to main content

Security report for aercap.com

AerCap Holdings N.V. · Transportation · Ireland

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in SSL/TLS.

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

AerCap Holdings N.V. is a global leader in aviation leasing, recognized as the world's largest owner of commercial aircraft. The company provides airlines worldwide with access to a broad portfolio of aircraft, engines, and helicopters, offering comprehensive fleet solutions. With a strong market position and a presence on the New York Stock Exchange, AerCap serves approximately 300 customers globally, operating from its headquarters in Dublin and multiple international offices. Technically, the website demonstrates a mature digital infrastructure utilizing modern analytics tools such as Google Analytics 4 and Google Tag Manager, alongside a cookie consent mechanism ensuring privacy compliance. The site is well-designed, mobile-optimized, and accessible, reflecting a professional corporate image. However, some technical security enhancements, such as security headers, could be improved. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and employs consent-based tracking, but lacks visible security policies or incident response contacts. The absence of WHOIS data is a notable anomaly, though the website's content and corporate legitimacy mitigate concerns. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from enhanced transparency and technical hardening. Strategically, AerCap is well-positioned in the aviation leasing sector with a large asset base and diversified customer portfolio. The website supports investor relations and corporate communications effectively, though contact information is not prominently displayed. Recommendations include improving security header implementation, publishing security and incident response policies, and addressing WHOIS data transparency to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching aercap.com

This scan found 19 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
62
Security headers
85
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
80

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

AerCap operates in the transportation sector, specifically aviation leasing, with a business model centered on owning and leasing aircraft, engines, and helicopters to airlines globally. Its competitive advantage lies in its scale, diversified portfolio, and strong order book of new technology aircraft. The company targets airlines and aviation industry stakeholders, leveraging a global office network to maintain close customer relationships. Revenue streams are primarily from leasing contracts and related services. The website's investor relations content and NYSE listing indicate a mature, enterprise-level organization with strong market presence and growth potential. Partnerships and social media engagement support brand visibility and stakeholder communication.

Security posture

The website exhibits a moderate to strong security posture with mandatory HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms in place. However, the lack of visible security headers and absence of published security policies or incident response contacts represent gaps in transparency and best practices. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Compliance with GDPR is indicated through privacy and cookie policies. The missing WHOIS data is a concern but likely a registrar or query anomaly rather than malicious. Overall, the security maturity is adequate for corporate standards but could be enhanced by publishing explicit security documentation and implementing additional HTTP security headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and facilitate vulnerability reporting.
  3. Add a security.txt file at the root domain to formalize vulnerability disclosure processes.
  4. Enhance data protection officer visibility and contact details to strengthen GDPR compliance and user trust.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize security risks and ensure compliance with privacy regulations.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
AerCap Holdings N.V.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
AerCap Holdings N.V.
Description
AerCap is the world’s largest owner of commercial aircraft and leader in aviation leasing, providing airlines with long-term access to the most in-demand passenger and cargo aircraft, engines and helicopters. AerCap has one of the most attractive order books in the industry. AerCap serves approximately 300 customers in countries across the world with comprehensive fleet solutions. AerCap is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (AER) and has its headquarters in Dublin with offices in Shannon, Miami, Singapore, Memphis, Amsterdam, Shanghai, Abu Dhabi, Seattle, Toulouse and other locations around the world.
Key services
Aircraft leasing, Engine leasing, Helicopter leasing, Cargo aircraft leasing, Fleet solutions
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics (GA4), Google Tag Manager, Slick Slider, Klaro Cookie Consent, jQuery (implied by Slick and other scripts)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and Analytics with consent

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (GA4)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. Strong corporate branding and investor relations presence.
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage HTML.
  4. Cookie consent and privacy policies are implemented and accessible.
  5. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  6. WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which is unusual but not necessarily suspicious given other trust indicators.
  7. Use of modern analytics and marketing tools with consent mechanisms.
  8. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including Google Analytics 4 and Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing, along with the Slick Slider library for UI components and Klaro for cookie consent management. The HTML structure is valid and supports responsive design, ensuring good mobile optimization and accessibility. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts and preconnect hints to improve speed. No CMS or hosting provider details were explicitly detected. The site demonstrates good SEO practices with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Technical risks are minimal but could be reduced further by implementing security headers and improving WHOIS data transparency.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with aercap.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review aercap.com.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.