Skip to main content

Security report for facc.com

FACC AG · Transportation · Austria

High risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

46/100

Risk levelHigh

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

FACC AG is a mature and leading aerospace company specializing in the design, production, and maintenance of advanced lightweight components and systems for the global aviation industry. The company maintains strong partnerships with major aerospace manufacturers such as Airbus, Boeing, and Embraer, and offers a broad portfolio including aerostructures, engines, nacelles, cabin interiors, and MRO services. The website reflects a professional and well-branded digital presence targeting industry partners, investors, suppliers, and job seekers. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern JavaScript frameworks like Vue.js and uses Amazon CloudFront CDN for hosting. However, performance metrics are missing, and the site appears to load slowly. Security posture is a significant concern due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of TLS protocol support, which critically undermines secure communications. Privacy compliance is well addressed with a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site is credible and professional but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and maintain trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 100 · Critical
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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  2. 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

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

Keep watching facc.com

This scan found 14 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
0
Security headers
85
Email security
50
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
18
Average
46

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

FACC AG operates in the transportation and manufacturing sectors with a focus on aerospace technology. The company has a mature domain age consistent with its long-standing market presence since 1996. Its business model is B2B, serving aviation manufacturers and suppliers globally. The website highlights multiple awards and collaborations, indicating strong market positioning and competitive advantage. The company actively recruits talent and engages investors through dedicated sections. Marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Microsoft Dynamics 365 are employed for data-driven decision-making. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers suggests a controlled communication channel via web forms, enhancing data privacy and lead management. The partnership ecosystem includes official press and job portals under related subdomains.

Security posture

The website demonstrates partial implementation of security best practices with several HTTP security headers configured. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent critical vulnerabilities that expose users to data interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. The absence of OCSP stapling and session resumption further weakens the security posture. No public security or incident response policies are found, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present. The site uses GDPR-compliant consent mechanisms and privacy policies, but the insecure transport layer significantly reduces overall security. Immediate remediation of SSL/TLS issues is essential to protect user data and maintain compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and secure all communications.
  2. Enable TLS 1.2 or higher protocols and disable insecure legacy protocols.
  3. Activate HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload flags to enforce HTTPS usage.
  4. Implement OCSP stapling to improve certificate revocation checking performance and security.
  5. Establish and publish a security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency.
  6. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  7. Improve website performance by optimizing resource loading and reducing page size.
  8. Consider adding direct company contact emails and phone numbers with clear context for better user trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Vue.js components and uses Amazon CloudFront as a CDN. It integrates third-party services such as Cookiebot for cookie consent and Google Tag Manager for analytics. The site uses modern frontend technologies and structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO. However, the SSL/TLS configuration is critically lacking, with no valid certificate and no TLS protocols enabled, which is a major technical risk. Performance data is missing, but inferred slow loading suggests optimization opportunities. Accessibility and SEO are well addressed with proper meta tags, ARIA labels, and responsive design. The site uses a comprehensive contact form with dynamic fields and GDPR-compliant consent checkboxes. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires urgent security upgrades and performance tuning.
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 facc.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 facc.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.