Comparison Overview

A Home Within

VS

Haight Ashbury Psychological Services

A Home Within

195 41st St, Oakland, California, 94611, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

One Foster Youth. One Therapist. For As Long As It Takes. Our vision is that all children who experience foster care are provided this essential support, ensuring that as they transition from foster care, regardless of which stage of life they are in, they have the inner tools they need to thrive. By matching youth with experienced therapists, we address the trauma and disruption inherent to foster care, help youth manage stress and anxiety, and develop the inner tools they need to become healthy adults. With a mission to create and support lasting, caring relationships for children and youth in foster care, A Home Within identifies, recruits, trains, and supports a network of licensed therapists who each provide free, weekly, one-to-one therapy to a single foster youth "for as long as it takes." For foster youth who often watch people move in and out of their lives, our model creates an anchor of support.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 77
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Haight Ashbury Psychological Services

2166 Hayes Street, Suite 308, San Francisco, California, 94117, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

We are sad to inform you that HAPS has closed its doors and is no longer in business. At HAPS, we envision a community with access to quality mental health care. Our mission is to improve the lives of people in our community by providing low-fee psychotherapy to those in need, and education, training, and supervision to those who serve. We aim to fit our approach to the client, not the other way around. To meet that goal, our interns are given training in a variety of perspectives and techniques so that they may support clients to reach and maintain a healthier level of functioning than previously possible. HAPS is a 501c3 non-profit organization.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 7
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/a-home-within.jpeg
A Home Within
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/haight-ashbury-psychological-services.jpeg
Haight Ashbury Psychological Services
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
A Home Within
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Haight Ashbury Psychological Services
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A Home Within in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Haight Ashbury Psychological Services in 2026.

Incident History — A Home Within (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A Home Within cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Haight Ashbury Psychological Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Haight Ashbury Psychological Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/a-home-within.jpeg
A Home Within
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/haight-ashbury-psychological-services.jpeg
Haight Ashbury Psychological Services
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

A Home Within company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Haight Ashbury Psychological Services company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Haight Ashbury Psychological Services company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to A Home Within company.

In the current year, Haight Ashbury Psychological Services company and A Home Within company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Haight Ashbury Psychological Services company nor A Home Within company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Haight Ashbury Psychological Services company nor A Home Within company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Haight Ashbury Psychological Services company nor A Home Within company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither A Home Within company nor Haight Ashbury Psychological Services company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither A Home Within nor Haight Ashbury Psychological Services holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither A Home Within company nor Haight Ashbury Psychological Services company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

A Home Within company employs more people globally than Haight Ashbury Psychological Services company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither A Home Within nor Haight Ashbury Psychological Services holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither A Home Within nor Haight Ashbury Psychological Services holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither A Home Within nor Haight Ashbury Psychological Services holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither A Home Within nor Haight Ashbury Psychological Services holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither A Home Within nor Haight Ashbury Psychological Services holds HIPAA certification.

Neither A Home Within nor Haight Ashbury Psychological Services holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N