Comparison Overview

Anchor Hospital

VS

Balance Treatment Center

Anchor Hospital

None
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Established in 1986, Anchor Hospital specializes in the treatment of behavioral health and addictive disease disorders for teens, adults and seniors. Our mental health facility in Atlanta, Georgia is located on a secluded, 55-acre campus, less than three miles from Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport and is accredited by the Joint Commission.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 175
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Balance Treatment Center

4505 Las Virgenes Road, Calabasas, California, 91302, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21

Balance Treatment Center is a luxurious licensed Mental Health Rehabilitation Center offering the most comprehensive program for those struggling with mental health issues or co-occurring disorders. Founder Ronald D. Sager, M.D. has created a program using his extensive psychoanalytic background to provide integrated care for complex issues by taking an in-depth and evidence-based approach to persistent struggles. The Balance model for long-term recovery and stability addresses the four cornerstones of a healthy experience: Emotional, Social, Educational and Physical. Balance Day Treatment programs offer the same comprehensive approach for adults and adolescents in an Intensive Outpatient setting. At Balance, we use an evidence-based treatment approach that employs the most effective methods available: Daily Individual Therapy, Daily Group Therapy, Psychodynamic Psychotherapy, Motivational Interviewing (M.I.), Stress/Health Management, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) , Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), Expressive Arts Therapy, Equine Therapy and Pet Therapy, Recreation Therapy, Multi-family Group. Our Medical Director, Ronald D. Sager M.D., is on-site and is actively involved in each client’s care. Dr. Sager can provide a full psychiatric evaluation with a medication assessment and ongoing medical management while clients are in our program. Balance Treatment Center has earned The Joint Commission’s Gold Seal of Approval® for accreditation by demonstrating compliance with The Joint Commission’s national standards for health care quality and safety in behavioral health care. The accreditation award recognizes Balance Treatment Center’s dedication to continuous compliance with The Joint Commission’s state-of-the-art standards. Locations in California: Calabasas, Fresno, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, Ventura, Visalia.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 46
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/anchor-hospital.jpeg
Anchor Hospital
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/balance-treatment-center.jpeg
Balance Treatment Center
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
Anchor Hospital
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Balance Treatment Center
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Anchor Hospital in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Balance Treatment Center in 2026.

Incident History — Anchor Hospital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Anchor Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Balance Treatment Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Balance Treatment Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/anchor-hospital.jpeg
Anchor Hospital
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/balance-treatment-center.jpeg
Balance Treatment Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Anchor Hospital company and Balance Treatment Center company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Balance Treatment Center company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Anchor Hospital company.

In the current year, Balance Treatment Center company and Anchor Hospital company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Balance Treatment Center company nor Anchor Hospital company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Balance Treatment Center company nor Anchor Hospital company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Balance Treatment Center company nor Anchor Hospital company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Anchor Hospital company nor Balance Treatment Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Anchor Hospital nor Balance Treatment Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Anchor Hospital company nor Balance Treatment Center company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Anchor Hospital company employs more people globally than Balance Treatment Center company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Anchor Hospital nor Balance Treatment Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Anchor Hospital nor Balance Treatment Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Anchor Hospital nor Balance Treatment Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Anchor Hospital nor Balance Treatment Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Anchor Hospital nor Balance Treatment Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Anchor Hospital nor Balance Treatment Center 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