Comparison Overview

Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders

VS

Yes We Can Clinics

Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders

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

The Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders (APTED) is non-profit organization comprised of a loose affiliation of professionals working in the Eating Disorder field. We work in conjunction with many other non-profits in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Our goals include improving efforts in prevention, early detection, direct treatment and training, so as to lessen the incidence of eating disorders and to improve identification and treatment. We are also actively involved in training professionals, so as to provide the best possible treatment of eating disorders. APTED also welcomes participation of people in recovery and their family and loved ones. We will be working to more actively engage people in recovery (and their loved ones) to get the treatment and support they need, mentoring they need, and offer opportunities, for those who are themselves moving into stronger recovery, to mentor and/or volunteer in other ways to support those still suffering. Together, we (and our “sister” non-profits) work to increase prevention efforts, reaching out to schools, school counselors, and students in middle schools, high schools and colleges. We also work to increase efforts in better informing professionals, so that pediatricians, physicians, dentists, and other providers can better identify eating disorders, and help with early detection and intervention.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 4
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Yes We Can Clinics

Laan van Diepenvoorde, Waalre, Noord-Brabant, 5582LA, NL
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Waarom Yes We Can Clinics? Omdat er tienduizenden jongeren en jongvolwassenen rondlopen met heftige psychische problemen, verslavingen en gedragsproblemen. Omdat tal van behandelingen, therapieën en zorginstellingen voor déze jongeren niet hebben geholpen. En omdat wij zien dat onze unieke – noem het eigenwijze – aanpak wél werkt. De sleutelwoorden? Onvoorwaardelijke warmte, veiligheid, verbinding en op het juiste moment de confrontatie. De jongeren in de kliniek noemen we geen cliënten maar ‘fellows’, waarmee we de afstand tussen onze collega’s en jongeren minimaliseren. We werken met een team van psychologen, orthopedagogen, psychiaters, ervaringsdeskundige counselors en jongerencoaches, ondersteund door honderden collega’s. Allemaal gedreven door de overtuiging: “Alles voor de fellow.” Voordat jongeren en hun ouders bij Yes We Can Clinics aankloppen, hebben ze vaak al vele vormen van hulpverlening gehad. Moedeloosheid en machteloosheid regeren. Wij geven deze jongeren én hun gezinnen handvatten om hun problemen te tackelen, een gedragsverandering te realiseren en weer mee te doen in de maatschappij. Het behandelprogramma van Yes We Can Clinics bestaat uit een combinatie van therapeutische sessies en sport- en outdooractiviteiten. De duur en intensiviteit van het programma stemmen we af op de problematiek van de jongere en zijn of haar gezin. Jongeren doorlopen de behandeling samen met andere fellows, zodat ze samen erkennen dat ze problemen hebben, om hulp leren vragen, problemen aanpakken en een blijvende verandering realiseren. Ook voor ouders of verzorgers is er een programma en we hebben volop aandacht voor broers en zussen. En dan zijn er nog de intensieve nazorg en de fysieke en digitale Yes We Can Meetings, waarmee we de fellows ondersteunen bij de meest kritieke fase in het behandelproces: het toepassen van hun herstel in het dagelijks leven. Kortom, de Yes We Can Fellowship is voor het leven. Wat je probleem ook is … wij gaan je helpen.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 341
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/association-of-professionals-treating-eating-disorders.jpeg
Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders
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/yes-we-can-clinics.jpeg
Yes We Can Clinics
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
Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Yes We Can Clinics
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Yes We Can Clinics in 2026.

Incident History — Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Yes We Can Clinics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Yes We Can Clinics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/association-of-professionals-treating-eating-disorders.jpeg
Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/yes-we-can-clinics.jpeg
Yes We Can Clinics
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Yes We Can Clinics company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Yes We Can Clinics company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders company.

In the current year, Yes We Can Clinics company and Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Yes We Can Clinics company nor Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Yes We Can Clinics company nor Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Yes We Can Clinics company nor Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders company nor Yes We Can Clinics company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders nor Yes We Can Clinics holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders company nor Yes We Can Clinics company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Yes We Can Clinics company employs more people globally than Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders nor Yes We Can Clinics holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders nor Yes We Can Clinics holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders nor Yes We Can Clinics holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders nor Yes We Can Clinics holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders nor Yes We Can Clinics holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Association of Professionals Treating Eating Disorders nor Yes We Can Clinics 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