Comparison Overview

Aware Recovery Care, Inc.

VS

The Village Network

Aware Recovery Care, Inc.

35 Thorpe Ave, Suite 104, Wallingford, Connecticut, US, 06492
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Aware Recovery Care helps people affected by addiction "Recover Where You Live," transforming the home into a treatment center and delivering innovative addiction services to those in need. Aware's groundbreaking and evidence-based approaches treat addiction differently by bringing collaborative care with lived experience to the home, empowering individuals and their loved ones to thrive & make sustainable recovery possible. The program helps clients learn new skills and daily habits required to maintain abstinence while remaining in their community, thereby avoiding the often-difficult return home seen from traditional treatment options. In early 2021, Aware received an investment from Health Enterprise Partners ("HEP"), a growth equity firm whose investors include some of the largest health systems and health insurance plans in the United States. Aware now operates in eleven states (CT, MA, RI, NH, ME, VA, KY, OH, IN, FL, GA) and is poised for further expansion in partnership with established national and regional payors, employers, and other stakeholders. Aware was certified as a "Great Place to Work" in August 2022.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 354
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

The Village Network

2000 Noble Drive, Wooster, 44691, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Since 1946, The Village Network has been a leader in caring for at-risk youth and their families in Ohio and West Virginia. Our premiere treatment plans paired with compassionate care create opportunities for our clients to experience healing from their individual traumas and improve their behavioral, physical and emotional health. Our services are designed to transition individuals to permanent, stable environments and include Community Services, Residential Treatment and Treatment Foster Care. All our services contribute to our mission to empower all individuals to build brighter futures. The Village Network is nationally recognized as a quality care provider, licensed by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Certified by the Ohio Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services, accredited by the Council of Accreditation and is a flagship partner with NMT (Neurosequential Model of Therapeutics) childtrauma.org.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 365
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/aware-recovery-care.jpeg
Aware Recovery Care, Inc.
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/the-village-network.jpeg
The Village Network
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
Aware Recovery Care, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Village Network
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aware Recovery Care, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Village Network in 2026.

Incident History — Aware Recovery Care, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aware Recovery Care, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Village Network (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Village Network cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aware-recovery-care.jpeg
Aware Recovery Care, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-village-network.jpeg
The Village Network
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Aware Recovery Care, Inc. company and The Village Network company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, The Village Network company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Aware Recovery Care, Inc. company.

In the current year, The Village Network company and Aware Recovery Care, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Village Network company nor Aware Recovery Care, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Village Network company nor Aware Recovery Care, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Village Network company nor Aware Recovery Care, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Aware Recovery Care, Inc. company nor The Village Network company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Aware Recovery Care, Inc. nor The Village Network holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Aware Recovery Care, Inc. company nor The Village Network company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Village Network company employs more people globally than Aware Recovery Care, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Aware Recovery Care, Inc. nor The Village Network holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Aware Recovery Care, Inc. nor The Village Network holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Aware Recovery Care, Inc. nor The Village Network holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Aware Recovery Care, Inc. nor The Village Network holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Aware Recovery Care, Inc. nor The Village Network holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Aware Recovery Care, Inc. nor The Village Network 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