Comparison Overview

Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc.

VS

Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR)

Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc.

9695 Lebanon Rd, Suite 110, Mt. Juliet, TN, 37122, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Beacon Behavioral Consultants, provides Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) services in homes, schools, and community settings across Middle Tennessee for well over a decade. Beacon specializes in functional assessment of behavior, VB-MAPP, and ABA intervention for individual with challenging behaviors and/or verbal skill deficits. Our clinicians are highly trained professionals experienced in providing ABA services for all ages across home, school, community, and work settings. Beacon’s commitment to excellence is reflected in the expertise of our clinicians and our reputation as a quality ABA provider across Middle Tennessee. Our goal at Beacon is to implement and use the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis to promote independence and maintaining healthy safe and meaningful lives.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 6
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR)

24 Albion Road, Suite 420, Lincoln, Rhode Island, US, 02865
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

FHR (Fellowship Health Resources, Inc.) fosters hope and recovery. We provide behavioral health services to improve the quality of life for individuals living with mental illness and addictions. FHR serves more than 7,000 individuals through a person-centered approach across 6 states - Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. To learn more about our programs and community initiatives, visit our website at www.fhr.net.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 301
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/beacon-behavioral-consultants-inc-.jpeg
Beacon Behavioral Consultants, 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/fellowship-health-resources.jpeg
Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR)
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
Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR)
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) in 2026.

Incident History — Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/beacon-behavioral-consultants-inc-.jpeg
Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fellowship-health-resources.jpeg
Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR)
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. company.

In the current year, Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) company and Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) company nor Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) company nor Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) company nor Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. company nor Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. nor Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. company.

Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) company employs more people globally than Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. nor Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. nor Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. nor Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. nor Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. nor Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Beacon Behavioral Consultants, Inc. nor Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. (FHR) 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