Comparison Overview

Bloom Health Centers

VS

MHMR of Tarrant County

Bloom Health Centers

120 Sister Pierre Drive, Suite 403, Towson, Maryland, US, 21204
Last Update: 2026-01-19

Creating a better world where no one feels alone by providing care through comprehensive and integrated mental health services. We do this by: Meeting our patients where they are, streamlining pathways, and eliminating barriers to care. Building Care Teams that deliver highly specialized and comprehensive care plans. Implementing advanced technology to empower our providers and staff to deliver the best patient care. Our support includes: ✽ In-person / telehealth ✽ Easy online booking ✽ All insurance accepted ✽ Nine locations in Maryland, DC, Virginia, and growing Services provided: ✽ Psychiatry ✽ Talk Therapy ✽ Evaluation and Therapy ✽ TMS (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation) ✽ Spravato® (Esketamine Therapy) We believe everyone deserves access to mental health resources and we are driven to make that possible. Visit our site to learn more about our systems, processes, and dedicated professionals who are making it possible.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 146
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

MHMR of Tarrant County

3840 Hulen St, Fort Worth, 76107, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799

At MHMR of Tarrant County we change lives. My Health My Resources (MHMR) of Tarrant County has provided quality, specialized services in North Central Texas since 1969. Today, we are the second largest community center in Texas. MHMR of Tarrant County offers services for children and adults with mental health disorders; intellectual disabilities, including autism; substance use disorders; and young children who need early intervention. In addition, we provide specialized services to homeless persons, veterans and law enforcement and those in the criminal justice system. MHMR of Tarrant County powers you to empower others. Our staff of nearly 2,000 includes psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, therapists, teachers, case managers, dieticians and volunteers who work in collaboration with community partners to enhance the availability of services and supports. Join our team of heart-driven changemakers and let’s change lives, together. Apply today at www.MHMRjobs.com. Our mission is to ensure the availability of high quality community services provided in partnership with our community and the people who seek our assistance. Our goal remains to improve the lives of those we serve. Learn more at www.MHMRtarrant.org.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 1,615
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/bloomhealthcenters.jpeg
Bloom Health Centers
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/mhmr-of-tarrant-county.jpeg
MHMR of Tarrant County
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
Bloom Health Centers
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
MHMR of Tarrant County
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bloom Health Centers in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MHMR of Tarrant County in 2026.

Incident History — Bloom Health Centers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bloom Health Centers cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — MHMR of Tarrant County (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MHMR of Tarrant County cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bloomhealthcenters.jpeg
Bloom Health Centers
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mhmr-of-tarrant-county.jpeg
MHMR of Tarrant County
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

MHMR of Tarrant County company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Bloom Health Centers company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Bloom Health Centers company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas MHMR of Tarrant County company has not reported any.

In the current year, MHMR of Tarrant County company and Bloom Health Centers company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither MHMR of Tarrant County company nor Bloom Health Centers company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Bloom Health Centers company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other MHMR of Tarrant County company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither MHMR of Tarrant County company nor Bloom Health Centers company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Bloom Health Centers company nor MHMR of Tarrant County company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Bloom Health Centers nor MHMR of Tarrant County holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Bloom Health Centers company nor MHMR of Tarrant County company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

MHMR of Tarrant County company employs more people globally than Bloom Health Centers company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Bloom Health Centers nor MHMR of Tarrant County holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Bloom Health Centers nor MHMR of Tarrant County holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Bloom Health Centers nor MHMR of Tarrant County holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Bloom Health Centers nor MHMR of Tarrant County holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Bloom Health Centers nor MHMR of Tarrant County holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Bloom Health Centers nor MHMR of Tarrant County 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