Comparison Overview

Brain in Hand

VS

Fuller Hospital

Brain in Hand

Broadwalk House, Exeter, EX1 1TS, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

Want to support your ADHD and autistic team but don’t know where to start? Struggling to understand what practical changes would actually make a difference for neurodivergent staff? Overwhelmed by all the advice on neurodiversity, but need simple, actionable steps? Worried about making mistakes or saying the wrong thing when trying to be supportive? We’re here to help. In a world increasingly recognising neurodivergent perspectives, Brain in Hand is your expert neurodiversity partner. We take coaching beyond scheduled sessions into everyday moments, delivering personalised support and real human guidance on-demand 24/7 – exactly when it’s needed most. For organisations, it means you can offer all the actionable support that neurodivergent people need. For individuals, we build confidence and independence through practical tools. We work with each person on strategies that play to their unique strengths, helping them manage anxiety, overwhelm, and stay organised – all on their own terms. With over half our team being neurodivergent, we don’t just understand the journey, we’re on it with you. We actively partner with neurodivergent users in developing and refining our platform – ensuring it addresses real needs with practical solutions. Approved by the DfE and NHS, and partnering with workplaces, universities, and health and social care, we’ve already empowered over 25,000 people, and we’re ready to help your team, too. “Without Brain in Hand, I wouldn’t be able to cope. I would be panicking more often and be more indecisive every day. I’d be less organised, unable to monitor what I’m actually feeling. That to me has been invaluable – acknowledging how I’m feeling helps me then use the right solutions for the situation.”

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 107
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Fuller Hospital

200 May St, None, Attleboro, Massachusetts, US, 02703
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Fuller Hospital is a 102-bed licensed, private psychiatric facility located in South Attleboro, Massachusetts providing inpatient and outpatient behavioral health services to residents of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Inpatient units are designed to treat adults with general psychiatric or intellectual disabilities, as well as adolescents with general psychiatric issues. Patients with co-occurring psychiatric and substance abuse disorders can be treated on most units. Fuller Hospital also provides a less intensive Partial Hospitalization Program (PHP) to patients with psychiatric and co-occurring psychiatric and substance abuse disorders. Programs Include: Inpatient Treatment for Adolescents and Adults Partial Hospitalization for Adults Intellectual Disabilities Inpatient Treatment for Adults Partial Plus: short-term housing for men and women concurrent with PHP Community Services Program for Children and Adolescents Fuller Hospital is accredited by The Joint Commission and licensed by the Department of Mental Health (DMH) and Department of Public Health (DPH) Bureau of Substance Abuse Services. Our dedicated staff of psychiatrists, nurses, case managers and mental health technicians is committed to providing high quality patient care within a safe, clinically appropriate, welcoming environment. Contact 1-833-3FULLER or please contact our Intake Department at 508-761-8500 for admissions options.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 126
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/brain-in-hand.jpeg
Brain in Hand
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/fuller-hospital.jpeg
Fuller 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
Compliance Summary
Brain in Hand
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Fuller Hospital
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Brain in Hand in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fuller Hospital in 2026.

Incident History — Brain in Hand (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Brain in Hand cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Fuller Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brain-in-hand.jpeg
Brain in Hand
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fuller-hospital.jpeg
Fuller Hospital
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Fuller Hospital company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Brain in Hand company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Fuller Hospital company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Brain in Hand company.

In the current year, Fuller Hospital company and Brain in Hand company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Fuller Hospital company nor Brain in Hand company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Fuller Hospital company nor Brain in Hand company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Fuller Hospital company nor Brain in Hand company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Brain in Hand company nor Fuller Hospital company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Brain in Hand nor Fuller Hospital holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Brain in Hand company nor Fuller Hospital company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Fuller Hospital company employs more people globally than Brain in Hand company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Brain in Hand nor Fuller Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Brain in Hand nor Fuller Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Brain in Hand nor Fuller Hospital holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Brain in Hand nor Fuller Hospital holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Brain in Hand nor Fuller Hospital holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Brain in Hand nor Fuller Hospital 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