Comparison Overview

Camelot Care Centers, LLC

VS

The Village Network

Camelot Care Centers, LLC

446 James Robertson Pkwy, Nashville, Tennessee, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Our family counseling and foster care services are varied to be able to meet the needs of our clients, and we are continually creating new programs in response to identified needs in a particular area. The common thread is that we provide counseling and support services in-home and in community-based settings throughout Tennessee. We emphasize the strengths and uniqueness of each youth and family. All our family counseling and foster care services are offered by trained therapists and counselors under the direct supervision of licensed clinicians.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 232
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/camelot-care-centers-llc.jpeg
Camelot Care Centers, LLC
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
Camelot Care Centers, LLC
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 Camelot Care Centers, LLC in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Village Network in 2026.

Incident History — Camelot Care Centers, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Camelot Care Centers, LLC 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/camelot-care-centers-llc.jpeg
Camelot Care Centers, LLC
Incidents

No Incident

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

No Incident

FAQ

Both Camelot Care Centers, LLC 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 Camelot Care Centers, LLC company.

In the current year, The Village Network company and Camelot Care Centers, LLC company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Village Network company nor Camelot Care Centers, LLC company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Village Network company nor Camelot Care Centers, LLC company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Village Network company nor Camelot Care Centers, LLC company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Camelot Care Centers, LLC company nor The Village Network company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Camelot Care Centers, LLC nor The Village Network holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Camelot Care Centers, LLC 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 Camelot Care Centers, LLC company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Camelot Care Centers, LLC nor The Village Network holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Camelot Care Centers, LLC nor The Village Network holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Camelot Care Centers, LLC nor The Village Network holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Camelot Care Centers, LLC nor The Village Network holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Camelot Care Centers, LLC nor The Village Network holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Camelot Care Centers, LLC 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