Comparison Overview

Canvas Health

VS

LifePath Systems

Canvas Health

7066 Stillwater Blvd North, Oakdale, 55128, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Canvas Health is dedicated to offering hope and help to children, adolescents, adults, the elderly and families who struggle with aging, transportation, chemical and mental health, and domestic and sexual abuse. Initially established as a community mental health center in 1969, Canvas Health has grown to become one of the most distinctive private nonprofit human service centers in Minnesota. We are community-driven and believe that the vitality and stability of our communities rests on the strength of the individuals and families within them. When those with life impairments are helped to live more freely, we are all lifted up. When we help families and individuals recover from mental illness, chemical dependency, physical and sexual abuse, the world becomes a better place for us all. When we help seniors to live independently and troubled children to remain at home and in school, we help restore the fabric of family and community life.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 221
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

LifePath Systems

1515 Heritage Dr, McKinney, 75069, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21

LifePath Systems is the designated behavioral health and intellectual and developmental disabilities authority for Collin County. We operate as a unit of local government and a not-for-profit center. We receive federal, state, and local funding to provide essential mental health, substance use, intellectual and developmental disability services to families and individuals. LifePath has been in operation since 1986.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 372
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/canvas-health.jpeg
Canvas Health
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/lifepathsystems.jpeg
LifePath Systems
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
Canvas Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
LifePath Systems
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Canvas Health in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LifePath Systems in 2026.

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

Canvas Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — LifePath Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LifePath Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/canvas-health.jpeg
Canvas Health
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lifepathsystems.jpeg
LifePath Systems
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

LifePath Systems company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Canvas Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, LifePath Systems company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Canvas Health company.

In the current year, LifePath Systems company and Canvas Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither LifePath Systems company nor Canvas Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither LifePath Systems company nor Canvas Health company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither LifePath Systems company nor Canvas Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Canvas Health company nor LifePath Systems company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Canvas Health nor LifePath Systems holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LifePath Systems company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Canvas Health company.

LifePath Systems company employs more people globally than Canvas Health company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Canvas Health nor LifePath Systems holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Canvas Health nor LifePath Systems holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Canvas Health nor LifePath Systems holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Canvas Health nor LifePath Systems holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Canvas Health nor LifePath Systems holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Canvas Health nor LifePath Systems 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