Comparison Overview

Causeway Collaborative

VS

Longleaf Hospital

Causeway Collaborative

1720 Post Road East Suite 123, Westport, CT, 06880, US
Last Update:

About Us At Causeway Collaborative we are deeply committed to helping young men who are struggling and stuck. Our pragmatic, multi-disciplinary approach, built on a foundation of care, trust, and mutual respect, re-engages young men in their lives, and empowers each young men we work with to chart his own course for his future.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 15
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Longleaf Hospital

44 Versailles Blvd, Alexandria, LA 71303, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Longleaf Hospital offers inpatient psychiatric treatment to children, adolescents and adults. Chemical Dependency inpatient services are offered to adults ages 18 and above. Inpatient treatment at Longleaf Hospital addresses a variety of mental health needs incuding co-occurring and dual diagnosis disorders, inpatient treatment is designed to foster lasting recovery for: ADHD, Anxiety, Depression, Bi-Polar Disorder, PTSD, Self-Harm, Suicidal Ideation, Homicidal Ideation, Agression, Psychosis, Schizophrenia, Substance Abuse/Addiction. All who engage in inpatient services at Longleaf have access to qualified and experienced staff, medication management, ongoing support and supervision, and case management services. In order to ensure continuity of care for our patients, we offer a partial hospitalization program (PHP) and an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for patients, aged 18 and older, who no longer need around-the-clock care, but still need active treatment. We have just recently added a substance abuse intensive outpatient program to our outpatient services. Both our PHP and IOP services provide a variety of treatment methods in a confidential and comfortable atmosphere. All therapies are tailored to meet the individual needs of our patients and are administered by a multidisciplinary staff composed of psychiatrists, licensed social workers,and registered nurses.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 78
Subsidiaries: 71
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/causeway-collaborative.jpeg
Causeway Collaborative
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/longleaf-hospital.jpeg
Longleaf 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
Causeway Collaborative
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Longleaf 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 Causeway Collaborative in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Longleaf Hospital in 2026.

Incident History — Causeway Collaborative (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Causeway Collaborative cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Longleaf Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/causeway-collaborative.jpeg
Causeway Collaborative
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/longleaf-hospital.jpeg
Longleaf Hospital
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Longleaf Hospital company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Causeway Collaborative company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Longleaf Hospital company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Causeway Collaborative company has not reported any.

In the current year, Longleaf Hospital company and Causeway Collaborative company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Longleaf Hospital company nor Causeway Collaborative company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Longleaf Hospital company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Causeway Collaborative company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Longleaf Hospital company nor Causeway Collaborative company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Causeway Collaborative company nor Longleaf Hospital company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Causeway Collaborative nor Longleaf Hospital holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Longleaf Hospital company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Causeway Collaborative company.

Longleaf Hospital company employs more people globally than Causeway Collaborative company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Causeway Collaborative nor Longleaf Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Causeway Collaborative nor Longleaf Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Causeway Collaborative nor Longleaf Hospital holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Causeway Collaborative nor Longleaf Hospital holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Causeway Collaborative nor Longleaf Hospital holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Causeway Collaborative nor Longleaf 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