Comparison Overview

Center Point, Inc.

VS

AnchorPoint Billing Solutions

Center Point, Inc.

135 Paul Drive, San Rafael, CA, 94903, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Center Point Inc (CPI) is a not-for-profit organization incorporated in 1971, and since then has grown to become one of the State of California leading providers in the area of substance abuse treatment with programs across Northern California, Oklahoma. CPI works with homeless individuals, veterans, substance users, women with children, parolees, probationers and it also supports clients in recovery trough continuing care and aftercare services. Center Point offers a wide range of treatment options and social services for at risk individuals and underserved and diverse populations. These services include assessment and evaluation, outpatient and residential programs, transitional housing, permanent housing, job training, vocational programs, case management, special women’s services, and programs that serve women with children. Please take the time to visit our web pages to learn more about us and the important services that we offer.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 328
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

AnchorPoint Billing Solutions

7611 State Line Road, Suite 226, Kansas City, Missouri, 64114, US
Last Update: 2025-11-13

For many mental health care professionals, it’s easy to get bogged down in the details of running a practice and managing its financials. If you can relate, it’s time you turned to AnchorPoint Billing Solutions for help. We’ll eliminate the stress and frustration associated with the billing process, and help you earn what you rightfully deserve. Our team of knowledgeable experts has vast experience navigating various insurance procedures, working to collect outstanding payments, handling client inquiries and increasing receivables. Plus, we do it all at an affordable rate and with a smile. Let AnchorPoint Billing Solutions streamline your billing cycle, improve your patient relationships, and allow you to spend your time and energy doing what you do best. Contact us today to get started.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 2
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/center-point-inc-.jpeg
Center Point, Inc.
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/anchorpoint-billing-solutions.jpeg
AnchorPoint Billing Solutions
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
Center Point, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
AnchorPoint Billing Solutions
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Center Point, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AnchorPoint Billing Solutions in 2026.

Incident History — Center Point, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Center Point, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — AnchorPoint Billing Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AnchorPoint Billing Solutions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/center-point-inc-.jpeg
Center Point, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/anchorpoint-billing-solutions.jpeg
AnchorPoint Billing Solutions
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Center Point, Inc. company and AnchorPoint Billing Solutions company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, AnchorPoint Billing Solutions company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Center Point, Inc. company.

In the current year, AnchorPoint Billing Solutions company and Center Point, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither AnchorPoint Billing Solutions company nor Center Point, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither AnchorPoint Billing Solutions company nor Center Point, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither AnchorPoint Billing Solutions company nor Center Point, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Center Point, Inc. company nor AnchorPoint Billing Solutions company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Center Point, Inc. nor AnchorPoint Billing Solutions holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Center Point, Inc. company nor AnchorPoint Billing Solutions company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Center Point, Inc. company employs more people globally than AnchorPoint Billing Solutions company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Center Point, Inc. nor AnchorPoint Billing Solutions holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Center Point, Inc. nor AnchorPoint Billing Solutions holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Center Point, Inc. nor AnchorPoint Billing Solutions holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Center Point, Inc. nor AnchorPoint Billing Solutions holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Center Point, Inc. nor AnchorPoint Billing Solutions holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Center Point, Inc. nor AnchorPoint Billing Solutions 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