Comparison Overview

Community Healing Centers

VS

PALS for Healing

Community Healing Centers

2615 STADIUM DR, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 49008, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21

OUR MISSION We strive to strengthen our communities by helping children, families, and adults, heal from the trauma of abuse, addiction, and behavioral and mental health disorders. OUR VISION We believe that reaching out to our community with prevention, intervention, and treatment services is an effective, equitable way to deliver care, information, and support to those in need. CORE VALUES Inclusivity - We provide an inclusive, diverse, and equitable environment that is accessible to all. Respect - We treat all with dignity and respect. Integrity - We hold ourselves to the highest standards of ethical behavior. Communication - We promote transparent, safe, and productive communication. Client-Centered Care - We serve our clients with trauma informed kindness, empathy, and understanding. Collaboration - We work together to build relationships to fulfill our mission.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 68
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

PALS for Healing

4700 Rockside Rd, Independence, Ohio, 44131, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

P.A.L.S. for Healing is a nonprofit mental health organization dedicated to providing education, art therapy, EMDR and other trauma informed therapies to help people who have suffered trauma and/or loss to positively impact their overall health. Individuals can experience trauma from direct AND indirect exposure to an event(s) that leaves them feeling helpless, terror and unsafe. Some of these experiences can include divorce, parental incarceration, being in the foster care system, serving in the military, having a family member in the military, responding to crisis situations, domestic violence, bullying, rape, child abuse and neglect, the death of a loved one and natural disasters. P.A.L.S. for Healing has three locations within Cuyahoga County and provides offsite group and individual services within Cuyahoga, Lake and Summit counties. We also provide professional workshops and trainings for individuals and organizations.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 14
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/community-healing-centers.jpeg
Community Healing Centers
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/palsforhealing.jpeg
PALS for Healing
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
Community Healing Centers
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
PALS for Healing
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Community Healing Centers in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PALS for Healing in 2026.

Incident History — Community Healing Centers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Community Healing Centers cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — PALS for Healing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PALS for Healing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/community-healing-centers.jpeg
Community Healing Centers
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/palsforhealing.jpeg
PALS for Healing
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Community Healing Centers company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to PALS for Healing company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, PALS for Healing company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Community Healing Centers company.

In the current year, PALS for Healing company and Community Healing Centers company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither PALS for Healing company nor Community Healing Centers company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither PALS for Healing company nor Community Healing Centers company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither PALS for Healing company nor Community Healing Centers company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Community Healing Centers company nor PALS for Healing company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Community Healing Centers nor PALS for Healing holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Community Healing Centers company nor PALS for Healing company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Community Healing Centers company employs more people globally than PALS for Healing company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Community Healing Centers nor PALS for Healing holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Community Healing Centers nor PALS for Healing holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Community Healing Centers nor PALS for Healing holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Community Healing Centers nor PALS for Healing holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Community Healing Centers nor PALS for Healing holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Community Healing Centers nor PALS for Healing 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