Comparison Overview

Council for Relationships

VS

SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC.

Council for Relationships

4025 Chestnut St, First Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, 19104
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Council for Relationships is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to help people from all walks of life improve their important relationships by providing exemplary therapy, educating and training clinicians in the family systems approach, and advancing the mental health field through research. More than 70 therapists and psychiatrists provide counseling to individuals, couples, and families in-person at 10 offices and community-based locations in the greater Philadelphia area and online across PA & NJ. Additionally, more than 60 clinical interns per year participating in CFR’s clinician education programs provide counseling on a sliding fee scale. We are committed to providing quality counseling services to all in need, regardless of ability to pay.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 128
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC.

1032 Wissler Road, Quicksburg, 22847, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799

Shen-Paco Industries, Inc. was founded in 1974 as a non-profit community based organization providing day support and employment services to adults with disabilities. Shen- Paco Industries started out small, serving less than 10 individuals in a small building located in New Market. Today the number served has greatly increased. They are proud to say that they serve over 120 individuals between two locations, Shenandoah and Page Counties, and employ 49 passionate employees. Shen-Paco continues to meet the needs of many individuals within each community and the surrounding counties. Shen-Paco Industries, Inc. provides many ongoing and needed supports to individuals with varying degree of disabilities. Shen-Paco Industries, Inc. provides many ongoing and needed supports to individuals with varying degree of disabilities.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 12
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/council-for-relationships.jpeg
Council for Relationships
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/shen-paco-industries-inc.jpeg
SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, 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
Compliance Summary
Council for Relationships
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Council for Relationships in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. in 2026.

Incident History — Council for Relationships (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Council for Relationships cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/council-for-relationships.jpeg
Council for Relationships
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: External System Breach (Hacking)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/shen-paco-industries-inc.jpeg
SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Council for Relationships company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Council for Relationships company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. company has not reported any.

In the current year, SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. company and Council for Relationships company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. company nor Council for Relationships company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Council for Relationships company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. company nor Council for Relationships company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Council for Relationships company nor SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Council for Relationships nor SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Council for Relationships company nor SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Council for Relationships company employs more people globally than SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Council for Relationships nor SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Council for Relationships nor SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Council for Relationships nor SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Council for Relationships nor SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Council for Relationships nor SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Council for Relationships nor SHEN-PACO INDUSTRIES, INC. 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