Comparison Overview

Creative Counseling Center

VS

Penn Psychiatric Center

Creative Counseling Center

6021 South Syracuse Way Suite #216, Greenwood Village, CO, 80111, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Creative Counseling Center proudly provides counseling services to patients from the the following communities: Denver, Greenwood Village, Centennial, Highlands Ranch, Aurora, Littleton, Englewood, Parker, Cherry Creek, and many more... We specialize in working with children and adolescents, and adults who have experienced trauma. With families and foster families to identify strengths and help to create harmony within the home. And specific experience working with adolescents, families, individuals, and couples in addiction counseling.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 19
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Penn Psychiatric Center

3774 Ridge Pike, Collegeville, 19426, US
Last Update: 2025-12-03
Between 750 and 799

Since 1993, Penn Psychiatric Center has been providing individuals and families with onsite psychiatric, mental health and behavioral health services. Founded under the direction of Dr. Samir Farag, medical director and primary adult psychiatrist, the center has grown to include additional adult psychiatrists, a pediatric psychiatrist, a nursing staff and a staff of psychotherapists who see patients in Phoenixville and Collegeville. The mission of Penn Psychiatric Center is to help individuals with mental illness recover through the highest quality services offered in the most effective and appropriate manner. To achieve this aim we offer an array of outpatient services that are individualized, strength based, and recovery-oriented. Recovery is facilitated in an environment that respects the individual's rights and choices, offers hope, and empowers everyone to achieve their potential. Penn Psychiatric Center is committed to treating and serving the psychiatric and mental health needs of the community. In 2002 NAMI Pennsylvania (The National Alliance for Mental Illness) awarded Penn Psychiatric Center the “Service Organization of the Year Award.”

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 52
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/creative-counseling-center.jpeg
Creative Counseling Center
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/penn-psychiatric-center.jpeg
Penn Psychiatric Center
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
Creative Counseling Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Penn Psychiatric Center
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Creative Counseling Center in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Penn Psychiatric Center in 2026.

Incident History — Creative Counseling Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Creative Counseling Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Penn Psychiatric Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Penn Psychiatric Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/creative-counseling-center.jpeg
Creative Counseling Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/penn-psychiatric-center.jpeg
Penn Psychiatric Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Creative Counseling Center company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Penn Psychiatric Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Penn Psychiatric Center company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Creative Counseling Center company.

In the current year, Penn Psychiatric Center company and Creative Counseling Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Penn Psychiatric Center company nor Creative Counseling Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Penn Psychiatric Center company nor Creative Counseling Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Penn Psychiatric Center company nor Creative Counseling Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Creative Counseling Center company nor Penn Psychiatric Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Creative Counseling Center nor Penn Psychiatric Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Creative Counseling Center company nor Penn Psychiatric Center company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Penn Psychiatric Center company employs more people globally than Creative Counseling Center company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Creative Counseling Center nor Penn Psychiatric Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Creative Counseling Center nor Penn Psychiatric Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Creative Counseling Center nor Penn Psychiatric Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Creative Counseling Center nor Penn Psychiatric Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Creative Counseling Center nor Penn Psychiatric Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Creative Counseling Center nor Penn Psychiatric Center 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