Comparison Overview

De Jutters

VS

The Viva Center

De Jutters

Postbus 61452, Den Haag, 2506 AL, NL
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

De Jutters diagnosticeert en behandelt kinderen, jongeren en jongvolwassenen met psychische klachten. Ons doel: een optimale ontwikkeling van de jongere, om een zo gewoon mogelijk leven te kunnen leiden. Dat doen we dichtbij thuis en samen met de jongere en zijn familie, omdat we weten dat het essentieel is om de persoonlijke omgeving bij de behandeling te betrekken. Om de kwaliteit van onze zorg te garanderen, baseren wij ons op wetenschappelijk onderzoek, jarenlange praktijkervaring en de kennis en ervaring van cliënten. We bieden bovendien complete zorg en houden tijdens de behandeling intensief contact met de school, huisarts en andere (jeugd)zorginstellingen. Zo kunnen we altijd zorg op maat bieden, en werken we samen met de cliënt naar een toekomst op eigen kracht.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 97
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

The Viva Center

1633 Q St NW, Washington, District of Columbia, 20009, US
Last Update: 2025-12-28

If you are frustrated by talk therapy that didn't work for you, don't despair. There are many other non-talk based options that are more advanced and effective than talk therapy alone. It isn't you and you don't have to relive painful stories to feel better. Viva moves beyond words to expedite the path to thriving by offering more advanced brain and body based options as well as other options to your best life.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
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/de-jutters.jpeg
De Jutters
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/the-viva-center.jpeg
The Viva 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
De Jutters
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Viva 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 De Jutters in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Viva Center in 2026.

Incident History — De Jutters (X = Date, Y = Severity)

De Jutters cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The Viva Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Viva Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/de-jutters.jpeg
De Jutters
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-viva-center.jpeg
The Viva Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both De Jutters company and The Viva Center company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, The Viva Center company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to De Jutters company.

In the current year, The Viva Center company and De Jutters company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Viva Center company nor De Jutters company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Viva Center company nor De Jutters company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Viva Center company nor De Jutters company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither De Jutters company nor The Viva Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither De Jutters nor The Viva Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither De Jutters company nor The Viva Center company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

De Jutters company employs more people globally than The Viva Center company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither De Jutters nor The Viva Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither De Jutters nor The Viva Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither De Jutters nor The Viva Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither De Jutters nor The Viva Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither De Jutters nor The Viva Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither De Jutters nor The Viva 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