Comparison Overview

Delphini Solutions Psychology

VS

The Fountain Hill Center

Delphini Solutions Psychology

3662 Avalon Park East Blvd, Orlando, Florida, 32828, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Elaine D. Kring, Ph.D., LMHC, NCC Office and Online Counseling & Women's Support Groups I enjoy helping individuals, couples, and families strengthen their relationships and achieve their goals. I have an integrated counseling approach, based primarily in cognitive-behavioral therapy. My approach is also influenced by team dynamics research, which, I believe, is key to happy and successful families and relationships. I also provide online counseling as an effective alternative through American Well (Amwell). I offer a warm and empathetic environment, while empowering you. Appointments available in-office in Orlando and online throughout Florida. I look forward to working with you. (For your privacy, please leave a message if you would like your call returned.) Thank you. Online Counseling (Amwell): http://drkring.amwell.com Delphini Solutions Psychology Links: https://www.facebook.com/Delphini.Solutions/ https://twitter.com/DelphiniPsych HERA Women Links: https://www.facebook.com/Hera4Women/ https://twitter.com/Hera4Women

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 1
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

The Fountain Hill Center

534 Fountain St NE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49503, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

The Fountain Hill Center is a nonprofit collective of over a dozen licensed, independent therapists. We seek to provide pathways to healing and transformation, both personal and relational, through innovative therapeutic, educational, evaluative, and consultative services. We maintain two counseling offices, one in Grand Rapids, MI, which opened in 1975, and one in New Era, MI, which opened in 2002. In addition to providing individual counseling for children, adolescents, and adults, we also offer couples and family counseling, group counseling, and court-related and professional services. Learn more at www.fountainhillcenter.org.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 26
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/delphini-solutions-psychology.jpeg
Delphini Solutions Psychology
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-fountain-hill-center.jpeg
The Fountain Hill 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
Delphini Solutions Psychology
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Fountain Hill 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 Delphini Solutions Psychology in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Fountain Hill Center in 2026.

Incident History — Delphini Solutions Psychology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Delphini Solutions Psychology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

The Fountain Hill Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/delphini-solutions-psychology.jpeg
Delphini Solutions Psychology
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-fountain-hill-center.jpeg
The Fountain Hill Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Delphini Solutions Psychology company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Fountain Hill Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The Fountain Hill Center company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Delphini Solutions Psychology company.

In the current year, The Fountain Hill Center company and Delphini Solutions Psychology company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Fountain Hill Center company nor Delphini Solutions Psychology company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Fountain Hill Center company nor Delphini Solutions Psychology company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Fountain Hill Center company nor Delphini Solutions Psychology company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Delphini Solutions Psychology company nor The Fountain Hill Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Delphini Solutions Psychology nor The Fountain Hill Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Delphini Solutions Psychology company nor The Fountain Hill Center company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Fountain Hill Center company employs more people globally than Delphini Solutions Psychology company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Delphini Solutions Psychology nor The Fountain Hill Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Delphini Solutions Psychology nor The Fountain Hill Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Delphini Solutions Psychology nor The Fountain Hill Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Delphini Solutions Psychology nor The Fountain Hill Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Delphini Solutions Psychology nor The Fountain Hill Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Delphini Solutions Psychology nor The Fountain Hill 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