Comparison Overview

Embrace Treatment Foster Care

VS

Mandala House, LLC

Embrace Treatment Foster Care

undefined, Winchester, Fredericksburg, Richmond, Hampton Roads, Roanoke, undefined, undefined, undefined
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Embrace Treatment Foster Care provides specialized foster home placements for children who have been removed from their homes for unforeseen circumstances. Healing a child within a home and family environment is the greatest service we can provide as professionals. Many foster children, however, need specially trained families to help them address the trauma of their past experiences. Embrace ensures that foster children have the best chance of success in their path to permanency by utilizing a team approach in which dedicated parents, caring professionals, and treatment tools come together in supportive collaboration. At Embrace Treatment Foster Care, we create an inclusive culture designed to prevent discrimination against all regardless of race, gender identity, religion, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, disability status, citizenship, or any other characteristics which makes each person unique. It fuels our commitment to CARE and connects us closer to our employees and the communities we serve.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 17
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Mandala House, LLC

633 Baxter Ave, Louisville, Kentucky, 40204, US
Last Update: 2025-11-13

Mandala House is a community-leading, interdisciplinary group practice providing adult and adolescent outpatient psychotherapy and psychiatry services, in the Irish Hill neighborhood area near downtown Louisville. We work with a diverse clinical population within an environment that appreciates social-psychological system dynamics. We strive to provide best-practice care guided by science and clinical wisdom. We are committed to providing and maintaining an LGBTQ+ affirming and anti-racist environment for both patients and staff.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 16
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/embrace-treatment-foster-care.jpeg
Embrace Treatment Foster Care
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/mandala-house-llc.jpeg
Mandala House, LLC
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
Embrace Treatment Foster Care
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mandala House, LLC
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Embrace Treatment Foster Care in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mandala House, LLC in 2026.

Incident History — Embrace Treatment Foster Care (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Embrace Treatment Foster Care cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mandala House, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mandala House, LLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/embrace-treatment-foster-care.jpeg
Embrace Treatment Foster Care
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mandala-house-llc.jpeg
Mandala House, LLC
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Embrace Treatment Foster Care company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Mandala House, LLC company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Mandala House, LLC company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Embrace Treatment Foster Care company.

In the current year, Mandala House, LLC company and Embrace Treatment Foster Care company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mandala House, LLC company nor Embrace Treatment Foster Care company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Mandala House, LLC company nor Embrace Treatment Foster Care company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Mandala House, LLC company nor Embrace Treatment Foster Care company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Embrace Treatment Foster Care company nor Mandala House, LLC company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Embrace Treatment Foster Care nor Mandala House, LLC holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Embrace Treatment Foster Care company nor Mandala House, LLC company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Embrace Treatment Foster Care company employs more people globally than Mandala House, LLC company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Embrace Treatment Foster Care nor Mandala House, LLC holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Embrace Treatment Foster Care nor Mandala House, LLC holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Embrace Treatment Foster Care nor Mandala House, LLC holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Embrace Treatment Foster Care nor Mandala House, LLC holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Embrace Treatment Foster Care nor Mandala House, LLC holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Embrace Treatment Foster Care nor Mandala House, LLC 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