Comparison Overview

English Mountain Recovery

VS

Life Skills Village, PLLC

English Mountain Recovery

1096 Alpine Drive, Sevierville, TN, 37876, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

English Mountain Recovery (EMR) is residential treatment facility located in the Smoky Mountains of East Tennessee. Set on a serene 27 acre campus, EMR joins hands with nature’s perfect setting to provide an environment where lives can be transformed. We are dedicated to providing the highest quality of recovery services to individuals and their families at the most affordable costs. We are committed to client service, while emphasizing a spiritual foundation, true to the original foundation of the 12 Step Program. English Mountain Recovery is always here to provide a safe, therapeutic environment for people who are struggling with addictive disorders and wish to regain their lives, find a healthy balance, and become an asset to their families and communities.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 39
Subsidiaries: 39
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Life Skills Village, PLLC

25900 Greenfield Road, Oak Park, 48237, US
Last Update:

Life Skills Village is the social rehabilitation and living skills development center for people with mental health needs. We focus on individualized care strategies to provide our clients with a path toward independence and a way back into the community. LSV approaches rehabilitation and mental health services from a holistic point-of-view encompassing nearly all types of programming and therapy including: cognitive rehabilitation, psychotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, education, community reintegration, work re-entry program, academic development, vocational skills development and community placement, residential program development, self-regulation/monitoring awareness training, socialization, relationship building and management, parenting skills and many others.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 36
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/english-mountain-recovery.jpeg
English Mountain Recovery
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/life-skills-village-pllc.jpeg
Life Skills Village, PLLC
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
English Mountain Recovery
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Life Skills Village, PLLC
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for English Mountain Recovery in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Life Skills Village, PLLC in 2026.

Incident History — English Mountain Recovery (X = Date, Y = Severity)

English Mountain Recovery cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Life Skills Village, PLLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Life Skills Village, PLLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/english-mountain-recovery.jpeg
English Mountain Recovery
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access to Email Accounts
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/life-skills-village-pllc.jpeg
Life Skills Village, PLLC
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both English Mountain Recovery company and Life Skills Village, PLLC company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

English Mountain Recovery company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Life Skills Village, PLLC company has not reported any.

In the current year, Life Skills Village, PLLC company and English Mountain Recovery company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Life Skills Village, PLLC company nor English Mountain Recovery company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

English Mountain Recovery company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Life Skills Village, PLLC company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Life Skills Village, PLLC company nor English Mountain Recovery company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither English Mountain Recovery company nor Life Skills Village, PLLC company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither English Mountain Recovery nor Life Skills Village, PLLC holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

English Mountain Recovery company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Life Skills Village, PLLC company.

English Mountain Recovery company employs more people globally than Life Skills Village, PLLC company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither English Mountain Recovery nor Life Skills Village, PLLC holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither English Mountain Recovery nor Life Skills Village, PLLC holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither English Mountain Recovery nor Life Skills Village, PLLC holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither English Mountain Recovery nor Life Skills Village, PLLC holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither English Mountain Recovery nor Life Skills Village, PLLC holds HIPAA certification.

Neither English Mountain Recovery nor Life Skills Village, PLLC 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