Comparison Overview

Fox Valley Hands of Hope

VS

Cedar Associates

Fox Valley Hands of Hope

200 Whitfield Drive, Geneva, 60134, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fvhh.net

The Mission of Fox Valley Hands of Hope is to provide compassionate guidance and support for the grieving, at no cost to clients. Our professional staff and trained volunteers are community-funded, allowing us to provide the best in compassionate care, free of charge. Our programs are designed to provide support for adults, children, and families, regardless of age, income level, race, or religious beliefs. We believe that every person in need should be given hope. #GiveMoreHope

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 18
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Cedar Associates

67 South Bedford Road, Mount Kisco, NY, 10549, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cedarassociates.com

CEDAR Associates is a multi-disciplinary private group practice for the treatment of a full range of mental health issues for individuals and their family. CEDAR Associates specializes in the prevention and treatment of eating disorders and the problems that often accompany them including depression, self-harm, anxiety, relational issues, sexual and physical trauma and body image issues. Since 1993, CEDAR Associates utilizes contemporary and integrative treatment approaches offering individual, group and family psychotherapy, nutritional counseling and medical & psychiatric referral. The staff at CEDAR Associates is comprised of expertly trained Ph.D. and licensed clinical social workers, psychologists, and registered dieticians. Most staff members have been at CEDAR for a minimum of five years.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 7
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/fox-valley-hands-of-hope.jpeg
Fox Valley Hands of Hope
—
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/cedar-associates.jpeg
Cedar Associates
—
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
Fox Valley Hands of Hope
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cedar Associates
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fox Valley Hands of Hope in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cedar Associates in 2026.

Incident History — Fox Valley Hands of Hope (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fox Valley Hands of Hope cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cedar Associates (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cedar Associates cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fox-valley-hands-of-hope.jpeg
Fox Valley Hands of Hope
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cedar-associates.jpeg
Cedar Associates
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Cedar Associates company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Fox Valley Hands of Hope company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Cedar Associates company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Fox Valley Hands of Hope company.

In the current year, Cedar Associates company and Fox Valley Hands of Hope company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cedar Associates company nor Fox Valley Hands of Hope company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Cedar Associates company nor Fox Valley Hands of Hope company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Cedar Associates company nor Fox Valley Hands of Hope company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Fox Valley Hands of Hope company nor Cedar Associates company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Fox Valley Hands of Hope nor Cedar Associates holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Fox Valley Hands of Hope company nor Cedar Associates company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Fox Valley Hands of Hope company employs more people globally than Cedar Associates company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Fox Valley Hands of Hope nor Cedar Associates holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fox Valley Hands of Hope nor Cedar Associates holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fox Valley Hands of Hope nor Cedar Associates holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fox Valley Hands of Hope nor Cedar Associates holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fox Valley Hands of Hope nor Cedar Associates holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fox Valley Hands of Hope nor Cedar Associates holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
References
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References