Comparison Overview

Great Oaks Recovery Center

VS

Psychological Healing Center

Great Oaks Recovery Center

11210 FM102, Egypt, Texas 77436, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Great Oaks Recovery Center has a full continuum of care to assist the chemically dependent individual on the road to a recovered life through an individualized treatment programming. Our unique drug and alcohol rehabilitation program uses a multi-disciplinary approach to drug and alcohol rehabilitation, with a team of addiction professionals including licensed and certified counselors, board certified psychiatrists, medical doctors, and a broad range of nurses, nursing assistants, all of whom specialize in addiction, alcoholism, and dual diagnosis., These highly trained and credentialed professionals collaborate to guide each resident through a thorough diagnosis, individualized addiction treatment, and aftercare. Great Oaks Recovery Center has one mission in mind: to help. We understand that the decision to no longer use alcohol or drugs is a huge decision; equally as intimidating is the reality of the entire life change. Our staff understand this process and is committed to help walk each client through the fears, concerns and expectations that come with the recovery process. Our experienced and compassionate staff will help the client and family know that change and recovery is possible.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 36
Subsidiaries: 39
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Psychological Healing Center

None
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Dr. Judy uses mind map therapy to take people from the problem to the solution. The Psychological Healing Center provides services in depression, anxiety, couples counseling and other mental health issues. Our therapists and psychologists on staff are some of the best in the business and our Yelp reviews speak for themselves. Please see our reviews at https://www.yelp.com/biz/judy-rosenberg-phd-mfcc-los-angeles?osq=dr+judy+rosenberg

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 3
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/great-oaks-recovery-center.jpeg
Great Oaks Recovery 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/psychological-healing-center.jpeg
Psychological Healing 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
Great Oaks Recovery Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Psychological Healing 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 Great Oaks Recovery Center in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Psychological Healing Center in 2026.

Incident History — Great Oaks Recovery Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Great Oaks Recovery Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Psychological Healing Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Psychological Healing Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/great-oaks-recovery-center.jpeg
Great Oaks Recovery Center
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access to Email Accounts
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/psychological-healing-center.jpeg
Psychological Healing Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Great Oaks Recovery Center company and Psychological Healing Center company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Great Oaks Recovery Center company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Psychological Healing Center company has not reported any.

In the current year, Psychological Healing Center company and Great Oaks Recovery Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Psychological Healing Center company nor Great Oaks Recovery Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Great Oaks Recovery Center company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Psychological Healing Center company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Psychological Healing Center company nor Great Oaks Recovery Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Great Oaks Recovery Center company nor Psychological Healing Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Great Oaks Recovery Center nor Psychological Healing Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Great Oaks Recovery Center company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Psychological Healing Center company.

Great Oaks Recovery Center company employs more people globally than Psychological Healing Center company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Great Oaks Recovery Center nor Psychological Healing Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Great Oaks Recovery Center nor Psychological Healing Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Great Oaks Recovery Center nor Psychological Healing Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Great Oaks Recovery Center nor Psychological Healing Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Great Oaks Recovery Center nor Psychological Healing Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Great Oaks Recovery Center nor Psychological Healing 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