Comparison Overview

In Step

VS

Square One Behavioral Services Inc.

In Step

8320 Professional Hill Drive, Fairfax, Virginia, 22031, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

At In Step, we're dedicated to fostering meaningful connections and facilitating positive change through our comprehensive mental health services. For over 25 years, our clinic has been a trusted resource in the DMV area, offering tailored individual and group therapy for people of all ages. We understand the importance of experienced professionals who can lead and manage therapeutic groups effectively. That's why we're actively seeking licensed clinicians with a passion for group therapy and a track record of success in facilitating transformative experiences. In addition to our existing services, we're always exploring new opportunities to innovate and expand our group therapy offerings. If you're a licensed clinician with experience in running groups and a desire to contribute to our dynamic team, we encourage you to reach out. At In Step, we believe in the power of collaboration and personalized care. Join us in making a difference in the lives of our clients as we continue to grow and evolve our practice.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 59
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Square One Behavioral Services Inc.

1495 Forest Hill Blvd, West Palm Beach, 33406, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

At Square One Behavioral Services (SQ1) we are committed to every child success. We believe in the uniqueness capability of every child, therefore an individualized treatment package is built in order to achieve significant goals. Our mission is to improve socially significant behaviors on your child’s life and improve their quality of life. Our commitment is not only with the child, but with the family as well. It’s why we make sure our relationship with every parent is exceptional. Love, passion and perseverance is what characterize us and unite us team.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 23
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/in-step.jpeg
In Step
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/square-one-behavioral-services-inc.jpeg
Square One Behavioral Services Inc.
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
In Step
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Square One Behavioral Services Inc.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for In Step in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Square One Behavioral Services Inc. in 2026.

Incident History — In Step (X = Date, Y = Severity)

In Step cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Square One Behavioral Services Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Square One Behavioral Services Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/in-step.jpeg
In Step
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/square-one-behavioral-services-inc.jpeg
Square One Behavioral Services Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

In Step company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Square One Behavioral Services Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Square One Behavioral Services Inc. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to In Step company.

In the current year, Square One Behavioral Services Inc. company and In Step company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Square One Behavioral Services Inc. company nor In Step company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Square One Behavioral Services Inc. company nor In Step company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Square One Behavioral Services Inc. company nor In Step company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither In Step company nor Square One Behavioral Services Inc. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither In Step nor Square One Behavioral Services Inc. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither In Step company nor Square One Behavioral Services Inc. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

In Step company employs more people globally than Square One Behavioral Services Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither In Step nor Square One Behavioral Services Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither In Step nor Square One Behavioral Services Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither In Step nor Square One Behavioral Services Inc. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither In Step nor Square One Behavioral Services Inc. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither In Step nor Square One Behavioral Services Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither In Step nor Square One Behavioral Services Inc. 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