Comparison Overview

Individual Advocacy Group

VS

Children's Hope Alliance

Individual Advocacy Group

1289 Windham Parkway, Romeoville, 60446, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Individual Advocacy Group is a CARF accredited not-for-profit organization dedicated to community- based supports and personal advocacy for individuals with special needs. IAG provides training programs, behavioral and individual therapies, community- based residential programs, advocacy and case management for individuals who have intellectual or developmental disabilities, mental health disorders, brain injuries or physical/medical conditions. All of IAG’s programs are community- based and all residential programs are family scale of four or fewer people using neighborhood housing and apartments. IAG provides its services in 21 counties in Illinois from Chicago to the Quad Cities to Springfield, as well as the District of Columbia and Maryland. IAG believes that all individuals deserve and should receive respect regardless of their history, type of disability or severity of specialized needs. Furthermore, all individuals must be assured of their endowed rights of community participation and personal independence shared by all members of society. Each individual can meet his or her personal goals, follow personal interests, and find personal success and happiness. Accordingly, people with disabilities can achieve personal success and happiness if given the chance and the support. Regardless of the impediments any person with disabilities may have encountered along the way in life, their chance is now and the opportunity is here to find self respect, develop a positive self image and achieve personal goals.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 266
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Children's Hope Alliance

156 Frazier Loop, Barium Springs, NC 28010, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Children’s Hope Alliance is a state-wide child welfare agency serving children and families throughout North Carolina. We work hard to provide a safe, healing journey for hurting children and families, creating hope now and in the future. Our comprehensive services and programs are designed to give hope to our clients by providing a safe home, healing their hurt and encouraging a healthy start.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 168
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/individual-advocacy-group.jpeg
Individual Advocacy Group
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/children's-hope-alliance.jpeg
Children's Hope Alliance
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
Individual Advocacy Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Children's Hope Alliance
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Individual Advocacy Group in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Children's Hope Alliance in 2026.

Incident History — Individual Advocacy Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Individual Advocacy Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Children's Hope Alliance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Children's Hope Alliance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/individual-advocacy-group.jpeg
Individual Advocacy Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/children's-hope-alliance.jpeg
Children's Hope Alliance
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Individual Advocacy Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Children's Hope Alliance company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Children's Hope Alliance company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Individual Advocacy Group company.

In the current year, Children's Hope Alliance company and Individual Advocacy Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Children's Hope Alliance company nor Individual Advocacy Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Children's Hope Alliance company nor Individual Advocacy Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Children's Hope Alliance company nor Individual Advocacy Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Individual Advocacy Group company nor Children's Hope Alliance company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Individual Advocacy Group nor Children's Hope Alliance holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Individual Advocacy Group company nor Children's Hope Alliance company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Individual Advocacy Group company employs more people globally than Children's Hope Alliance company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Individual Advocacy Group nor Children's Hope Alliance holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Individual Advocacy Group nor Children's Hope Alliance holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Individual Advocacy Group nor Children's Hope Alliance holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Individual Advocacy Group nor Children's Hope Alliance holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Individual Advocacy Group nor Children's Hope Alliance holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Individual Advocacy Group nor Children's Hope Alliance 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