Comparison Overview

InnerWell Psychotherapy

VS

R U OK?

InnerWell Psychotherapy

3100 Pinebrook Rd, Park City, Utah, 84098, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Attachment-Based & Trauma-Informed Psychotherapy for Adults, Adolescents and Couples. I am educated as a Master Social Worker from the University of Utah and have my License in Clinical Social Work. Over the past ten years, I have worked in various roles within human services including mental health counseling, advocacy and program development. My clinical training and experience is diverse and includes crisis counseling for victims of assault, dual-diagnosis substance abuse treatment within residential and outpatient settings for men, women and First Responders, inpatient behavioral health stabilization, clinical and social support for cancer patients and their families as well as extensive individual, group and couples counseling. I have extensive training in complex trauma and PTSD, have completed Level II EMDR training and utilize a trauma-informed, attachment-based approach with all clients. My professional history includes work for organizations such as Journey Healing Centers, the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Peace House, House of Hope and Jordan Valley Medical Center. In 2016, I began accepting clients in private practice. I am a member of the National Association of Social Workers, the Association for Women in Psychology, the International Association of Trauma Professionals and the EMDR International Association.

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

R U OK?

1 Kent Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, AU
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

R U OK? is an Australian public health promotion charity. Our mission is to inspire and empower everyone to meaningfully connect with the people around them and lend support to the people in their world who may be struggling with life. We’re most well-known for our national day of action, R U OK?Day, on the second Thursday in September. We also have campaigns to inspire connection throughout the year, including R U OK? at Work, Workplace Champions and Rail R U OK?Day. More info at www.ruok.org.au Please keep comments respectful and avoid abusive, misleading, or harmful language. Such posts may be deleted, and repeat offenders may be banned.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 286
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/innerwell-psychotherapy.jpeg
InnerWell Psychotherapy
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/r-u-ok-.jpeg
R U OK?
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
InnerWell Psychotherapy
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
R U OK?
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for InnerWell Psychotherapy in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for R U OK? in 2026.

Incident History — InnerWell Psychotherapy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

InnerWell Psychotherapy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — R U OK? (X = Date, Y = Severity)

R U OK? cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/innerwell-psychotherapy.jpeg
InnerWell Psychotherapy
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/r-u-ok-.jpeg
R U OK?
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

R U OK? company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to InnerWell Psychotherapy company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, R U OK? company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to InnerWell Psychotherapy company.

In the current year, R U OK? company and InnerWell Psychotherapy company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither R U OK? company nor InnerWell Psychotherapy company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither R U OK? company nor InnerWell Psychotherapy company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither R U OK? company nor InnerWell Psychotherapy company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither InnerWell Psychotherapy company nor R U OK? company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither InnerWell Psychotherapy nor R U OK? holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither InnerWell Psychotherapy company nor R U OK? company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

R U OK? company employs more people globally than InnerWell Psychotherapy company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither InnerWell Psychotherapy nor R U OK? holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither InnerWell Psychotherapy nor R U OK? holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither InnerWell Psychotherapy nor R U OK? holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither InnerWell Psychotherapy nor R U OK? holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither InnerWell Psychotherapy nor R U OK? holds HIPAA certification.

Neither InnerWell Psychotherapy nor R U OK? 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