Comparison Overview

Laurel House, Inc.

VS

Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine

Laurel House, Inc.

None
Last Update: 2026-01-19
Between 750 and 799

Laurel House is a private for impact 501(c) 3 organization that provides resources and opportunities for people with mental illness to lead fulfilling and productive lives in the communities where they live, work, and go to school. Laurel House embraces the concept of recovery and is committed to helping individuals rebuild their lives. Core Purpose Early Intervention and Remediation, Social Inclusion and Recovery

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 37
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine

441 S. Livernois, Rochester Hills, Michigan, 48307, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Under the medical leadership of Joel L. Young, MD , RCBM is a leader in the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD. RCBM also offers a variety of services to children, adolescents, adults and seniors including the treatment ADHD and learning disabilities; depression, bipolar disorder, and other mood and anxiety disorders; work-related concerns, family and marital issues; substance abuse and eating disorders, along with weight management. Mission: RCBM brings the highest quality, measurement-based mental health care to our community. Our core values include evidenced-based therapy, measurable outcomes, and team collaboration between disciplines. We desire to bring university level care to the community in a highly integrated team approach that is medically driven. We have created a family friendly environment for employees, with a self-affirming environment, by acknowledging the unique perspectives that our staff brings and encouraging them to incorporate best practices. It is important to us to maintain a progressive workplace, with Dr. Young working side by side with staff to encourage them to contribute their best.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 82
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/laurel-house-inc-.jpeg
Laurel House, 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rochester-center-for-behavioral-medicine.jpeg
Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine
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
Laurel House, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Laurel House, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine in 2026.

Incident History — Laurel House, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Laurel House, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/laurel-house-inc-.jpeg
Laurel House, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rochester-center-for-behavioral-medicine.jpeg
Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Laurel House, Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Laurel House, Inc. company.

In the current year, Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine company and Laurel House, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine company nor Laurel House, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine company nor Laurel House, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine company nor Laurel House, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Laurel House, Inc. company nor Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Laurel House, Inc. nor Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Laurel House, Inc. company nor Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine company employs more people globally than Laurel House, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Laurel House, Inc. nor Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Laurel House, Inc. nor Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Laurel House, Inc. nor Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Laurel House, Inc. nor Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Laurel House, Inc. nor Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Laurel House, Inc. nor Rochester Center for Behavioral Medicine 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