Comparison Overview

Legacy Healing Center

VS

The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services

Legacy Healing Center

2960 N SR 7, Margate , Florida, 33063, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Our approach to recovery is built around a holistic methodology. We look at addiction as a comprehensive issue and offer a complete set of services to heal the physical body, the mind and the spirit. Combining research-evidenced practices from medicine and psychology, our team of highly trained professionals looks at all aspects of our clients’ lives on an individual basis.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 162
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services

3610 Barnett Road, Wichita Falls, 76310, US
Last Update:
Between 750 and 799

The mission of The Wood Group is to provide quality behavioral health services that assist individuals with mental illness or other special needs to live healthy and productive lifestyles within their communities. ​ The Wood Group goals in helping to achieve this mission:​ -To provide individuals with mental illness choice, accessibility, quality services, and best value -To provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services to individuals with mental illness and their family members -To strengthen a meaningful, cooperative relationship between the behavioral health community and The Wood Group as we continue to offer services to persons challenged with mental illness in the local community -To provide quality behavioral health services at an affordable cost to the local mental health community -To increase integration of persons challenged with mental illness in the community with all their rights, privileges, and responsibilities

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 69
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/legacyhealingcenter.jpeg
Legacy 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-wood-group-behavioral-health-services.jpeg
The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services
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
Legacy Healing Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Legacy Healing Center in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/legacyhealingcenter.jpeg
Legacy Healing Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-wood-group-behavioral-health-services.jpeg
The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Legacy Healing Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Legacy Healing Center company.

In the current year, The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services company and Legacy Healing Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services company nor Legacy Healing Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services company nor Legacy Healing Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services company nor Legacy Healing Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Legacy Healing Center company nor The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Legacy Healing Center nor The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Legacy Healing Center company nor The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Legacy Healing Center company employs more people globally than The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Legacy Healing Center nor The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Legacy Healing Center nor The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Legacy Healing Center nor The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Legacy Healing Center nor The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Legacy Healing Center nor The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Legacy Healing Center nor The Wood Group Behavioral Health Services 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