Comparison Overview

Lexington Center For Recovery

VS

Alliance, Inc. Baltimore

Lexington Center For Recovery

20 Manchester Rd, Poughkeepsie, New York 12603-2412, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.lexingtonctr.org

Celebrating our 40th year of operation, Lexington Center for Recovery, Inc. is the largest provider of outpatient substance use disorder treatment in the Hudson Valley. Treatment services are available in Dutchess, Rockland and Westchester counties. Services in Sullivan County coming soon. Treatment is always client-centered and tailored to meet the needs of the individual and/or family.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 156
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Alliance, Inc. Baltimore

8003 Corporate Drive, Nottingham, 21236, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799
http://www.allianceinc.org

Established in 1983, Alliance is a Baltimore-based 501c3 non-profit organization that provides community-based services to people living with mental illness and developmental disabilities, as well as veterans facing homelessness. With a focus on individual choices, needs, and strengths, Alliance’s recovery-oriented continuum of services help people live more independently and achieve their hopes and dreams. Alliance has achieved 24 years of continuous accreditation from CARF, the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, an unparalleled achievement among community behavioral health organizations in Maryland. Alliance is an affiliate of Sheppard Pratt Health System.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 39
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/lexington-center-for-recovery.jpeg
Lexington Center For Recovery
—
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/alliance-inc-.jpeg
Alliance, Inc. Baltimore
—
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
Lexington Center For Recovery
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Alliance, Inc. Baltimore
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lexington Center For Recovery in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Alliance, Inc. Baltimore in 2026.

Incident History — Lexington Center For Recovery (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lexington Center For Recovery cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Alliance, Inc. Baltimore (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Alliance, Inc. Baltimore cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lexington-center-for-recovery.jpeg
Lexington Center For Recovery
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/alliance-inc-.jpeg
Alliance, Inc. Baltimore
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Lexington Center For Recovery company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Alliance, Inc. Baltimore company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Alliance, Inc. Baltimore company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Lexington Center For Recovery company.

In the current year, Alliance, Inc. Baltimore company and Lexington Center For Recovery company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Alliance, Inc. Baltimore company nor Lexington Center For Recovery company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Alliance, Inc. Baltimore company nor Lexington Center For Recovery company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Alliance, Inc. Baltimore company nor Lexington Center For Recovery company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lexington Center For Recovery company nor Alliance, Inc. Baltimore company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lexington Center For Recovery nor Alliance, Inc. Baltimore holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Lexington Center For Recovery company nor Alliance, Inc. Baltimore company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Lexington Center For Recovery company employs more people globally than Alliance, Inc. Baltimore company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Lexington Center For Recovery nor Alliance, Inc. Baltimore holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lexington Center For Recovery nor Alliance, Inc. Baltimore holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lexington Center For Recovery nor Alliance, Inc. Baltimore holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lexington Center For Recovery nor Alliance, Inc. Baltimore holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lexington Center For Recovery nor Alliance, Inc. Baltimore holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lexington Center For Recovery nor Alliance, Inc. Baltimore holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
References
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References