Comparison Overview

Lifeways, Inc.

VS

Veritas Collaborative, LLC

Lifeways, Inc.

702 Sunset Drive, Ontario, OR, 97914, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

At Lifeways, we know our clients and staff have their own life paths. We recognize your background, and traditions offer unique individual insight, opinions, and ideas. It is this individuality that we welcome and celebrate. Diversity is the spark that ignites a new way of thinking that develops an understanding, leading to growth, and ultimately to success – for both the organization as a whole and the individual. Diversity, equity, and inclusion advocacy requires the ongoing examination of all Lifeways activities. We seek to identify the barriers and challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion. We advocate for any and all needed changes that aid in making every person feel welcome, wanted, valued, and partnered with for their success.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 181
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Veritas Collaborative, LLC

4024 Stirrup Creek Dr, Durham, NC, 27703, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

We envision a world in which all persons with eating disorders and their families and communities have access to best-practice care and hold hope for a cure. Veritas Collaborative is a specialty healthcare system for the treatment of eating disorders. Providing a range of services for individuals of all ages, Veritas offers Inpatient, Residential, Partial Hospitalization, Intensive Outpatient, and Outpatient levels of care. Multidisciplinary treatment teams – made up of physicians, psychiatrists, dietitians, culinary professionals, therapists, nurses, and skilled therapeutic assistants – aim to equip individuals, families, and communities with the skills necessary to continue recovery in the home environment. At every turn, the focus of Veritas Collaborative is on ensuring that each individual’s plan of care is cohesive, attainable, sustainable, and geared toward long-term recovery. Our multidisciplinary treatment teams in North Carolina and Georgia share a passion and a mission inspired by a collaborative community of care and are committed to providing individualized, evidence-based treatment in a gender-diverse and inclusive environment.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 205
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/lifeways-inc-.jpeg
Lifeways, 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/veritas-collaborative-llc.jpeg
Veritas Collaborative, LLC
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
Lifeways, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Veritas Collaborative, LLC
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lifeways, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Veritas Collaborative, LLC in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — Veritas Collaborative, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Veritas Collaborative, LLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lifeways-inc-.jpeg
Lifeways, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/veritas-collaborative-llc.jpeg
Veritas Collaborative, LLC
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Lifeways, Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Veritas Collaborative, LLC company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Veritas Collaborative, LLC company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Lifeways, Inc. company.

In the current year, Veritas Collaborative, LLC company and Lifeways, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Veritas Collaborative, LLC company nor Lifeways, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Veritas Collaborative, LLC company nor Lifeways, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Veritas Collaborative, LLC company nor Lifeways, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lifeways, Inc. company nor Veritas Collaborative, LLC company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lifeways, Inc. nor Veritas Collaborative, LLC holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Lifeways, Inc. company nor Veritas Collaborative, LLC company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Veritas Collaborative, LLC company employs more people globally than Lifeways, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Lifeways, Inc. nor Veritas Collaborative, LLC holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lifeways, Inc. nor Veritas Collaborative, LLC holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lifeways, Inc. nor Veritas Collaborative, LLC holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lifeways, Inc. nor Veritas Collaborative, LLC holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lifeways, Inc. nor Veritas Collaborative, LLC holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lifeways, Inc. nor Veritas Collaborative, LLC 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