Comparison Overview

Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc.

VS

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc.

94518, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 800 and 849

MHCC currently provides state mandated patients' rights advocacy services in Contra Costa and Napa counties in addition to systems advocacy on the local and state levels. MHCC was a catalyst in the creation of self-help groups in Contra Costa, Napa and Solano counties, an anti-stigma campaign in Contra Costa County and multiple Consumer Conferences.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 8
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

18 Mole Business Park, Leatherhead, Surrey, undefined, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

We are the leading providers of specialist mental health, learning disability and drug and alcohol services for people of all ages in Surrey and north east Hampshire. Our core purpose is to work with people and lead communities in improving their mental and physical health and wellbeing for a better life through delivering excellent and responsive prevention, diagnosis, early intervention, treatment and care. Our services are provided in community settings, hospitals and residential homes with an emphasis on providing local treatment and support close to people's homes wherever possible. Find us on Twitter - @sabpNHS

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 1,769
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Mental Health Consumer Concerns, 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/nhs-surrey-and-borders-partnership.jpeg
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
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
Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust in 2026.

Incident History — Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nhs-surrey-and-borders-partnership.jpeg
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. company.

In the current year, Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust company and Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust company nor Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust company nor Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust company nor Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. company nor Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. nor Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. company.

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust company employs more people globally than Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. nor Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. nor Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. nor Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. nor Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. nor Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc. nor Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust 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