Comparison Overview

NAMI San Diego

VS

Idaho Behavioral Health

NAMI San Diego

5095 Murphy Canyon Road Ste 320, San Diego, California, 92123, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

The National Alliance on Mental Illness in San Diego is the city’s voice on mental illness. We are part of the grass-roots, non-profit,national NAMI organization founded in 1979 by family members of people with mental illness. We are also an affiliate of NAMI California. We have a threefold mission: Support people with mental illnesses and their families by helping them find coping mechanisms for their daily struggle with brain disorders. Educate people who have mental illness, their families, and the general public about mental illness with the goal of dispelling ignorance and stigma. Advocate for more research and an improved system of mental health services across the nation. At the heart of NAMI San Diego’s mission is the sharing of information and striving to end the stigma associated with mental illness. To this end, we offer a Helpline, support groups, educational meetings, newsletters, a lending library and a number of classes on mental illness held at various locations throughout San Diego County.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 92
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Idaho Behavioral Health

2273 S. Vista Ave., suite 190, Boise, ID, 83705, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Idaho Behavioral Health is a full service agency focused on providing quality counseling and behavioral health services including Individual and Family Therapy, Psychiatric Medication Management, Psycho-Social Rehabilitation and Case Management. Counseling Services: Individual and Group Therapy for Adults, Adolescents, and Children; Marriage and Family Therapy; Couples Counseling; Crime Victim Recovery; Co-dependency Counseling; Addictions Treatment Community and Supportive Services: Psycho-Social Rehabilitation (PSR); Targeted Service Coordination; Symptom Management; Assistance Maintaining Benefits; Assistance Obtaining Community Resources; Skill Building; Crisis Intervention and Support Psychiatric Services: Psychiatric Assessment; Medication Management; Symptom Education

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 25
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/nami-san-diego.jpeg
NAMI San Diego
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/idaho-behavioral-health.jpeg
Idaho Behavioral Health
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
NAMI San Diego
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Idaho Behavioral Health
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NAMI San Diego in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Idaho Behavioral Health in 2026.

Incident History — NAMI San Diego (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NAMI San Diego cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Idaho Behavioral Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Idaho Behavioral Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nami-san-diego.jpeg
NAMI San Diego
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/idaho-behavioral-health.jpeg
Idaho Behavioral Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both NAMI San Diego company and Idaho Behavioral Health company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Idaho Behavioral Health company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to NAMI San Diego company.

In the current year, Idaho Behavioral Health company and NAMI San Diego company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Idaho Behavioral Health company nor NAMI San Diego company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Idaho Behavioral Health company nor NAMI San Diego company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Idaho Behavioral Health company nor NAMI San Diego company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither NAMI San Diego company nor Idaho Behavioral Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither NAMI San Diego nor Idaho Behavioral Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

NAMI San Diego company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Idaho Behavioral Health company.

NAMI San Diego company employs more people globally than Idaho Behavioral Health company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither NAMI San Diego nor Idaho Behavioral Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither NAMI San Diego nor Idaho Behavioral Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither NAMI San Diego nor Idaho Behavioral Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither NAMI San Diego nor Idaho Behavioral Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither NAMI San Diego nor Idaho Behavioral Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither NAMI San Diego nor Idaho Behavioral Health 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