Comparison Overview

NAMI Santa Clara County

VS

Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital

NAMI Santa Clara County

1150 S Bascom Ave San Jose, Ca 95128, San Jose, California, 95131, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

NAMI Santa Clara County offers practical experience, support, education, comfort and understanding to anyone concerned about mental illnesses and their treatment in Santa Clara County. In addition, we work with public organizations, private businesses and the media to increase organizational and personal knowledge of effective ways of treating the illnesses while advocating for increased research and improved services for individuals with mental illness.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 39
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital

701 Arkansas Blvd, Texarkana, Arkansas, 71854, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Riverview Behavioral Health is the Ark-La-Tex region’s leading psychiatric treatment center providing a comprehensive continuum of care for mental health issues. Riverview Behavioral Health is committed to the children, adolescents, teens, adults, and seniors entrusted into their care, and offers a stable, secure environment that fosters healing. Every member of Riverview’s compassionate, accomplished team commits to personifying our core values by serving our clients and their families with: • Uncompromising Care • Relentless Compassion • Holistic Treatment Approach Our intensive, holistic inpatient treatment model results in a depth of recovery that is transformational for clients, and fulfilling for our staff. The team at Riverview Behavioral Health is comprised of medical and clinical experts in the treatment for mood and anxiety disorders, thought disorders, and other co-occurring disorders.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 63
Subsidiaries: 71
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nami-santa-clara-county.jpeg
NAMI Santa Clara County
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/riverview-behavioral-health.jpeg
Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital
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 Santa Clara County
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital
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 Santa Clara County in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital in 2026.

Incident History — NAMI Santa Clara County (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NAMI Santa Clara County cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nami-santa-clara-county.jpeg
NAMI Santa Clara County
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/riverview-behavioral-health.jpeg
Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to NAMI Santa Clara County company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas NAMI Santa Clara County company has not reported any.

In the current year, Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital company and NAMI Santa Clara County company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital company nor NAMI Santa Clara County company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital company has disclosed at least one data breach, while NAMI Santa Clara County company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital company nor NAMI Santa Clara County company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither NAMI Santa Clara County company nor Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither NAMI Santa Clara County nor Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to NAMI Santa Clara County company.

Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital company employs more people globally than NAMI Santa Clara County company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither NAMI Santa Clara County nor Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither NAMI Santa Clara County nor Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither NAMI Santa Clara County nor Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither NAMI Santa Clara County nor Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither NAMI Santa Clara County nor Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital holds HIPAA certification.

Neither NAMI Santa Clara County nor Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital 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