Comparison Overview

Nexus Recovery Services

VS

Centerstone

Nexus Recovery Services

undefined, Los Angeles, California, undefined, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Nexus Recovery Services is a boutique mental health, alcohol and drug treatment center providing personalized outpatient treatment for adults 18 years and older. We are dedicated to providing the most effective and comprehensive care by incorporating the latest evidence-based scientific and medical discoveries into our treatment programs. We recognize that substance abuse and co-occurring mental health disorders affect five aspects of human functioning: physiological, emotional, psychological. spiritual, and social, and we strive to address each of these areas with our integrative approach. Nexus Recovery Services offers partial hospitalization program, intensive outpatient program, outpatient, and aftercare. Our facility and programs were designed specifically to foster a sense of community and create a safe space for those in recovery from substance abuse. The entire team at Nexus is committed to bringing a level of understanding and empathy to our approach. We recognize that every person is on their own journey, and we are here to offer help and guidance to facilitate healing and recovery.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 2
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Centerstone

44 Vantage Way, Nashville, Tennessee, 37228, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 650 and 699

Centerstone is a nonprofit health system specializing in mental health and substance use disorder treatments for people of all ages. Services are available in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, and Tennessee through the operation of outpatient clinics, residential programs, school-based services, telehealth, and an inpatient hospital. Centerstone also offers specialized programs available nationwide for the military community, as well as services for children, including therapeutic foster care. Centerstone’s Institute provides guidance through research and technology, leveraging the best evidence-based practices for use across our communities. Centerstone’s Foundation secures philanthropic resources to support the work and mission of delivering care that changes people’s lives. Learn more by visiting Centerstone.org.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 2,942
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nexus-recovery-services.jpeg
Nexus Recovery Services
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/centerstone.jpeg
Centerstone
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
Nexus Recovery Services
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Centerstone
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Nexus Recovery Services in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Centerstone in 2026.

Incident History — Nexus Recovery Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nexus Recovery Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Centerstone (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Centerstone cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nexus-recovery-services.jpeg
Nexus Recovery Services
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/centerstone.jpeg
Centerstone
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email Environment
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email Account Compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email Compromise
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Nexus Recovery Services company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Centerstone company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Centerstone company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Nexus Recovery Services company has not reported any.

In the current year, Centerstone company and Nexus Recovery Services company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Centerstone company nor Nexus Recovery Services company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Centerstone company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Nexus Recovery Services company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Centerstone company nor Nexus Recovery Services company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Nexus Recovery Services company nor Centerstone company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Nexus Recovery Services nor Centerstone holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Nexus Recovery Services company nor Centerstone company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Centerstone company employs more people globally than Nexus Recovery Services company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Nexus Recovery Services nor Centerstone holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Nexus Recovery Services nor Centerstone holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Nexus Recovery Services nor Centerstone holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Nexus Recovery Services nor Centerstone holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Nexus Recovery Services nor Centerstone holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Nexus Recovery Services nor Centerstone 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