Comparison Overview

Clarvida Arizona

VS

Center for Children

Clarvida Arizona

1161 N. El Dorado Place #103, Tucson, Arizona, 85715, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Pathways offers a full spectrum of social and behavioral health services to adults, children, and families. Pathways of Arizona (established in 1992 as Parents and Children Together, then Providence of Arizona in 1997) is part of a national growing company and provides high quality behavioral health services. Pathway's mission is to ensure the provision of accessible, effective, high quality community-based counselling and social services as an alternative to traditional institutional care. Pathways is dedicated to ensuring that all clients have access to professional community-based care, proven treatment methods, and comprehensive service planning. Pathways offers a wide variety of programs across the country that share a primary commitment to provide care that builds on our clients' strengths and addresses their unique, individual needs. At Pathways, our staff enjoy a casual work environment with flexible scheduling. We strive to grow our employees with enriching training opportunities, top-notch clinical supervision, and promotion from within. Although our staff roster has grown immensely over the years, Pathways is still a family, not just a workplace. Our culture is found not only in our camaraderie, but also in serving the community together through acts of service. Pathways knows that the best clinicians prioritize self-care and promotes wellness within our staff. We are creating healthy communities one family at a time.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 28
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Center for Children

6100 Radio Station Road, La Plata, Maryland, 20646, US
Last Update: 2025-12-31

The Center for Children is a private, non-profit organization that provides comprehensive mental health services to children and their families. The Center for Children believes that every child in need should have the opportunity to receive quality mental health care. We are dedicated to the prevention and treatment of child abuse and the promotion of positive mental health through crisis intervention, therapy, education, and advocacy. With offices in La Plata and Leonardtown, Maryland, the Center for Children serves clients from Charles, St. Mary's, Calvert, and lower Prince George's counties.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 196
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/pathways-of-arizona-inc..jpeg
Clarvida Arizona
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/center-for-children.jpeg
Center for Children
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
Clarvida Arizona
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Center for Children
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Clarvida Arizona in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Center for Children in 2026.

Incident History — Clarvida Arizona (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Clarvida Arizona cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Center for Children (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Center for Children cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pathways-of-arizona-inc..jpeg
Clarvida Arizona
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/center-for-children.jpeg
Center for Children
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Center for Children company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Clarvida Arizona company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Center for Children company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Clarvida Arizona company.

In the current year, Center for Children company and Clarvida Arizona company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Center for Children company nor Clarvida Arizona company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Center for Children company nor Clarvida Arizona company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Center for Children company nor Clarvida Arizona company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Clarvida Arizona company nor Center for Children company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Clarvida Arizona nor Center for Children holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Clarvida Arizona company nor Center for Children company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Center for Children company employs more people globally than Clarvida Arizona company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Clarvida Arizona nor Center for Children holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Clarvida Arizona nor Center for Children holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Clarvida Arizona nor Center for Children holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Clarvida Arizona nor Center for Children holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Clarvida Arizona nor Center for Children holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Clarvida Arizona nor Center for Children 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