Comparison Overview

Perception Programs

VS

Alabama Clinical Schools

Perception Programs

842 Main St, Willimantic, Connecticut, 06226, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Since 1970, our dedicated staff has ensured accessible, culturally competent, individualized, and cost effective services for our clients and the community. We understand that each person has unique strengths and we help to build upon those strengths. By emphasizing trust, respect, confidentiality, communication, and compassion, we continuously strive to improve the quality of client care, while anticipating changing community needs. We provide group and individual treatment in both Spanish and English. We are a dynamic and responsive agency, committed to you!

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 46
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Alabama Clinical Schools

None
Last Update:

Located in Birmingham, ACS is a leading provider of behavioral health services in the Southeast. Our 80-bed residential treatment facility features a program designed specifically to treat sexually abusive adolescent males, ages 9-18 years old. Our facility also houses the RISE program, which serves youth who have been denied admission or discharged unsuccessfully from other intensive residential programs. ACS is also one the largest providers of therapeutic foster care services in Alabama as well as being the only TFC provider in the state with foster homes specifically designed for sexually reactive youth.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 92
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/perception-programs.jpeg
Perception Programs
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/alabama-clinical-schools-inc.jpeg
Alabama Clinical Schools
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
Perception Programs
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Alabama Clinical Schools
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Perception Programs in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Alabama Clinical Schools in 2026.

Incident History — Perception Programs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Perception Programs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Alabama Clinical Schools (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Alabama Clinical Schools cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/perception-programs.jpeg
Perception Programs
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/alabama-clinical-schools-inc.jpeg
Alabama Clinical Schools
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Perception Programs company and Alabama Clinical Schools company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Alabama Clinical Schools company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Perception Programs company.

In the current year, Alabama Clinical Schools company and Perception Programs company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Alabama Clinical Schools company nor Perception Programs company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Alabama Clinical Schools company nor Perception Programs company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Alabama Clinical Schools company nor Perception Programs company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Perception Programs company nor Alabama Clinical Schools company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Perception Programs nor Alabama Clinical Schools holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Perception Programs company nor Alabama Clinical Schools company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Alabama Clinical Schools company employs more people globally than Perception Programs company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Perception Programs nor Alabama Clinical Schools holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Perception Programs nor Alabama Clinical Schools holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Perception Programs nor Alabama Clinical Schools holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Perception Programs nor Alabama Clinical Schools holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Perception Programs nor Alabama Clinical Schools holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Perception Programs nor Alabama Clinical Schools 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