Comparison Overview

Pine River Institute

VS

GenesisCE.org

Pine River Institute

180 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1Z8, CA
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Pine River Institute helps adolescents struggling with addictive behaviours and other mental health issues to reclaim their lives, their families, and their futures. Pine River Institute is the only program of its kind in Canada – a live-in treatment centre and outdoor leadership experience for youth, ages 13 to 19. Located near Shelburne, Ontario, PRI combines therapy with a fully-accredited education program to reinforce the healthy life skills required for a successful future.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 88
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

GenesisCE.org

4362 Northlake Blvd., Suite 108, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, US, 33410
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

GenesisCE.org offers home study/online continuing education for Psychologists, Licensed Clinical Social Workers, Mental Health Counselors, Marriage and Family Therapists and Addiction Professionals. Membership is free and our newsletter offers discounts! We are an approved sponsor of continuing education by most of the major boards related to mental health including: American Psychological Association (APA) Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) National Board of Certified Counselors (NBCC) Association of Addiction Professionals (NAADAC) California Board of Behavioral Science (CBBS) The State of Florida Boards of: Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, Mental Health Counseling, Psychology; and School Psychology Alabama State Board of Social Workers Also check with your State Certification Board, we are most likely approved in your state also!

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 1
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/pine-river-institute.jpeg
Pine River Institute
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/j.-michael-atwater-phd-apa-cpp.jpeg
GenesisCE.org
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
Pine River Institute
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
GenesisCE.org
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pine River Institute in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GenesisCE.org in 2026.

Incident History — Pine River Institute (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pine River Institute cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — GenesisCE.org (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GenesisCE.org cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pine-river-institute.jpeg
Pine River Institute
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/j.-michael-atwater-phd-apa-cpp.jpeg
GenesisCE.org
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Pine River Institute company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to GenesisCE.org company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, GenesisCE.org company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Pine River Institute company.

In the current year, GenesisCE.org company and Pine River Institute company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither GenesisCE.org company nor Pine River Institute company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither GenesisCE.org company nor Pine River Institute company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither GenesisCE.org company nor Pine River Institute company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Pine River Institute company nor GenesisCE.org company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Pine River Institute nor GenesisCE.org holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Pine River Institute company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to GenesisCE.org company.

Pine River Institute company employs more people globally than GenesisCE.org company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Pine River Institute nor GenesisCE.org holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Pine River Institute nor GenesisCE.org holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Pine River Institute nor GenesisCE.org holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Pine River Institute nor GenesisCE.org holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Pine River Institute nor GenesisCE.org holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Pine River Institute nor GenesisCE.org 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