Comparison Overview

Potomac Community Services

VS

Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital

Potomac Community Services

324 East Antietam Street, Hagerstown, Maryland, 21740-5450, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Influencing Generations One Life at a Time… Serving Washington, Carroll, and Frederick Counties PCMS focuses assisting clients and families to maintain the highest level of independence possible. Our services reach all ages from early childhood to geriatric care and for the most part is hugely responsible for helping clients remain in their home and avoid placement in a higher level of care, such as residential placement or hospitalization. Without case management services, many, if not most, of the clients being seen would not be able to maintain the "normalcy" of daily living.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 55
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital

US
Last Update: 2026-01-21

Recovery can seem like a long way off, but we’ll help you get there. Baton Rouge Behavioral Health Hospital focuses on providing care for those with mental illnesses & dual diagnosis (substance abuse and behavioral health issues co-occurring). We are a 47-bed facility, staffed with nurses, psychiatrists, doctors, and administrative staff who are ready to serve the people of southern Louisiana and Mississippi. We believe that the road to wellness can be navigated by providing caring staff, peaceful environments, and engaging activities to our patients. Depending on the needs of the patient, treatment may include individual therapy, group counseling, and educational sessions, among other programs and activities.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 46
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/potomac-case-management.jpeg
Potomac Community 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/baton-rouge-behavioral-hospital.jpeg
Baton Rouge Behavioral 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
Potomac Community Services
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Baton Rouge Behavioral 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 Potomac Community Services in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital in 2026.

Incident History — Potomac Community Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Potomac Community Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/potomac-case-management.jpeg
Potomac Community Services
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/baton-rouge-behavioral-hospital.jpeg
Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Potomac Community Services company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Potomac Community Services company.

In the current year, Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital company and Potomac Community Services company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital company nor Potomac Community Services company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital company nor Potomac Community Services company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital company nor Potomac Community Services company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Potomac Community Services company nor Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Potomac Community Services nor Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Potomac Community Services company nor Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Potomac Community Services company employs more people globally than Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Potomac Community Services nor Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Potomac Community Services nor Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Potomac Community Services nor Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Potomac Community Services nor Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Potomac Community Services nor Baton Rouge Behavioral Hospital holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Potomac Community Services nor Baton Rouge Behavioral 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