Comparison Overview

Project Courage

VS

Hope Community Services Ltd

Project Courage

130 Elm St, Old Saybrook Center, Connecticut, 06475, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Project Courage helps people heal and find purpose by listening to their stories. We have learned, as a community, that each of us has pieces we wish to forget. Yet from those pieces, we learn that we are wise, heroic, expressive, creative, and spirited. Being human is not either darkness or light, it is a path blazed through the two. Using the stages of change, internal family systems, and other models that help rekindle the connection to those lost parts of ourselves, we will nurture a passionate and purposeful path forward. Beyond a drug rehab or substance abuse center, we make space for you to find your truth.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 37
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Hope Community Services Ltd

Unit 2, Perth, Western Australia, 6000, AU
Last Update: 2025-12-02

For over 100 years Hope Community Services has brought hope to thousands of people and communities facing the toughest challenges in Western Australia. From our beginnings pioneering alcohol support, today we offer hope across five key areas of Alcohol and Other Drugs, Family and Domestic Violence, Mental Health, Justice and Bail Services and a Rehabilitation centre at Hope Springs. We have over 150 dedicated staff and 70 volunteers delivering services and supporting marginalised people within communities as far north as Kununurra, as far south as Esperance and as far inland as Leonora and Meekatharra. We believe delivering hope requires a community-led approach, a collaborative mindset, and the dedication to walk with our clients wherever it takes us, for however long we are needed. We boast a clear strategic direction, strong governance, innovative mindset and a brilliant team from our Board, through Executive, to Management and Frontline staff.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 116
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/project-courage-llc.jpeg
Project Courage
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/hope-community-services-inc..jpeg
Hope Community Services Ltd
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
Project Courage
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Hope Community Services Ltd
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Project Courage in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hope Community Services Ltd in 2026.

Incident History — Project Courage (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Project Courage cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Hope Community Services Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/project-courage-llc.jpeg
Project Courage
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hope-community-services-inc..jpeg
Hope Community Services Ltd
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Project Courage company and Hope Community Services Ltd company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Hope Community Services Ltd company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Project Courage company.

In the current year, Hope Community Services Ltd company and Project Courage company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Hope Community Services Ltd company nor Project Courage company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Hope Community Services Ltd company nor Project Courage company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Hope Community Services Ltd company nor Project Courage company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Project Courage company nor Hope Community Services Ltd company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Project Courage nor Hope Community Services Ltd holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Project Courage company nor Hope Community Services Ltd company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Hope Community Services Ltd company employs more people globally than Project Courage company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Project Courage nor Hope Community Services Ltd holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Project Courage nor Hope Community Services Ltd holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Project Courage nor Hope Community Services Ltd holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Project Courage nor Hope Community Services Ltd holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Project Courage nor Hope Community Services Ltd holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Project Courage nor Hope Community Services Ltd 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