Comparison Overview

Rogers Behavioral Health

VS

GGZ Delfland

Rogers Behavioral Health

34700 Valley Road, Oconomowoc, WI, 53066, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

Rogers Behavioral Health is a nationally recognized, not-for-profit provider of highly specialized psychiatric care. Rogers offers evidence-based treatment for children, teens, and adults with OCD and anxiety, addiction, depression and other mood disorders, eating disorders, trauma, and PTSD in a growing network of communities across the country. Backed by more than a century of experience, Rogers is leading the way on measurement-based care and use of clinical outcomes.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 1,956
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

GGZ Delfland

St Jorisweg, Delft, 2612GA, NL
Last Update:
Between 750 and 799

GGZ Delfland is een van de oudste instellingen voor geestelijke gezondheidszorg. Sinds jaar en dag (1394 om precies te zijn) dragen wij zorg voor kinderen, jongeren, volwassenen en ouderen met psychische problemen. Wij helpen ze de regie over hun leven te hervinden. Hun wensen en behoeften zijn het uitgangspunt om samen te kijken wat de beste behandeling is. We leveren basis tot zeer specialistische zorg, zowel ambulant als in klinieken. En we bieden individuele begeleiding. Anders dan onze naam doet vermoeden, zitten wij op 14 locaties verspreid in de regio´s Haaglanden en Rijnmond. We zijn financieel gezond, en hebben de bedrijfsvoering en zorgkwaliteit op orde. Dat geeft onze medewerkers alle ruimte om te doen waar ze goed in zijn: zorgen voor cliënten. Bij GGZ Delfland geloven we namelijk dat je pas goed voor een ander kan zorgen, als er ook goed voor jou wordt gezorgd. Daarom zorgen wij er voor dat onze werknemers te allen tijde hun werk kunnen doen. We zijn met circa 1100 medewerkers relatief klein. Daardoor zijn de lijnen kort en is er ruimte voor zeggenschap en regie. Wij investeren voortdurend in opleidingen, onderzoek en innovaties om een passend antwoord te vinden voor veranderingen in de wereld om ons heen. En de persoonlijke groei van onze werknemers te waarborgen. Wie zorgt er eigenlijk voor jou? Op www.ggz-delfland.nl vind je al onze vacatures. Neem er eens een kijkje als onze visie jou aanspreekt.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 1,185
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/rogers-memorial-hospital.jpeg
Rogers Behavioral Health
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/ggz-delfland.jpeg
GGZ Delfland
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
Rogers Behavioral Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
GGZ Delfland
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rogers Behavioral Health in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GGZ Delfland in 2026.

Incident History — Rogers Behavioral Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rogers Behavioral Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — GGZ Delfland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GGZ Delfland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rogers-memorial-hospital.jpeg
Rogers Behavioral Health
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ggz-delfland.jpeg
GGZ Delfland
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Rogers Behavioral Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to GGZ Delfland company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, GGZ Delfland company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Rogers Behavioral Health company.

In the current year, GGZ Delfland company and Rogers Behavioral Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither GGZ Delfland company nor Rogers Behavioral Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither GGZ Delfland company nor Rogers Behavioral Health company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither GGZ Delfland company nor Rogers Behavioral Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Rogers Behavioral Health company nor GGZ Delfland company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Rogers Behavioral Health nor GGZ Delfland holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Rogers Behavioral Health company nor GGZ Delfland company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Rogers Behavioral Health company employs more people globally than GGZ Delfland company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Rogers Behavioral Health nor GGZ Delfland holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Rogers Behavioral Health nor GGZ Delfland holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Rogers Behavioral Health nor GGZ Delfland holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Rogers Behavioral Health nor GGZ Delfland holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Rogers Behavioral Health nor GGZ Delfland holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Rogers Behavioral Health nor GGZ Delfland 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