Comparison Overview

Silicon Valley TMS

VS

Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center

Silicon Valley TMS

2039 Forest Ave, San Jose, California, 95128, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Our clinic is unique in its approach relying on the skills of well-trained professionals, and the compassion of all of our staff committing to providing a great experience to our patients. Some of the feedback we received from individuals who have experienced other treatment programs is very rewarding and supportive of the above statement. We go the extra mile to ensure comfort, success, caring, and quality of our care and outcomes at Silicon Valley TMS Clinic. Our goal at the Silicon Valley TMS Center is to help our patients break free from depression using TMS!

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 15
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center

171 A Ryan Rd , Pasadena , 21122
Last Update: 2026-01-22

When looking for a premier inpatient addiction center in Maryland, or anywhere in the US, it is important that you find a place that fits you personally and adheres to the highest of standards. At Tranquility Woods, not only are we CARF Accredited, we take the time to get to know you and customize a program specifically for you. We provide individual counseling for 5-7 hours per week, often working with several counselors that have different perspectives and modalities . Our program options are virtually endless and each person's treatment plan is developed, based on his/her individual needs. Our clients collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of highly qualified licensed professionals to design a customized treatment plan. This plan is designed to help uncover any underlying disorders (co-occurring disorders) and/or any repressed trauma that can prevent successful recovery.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 43
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/silicon-valley-tms.jpeg
Silicon Valley TMS
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/tranquilitywoodsaddictiontreatmentcenter.jpeg
Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center
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
Silicon Valley TMS
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Silicon Valley TMS in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center in 2026.

Incident History — Silicon Valley TMS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Silicon Valley TMS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/silicon-valley-tms.jpeg
Silicon Valley TMS
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tranquilitywoodsaddictiontreatmentcenter.jpeg
Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Silicon Valley TMS company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Silicon Valley TMS company.

In the current year, Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center company and Silicon Valley TMS company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center company nor Silicon Valley TMS company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center company nor Silicon Valley TMS company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center company nor Silicon Valley TMS company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Silicon Valley TMS company nor Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Silicon Valley TMS nor Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Silicon Valley TMS company nor Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center company employs more people globally than Silicon Valley TMS company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Silicon Valley TMS nor Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Silicon Valley TMS nor Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Silicon Valley TMS nor Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Silicon Valley TMS nor Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Silicon Valley TMS nor Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Silicon Valley TMS nor Tranquility Woods Premier Addiction Treatment Center 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