Comparison Overview

Soldier Center

VS

Silver Linings Counseling

Soldier Center

2219 Lowes Drive, W., Clarksville, TN, 37040, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Soldier Center Training Institute provides provides mental health providers with approved EMDR basic and advanced trainings in treating military, veterans and first responders with effective EMDR therapy. Dr. Hurley served as a trainer for the U.S. Army medical command (AMEDD) in training mental health professionals in the use of EMDR as an evidence-based psychotherapy recognized by the VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guidelines (2004, 2010) and the Army AMEDD in the treatment of PTSD. We also train EMDR therapists in providing intensive, successive-days one and two weeks treatment for PTSD allowing persons to reclaim their lives during a brief period. Dr. Hurley provides EMDRIA approved EMDR therapy basic and advanced trainings. Advanced trainings include: "Treating Veterans with Complex PTSD and Dissociation with EMDR therapy," "Treating Military Sexual Trauma with EMDR therapy," "Treating Shame, Guilt and Moral Injury with EMDR therapy," and "Treating adults abused as children with EMDR therapy."

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

Silver Linings Counseling

41400 Dequindre Road, Suite 110, Sterling Heights, MI 48314, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Silver Linings Counseling is more than just an online platform, it’s a community. Silver Linings Counseling was founded in 2016 by five experienced licensed therapists who had a vision to open a safe, ethical, and supportive private practice. The SLC team strives to provide a friendly and healthy work environment, both in person and virtually. Silver Linings Counseling encourages their therapists to prioritize personal mental health, good work/life boundaries, and physical health. We are proud of what Silver Linings Counseling has become and have found that it is possible to have an environment where therapists can go to work and find gratification in each and every workday.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 35
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/soldier-center.jpeg
Soldier 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/silver-linings-counseling.jpeg
Silver Linings Counseling
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
Soldier Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Silver Linings Counseling
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Soldier Center in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Silver Linings Counseling in 2026.

Incident History — Soldier Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Soldier Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Silver Linings Counseling (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Silver Linings Counseling cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/soldier-center.jpeg
Soldier Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/silver-linings-counseling.jpeg
Silver Linings Counseling
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Silver Linings Counseling company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Soldier Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Silver Linings Counseling company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Soldier Center company.

In the current year, Silver Linings Counseling company and Soldier Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Silver Linings Counseling company nor Soldier Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Silver Linings Counseling company nor Soldier Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Silver Linings Counseling company nor Soldier Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Soldier Center company nor Silver Linings Counseling company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Soldier Center nor Silver Linings Counseling holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Soldier Center company nor Silver Linings Counseling company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Silver Linings Counseling company employs more people globally than Soldier Center company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Soldier Center nor Silver Linings Counseling holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Soldier Center nor Silver Linings Counseling holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Soldier Center nor Silver Linings Counseling holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Soldier Center nor Silver Linings Counseling holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Soldier Center nor Silver Linings Counseling holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Soldier Center nor Silver Linings Counseling 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