Comparison Overview

Stars Behavioral Health Group

VS

Beneficial Behavioral Health Services

Stars Behavioral Health Group

1501 Hughes Way, #150, Long Beach, CA, US, 90810
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Stars Behavioral Health Group (SBHG) provides high-quality mental health and social services across California, achieving proven, impactful results. SBHG is dedicated to helping individuals overcome significant challenges and grow through change. What Stars Behavioral Health Group Offers: A large, stable company founded in 1988. Recognized by the LA Business Journal as a “Best Place to Work” in Los Angeles and awarded “Top Workplaces” in the Bay Area by the Mercury News (multiple times). An opportunity to engage in meaningful work that positively impacts the lives of children, adults, and families. Access to some of the best training available in the industry. Flexible schedules and a comprehensive benefits package. Opportunities in residential, in-patient, and community-based outpatient roles.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 882
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Beneficial Behavioral Health Services

2435 S 130th Circle, Omaha, Nebraska, 68144, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Founded in 1999, Beneficial Behavioral Health Services (BBHS) is a multifaceted behavioral health services agency. The goal of our services is to reconnect and assist families that have been separated by CPS or the State of Nebraska, by providing support through supervised visitations and family support services. Strengthening families and helping them through the healing process is at the core of our business and continues to be the driving force behind every decision our staff makes.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 52
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/stars-behavioral-health-group.jpeg
Stars Behavioral Health Group
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/beneficial-behavioral-health-services.jpeg
Beneficial Behavioral Health 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
Compliance Summary
Stars Behavioral Health Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Beneficial Behavioral Health Services
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Stars Behavioral Health Group in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Beneficial Behavioral Health Services in 2026.

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

Stars Behavioral Health Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Beneficial Behavioral Health Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/stars-behavioral-health-group.jpeg
Stars Behavioral Health Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/beneficial-behavioral-health-services.jpeg
Beneficial Behavioral Health Services
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Stars Behavioral Health Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Beneficial Behavioral Health Services company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Beneficial Behavioral Health Services company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Stars Behavioral Health Group company.

In the current year, Beneficial Behavioral Health Services company and Stars Behavioral Health Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Beneficial Behavioral Health Services company nor Stars Behavioral Health Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Beneficial Behavioral Health Services company nor Stars Behavioral Health Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Beneficial Behavioral Health Services company nor Stars Behavioral Health Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Stars Behavioral Health Group company nor Beneficial Behavioral Health Services company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Stars Behavioral Health Group nor Beneficial Behavioral Health Services holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Stars Behavioral Health Group company nor Beneficial Behavioral Health Services company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Stars Behavioral Health Group company employs more people globally than Beneficial Behavioral Health Services company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Stars Behavioral Health Group nor Beneficial Behavioral Health Services holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Stars Behavioral Health Group nor Beneficial Behavioral Health Services holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Stars Behavioral Health Group nor Beneficial Behavioral Health Services holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Stars Behavioral Health Group nor Beneficial Behavioral Health Services holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Stars Behavioral Health Group nor Beneficial Behavioral Health Services holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Stars Behavioral Health Group nor Beneficial Behavioral Health Services 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