Comparison Overview

The Center for Children and Families

VS

Daybreak Youth Services

The Center for Children and Families

3021 3rd Avenue North, Billings, 59101, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Our progressive nonprofit organization was established in 2008 under the name Second Chance Homes. With little more than a laptop in a living room, our team set out to change the child welfare system. Since that time we have partnered with a variety of community service providers and merged with Arrowhead Psychological Services. Now, as The Center for Children and Families, we act as a merger of community agencies that work to ensure the safety, permanency and well-being of children while strengthening families. We are dedicated to ensuring that every child has a loving, safe, forever family through our work with sober supportive housing, family stabilization services, family preservation/reunification services, foster youth services, mental health services, and access to needed services through community collaboration programs.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 74
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Daybreak Youth Services

960 E 3rd Ave, Spokane, Washington, 99202, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Daybreak has been successfully treating teens for substance use disorder and mental health challenges since 1978. We are committed to serving teens and their families, and have become an innovative leader in the adolescent mental health and substance abuse treatment field. We provide Inpatient, Outpatient, and Crisis Stabilization services in Eastern and Western Washington. Daybreak serves more than 1,000 youth each year.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 97
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/the-center-for-children-and-families.jpeg
The Center for Children and Families
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/daybreakyouthservices.jpeg
Daybreak Youth 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
The Center for Children and Families
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Daybreak Youth 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 The Center for Children and Families in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Daybreak Youth Services in 2026.

Incident History — The Center for Children and Families (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Center for Children and Families cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Daybreak Youth Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Daybreak Youth Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-center-for-children-and-families.jpeg
The Center for Children and Families
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/daybreakyouthservices.jpeg
Daybreak Youth Services
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Daybreak Youth Services company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The Center for Children and Families company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Daybreak Youth Services company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The Center for Children and Families company.

In the current year, Daybreak Youth Services company and The Center for Children and Families company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Daybreak Youth Services company nor The Center for Children and Families company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Daybreak Youth Services company nor The Center for Children and Families company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Daybreak Youth Services company nor The Center for Children and Families company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Center for Children and Families company nor Daybreak Youth Services company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Center for Children and Families nor Daybreak Youth Services holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither The Center for Children and Families company nor Daybreak Youth Services company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Daybreak Youth Services company employs more people globally than The Center for Children and Families company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither The Center for Children and Families nor Daybreak Youth Services holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Center for Children and Families nor Daybreak Youth Services holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Center for Children and Families nor Daybreak Youth Services holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Center for Children and Families nor Daybreak Youth Services holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Center for Children and Families nor Daybreak Youth Services holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Center for Children and Families nor Daybreak Youth 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