Comparison Overview

The Rock HHC

VS

Telos

The Rock HHC

1415 E US Highway 169, Grand Rapids, Minnesota, 55744, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

together, we can make a difference! We offer both PCA traditional & choice programs WE WORK FOR YOU! Choosing the right Company to help you with your personal care needs is not to be taken lightly. There are differences in companies. While some simply write the paychecks, we take the time to personally know you and your situation. We go beyond the scope of our required duties and give that extra personalization you should expect from a PCA provider. Our family based business has the experience in care giving and not just pencil pushing … we’ve even taught others how to start a PCA company…. Insist on the best in the business. Let us prove ourselves to you! We work closely with parents and caregivers to provide clients all the support they need to Fulfill Their Lives…. At Home...Where They Belong Information & Training... Your PCA needs to be up to date on the skills needed to care for you or your loved ones . Our Qualified Professional is there for you when that special training need arises. Regardless of which program you choose, you may use the services of our QP/RN for your PCA Supervision. Rise to The Challenge... The Choice program leaves many of the day to day tasks of managing your employees to YOU. Be sure you understand the differences in Traditional & Choice. Let us help you decide which one is right for you.. Staffing Decisions... Managing your own employees gives you the control you need to ensure the best possible compatibility with you and your care givers. The Choice Program makes you responsible for finding your employees. Our company realizes this can be a tough task. With over 200 caregivers employed by our company, we can help you find that “just right” person for the job!

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 9
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Telos

870 W. Center St., Orem, UT, 84057, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

We help teens and young adults dealing with depression, anxiety, social problems, executive function needs and learning differences, get back to a productive life. Our amazing staff use proven clinical therapies coupled with the power of healing relationships to promote deep, lasting change. Our aim is to help students live principle-based lives characterized by insightful choices. Telos is a place where students find clarity, healing, and direction. Combined with the “arm around the shoulder” culture, Telos is a unique, clinically-sophisticated, relationship-based treatment center for teens and young adults ages 13-26.

NAICS: 621
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 166
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-rock-hhc.jpeg
The Rock HHC
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/telos-residential-treatment-center.jpeg
Telos
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 Rock HHC
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Telos
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 Rock HHC in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Telos in 2026.

Incident History — The Rock HHC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Rock HHC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Telos (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Telos cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-rock-hhc.jpeg
The Rock HHC
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/telos-residential-treatment-center.jpeg
Telos
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The Rock HHC company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Telos company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Telos company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The Rock HHC company.

In the current year, Telos company and The Rock HHC company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Telos company nor The Rock HHC company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Telos company nor The Rock HHC company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Telos company nor The Rock HHC company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Rock HHC company nor Telos company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Rock HHC nor Telos holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither The Rock HHC company nor Telos company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Telos company employs more people globally than The Rock HHC company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither The Rock HHC nor Telos holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Rock HHC nor Telos holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Rock HHC nor Telos holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Rock HHC nor Telos holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Rock HHC nor Telos holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Rock HHC nor Telos 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