Comparison Overview

Tree of Life Counseling Center

VS

Mobile Therapy Centers

Tree of Life Counseling Center

2 Paragon Way, Freehold, 07728, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Tree of Life Counseling Center is a family-owned and operated mental health practice providing both talk therapy and medication management. With two beautiful central NJ locations and a growing team of over 65 clinicians, we offer in-person sessions in Freehold and Princeton, NJ and virtual sessions in NJ, NY, PA, and FL. Areas of specialty amongst our team include anxiety, depression, mood disorders, grief, LGBTQIA+, marriage and family counseling, adjustment disorders and stressors, and more. With a versatile and compassionate clinical team, we're here to help you find the right fit—no matter what you're facing.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 68
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Mobile Therapy Centers

854 Technology Way, Libertyville, 60048, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Mobile Therapy Centers of America, LLC (MTC) is a Multidisciplinary Clinic providing ABA Therapy, Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Behavioral Therapy, Feeding Therapy and Counseling. Therapy services are provided at our clinic, at your home, or at your child's school/daycare. We also offer Telehealth services. Over the last 16 years, Mobile Therapy Centers has evolved from a single therapist offering a single service to employing over 100 health professionals, who provide a multitude of high-quality customized therapeutic services throughout Illinois, Wisconsin, Tennessee and branching into other states. Mobile Therapy Centers believes in early detection and appropriate intervention.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 113
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/treeoflifecc.jpeg
Tree of Life Counseling 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/mobile-therapy-centers-of-america.jpeg
Mobile Therapy Centers
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
Tree of Life Counseling Center
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mobile Therapy Centers
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tree of Life Counseling Center in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mobile Therapy Centers in 2026.

Incident History — Tree of Life Counseling Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tree of Life Counseling Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mobile Therapy Centers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mobile Therapy Centers cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/treeoflifecc.jpeg
Tree of Life Counseling Center
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mobile-therapy-centers-of-america.jpeg
Mobile Therapy Centers
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Mobile Therapy Centers company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Tree of Life Counseling Center company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Mobile Therapy Centers company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Tree of Life Counseling Center company.

In the current year, Mobile Therapy Centers company and Tree of Life Counseling Center company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mobile Therapy Centers company nor Tree of Life Counseling Center company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Mobile Therapy Centers company nor Tree of Life Counseling Center company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Mobile Therapy Centers company nor Tree of Life Counseling Center company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Tree of Life Counseling Center company nor Mobile Therapy Centers company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Tree of Life Counseling Center nor Mobile Therapy Centers holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Tree of Life Counseling Center company nor Mobile Therapy Centers company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Mobile Therapy Centers company employs more people globally than Tree of Life Counseling Center company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither Tree of Life Counseling Center nor Mobile Therapy Centers holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Tree of Life Counseling Center nor Mobile Therapy Centers holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Tree of Life Counseling Center nor Mobile Therapy Centers holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Tree of Life Counseling Center nor Mobile Therapy Centers holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Tree of Life Counseling Center nor Mobile Therapy Centers holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Tree of Life Counseling Center nor Mobile Therapy Centers 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