Comparison Overview

United Advocates for Children and Families

VS

C4 Recovery Foundation

United Advocates for Children and Families

2035 Hurley Way, Sacramento, CA, 95825, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

United Advocates for Children and Families (UACF) is a non profit organization with a mission to improve the quality of life for all children and youth with mental, emotional, and behavioral challenges and to eliminate institutional discrimination and social stigma. We are dedicated to empowering parents, caregivers, children, and youth through education, training, and technical assistance programs and services to ensure families are present at every level of decision making. We work to keep families informed on important news and events by providing monthly opportunities for networking and collaboration and extensive communications and outreach efforts . UACF also operates a direct services program for and by families in various counties of the state.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 21
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

C4 Recovery Foundation

414 Ridge St, Algonquin, 60102, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

C4 Recovery Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit organization, is dedicating to improving the access to and the quality of treatment for addictions and related problems. C4 seeks to advance these goals by initiating constructive dialogue among all interested groups; to educate and motivate policy makers to embrace new strategies; and to assist in the design and implementation of programs demonstrating the efficacy of outcomes-based funding for treatment services. C4 hosts major conferences throughout the year, including the West Coast Symposium on Addictive Disorders (www.wcsad.com), the Cape Cod Symposium on Addictive Disorders (www.ccsad.com), the Clinical Overview of the Recovery Experience (CORE), Addiction eXecutives Industry Summit (AXIS) and the Evolution of Addiction Treatment (EVOLUTION). For more information about us and who we are, visit our website at www.c4recovery.org.

NAICS: 62133
NAICS Definition: Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
Employees: 5
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/united-advocates-for-children-and-families.jpeg
United Advocates 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/c4-recovery-solutions.jpeg
C4 Recovery Foundation
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
United Advocates for Children and Families
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
C4 Recovery Foundation
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for United Advocates for Children and Families in 2026.

Incidents vs Mental Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for C4 Recovery Foundation in 2026.

Incident History — United Advocates for Children and Families (X = Date, Y = Severity)

United Advocates for Children and Families cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — C4 Recovery Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

C4 Recovery Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/united-advocates-for-children-and-families.jpeg
United Advocates for Children and Families
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/c4-recovery-solutions.jpeg
C4 Recovery Foundation
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

United Advocates for Children and Families company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to C4 Recovery Foundation company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, C4 Recovery Foundation company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to United Advocates for Children and Families company.

In the current year, C4 Recovery Foundation company and United Advocates for Children and Families company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither C4 Recovery Foundation company nor United Advocates for Children and Families company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither C4 Recovery Foundation company nor United Advocates for Children and Families company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither C4 Recovery Foundation company nor United Advocates for Children and Families company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither United Advocates for Children and Families company nor C4 Recovery Foundation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither United Advocates for Children and Families nor C4 Recovery Foundation holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither United Advocates for Children and Families company nor C4 Recovery Foundation company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

United Advocates for Children and Families company employs more people globally than C4 Recovery Foundation company, reflecting its scale as a Mental Health Care.

Neither United Advocates for Children and Families nor C4 Recovery Foundation holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither United Advocates for Children and Families nor C4 Recovery Foundation holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither United Advocates for Children and Families nor C4 Recovery Foundation holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither United Advocates for Children and Families nor C4 Recovery Foundation holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither United Advocates for Children and Families nor C4 Recovery Foundation holds HIPAA certification.

Neither United Advocates for Children and Families nor C4 Recovery Foundation 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