🎙️ Submit your talks for: OpenSSF Community Day Europe by July 12 | SecurityCon NA by June 21

All Posts By

OpenSSF

What’s in the SOSS? Podcast #51 – S3E3 AIxCC Part 1 – From Skepticism to Success: The AI Cyber Challenge (AIxCC) with Andrew Carney

By Podcast

Summary

This episode of What’s in the SOSS features Andrew Carney from DARPA and ARPA-H, discussing the groundbreaking AI Cyber Challenge (AIxCC). The competition was designed to create autonomous systems capable of finding and patching vulnerabilities in open source software, a crucial effort given the pervasive nature of open source in the tech ecosystem. Carney shares insights into the two-year journey, highlighting the initial skepticism from experts that ultimately turned into belief, and reveals the surprising efficiency of the competing teams, who collectively found over 80% of inserted vulnerabilities and patched nearly 70%, with remarkably low compute costs. The discussion concludes with a look at the next steps: integrating these cyber reasoning systems into the open source community to support maintainers and supercharge automated patching in development workflows.

This episode is part 1 of a four-part series on AIxCC:

Conversation Highlights

00:00 – Introduction and Guest Welcome
00:59 – Guest Background: Andrew Carney’s Role at DARPA/ARPA-H
02:20 – Overview of the AI Cyber Challenge (AIxCC)
03:48 – Competition History and Structure
04:44 – The Value of Skepticism and Surprising Learnings
07:11 – Surprising Efficiency and Low Compute Costs
08:15 – Major Competition Highlights and Results
13:09 – What’s Next: Integrating Cyber Reasoning Systems into Open Source
16:55 – A Favorite Tale of “Robots Gone Bad”
18:37 – Call to Action and Closing Thoughts

Transcript

Intro music & intro clip (00:00)

CRob (00:23)
Welcome, welcome, welcome to What’s in the SOSS, the OpenSSF podcast where I talk to people that are in and around the amazing world of open source software, open source software security and AI security. I have a really amazing guest today, Andrew.

He was one of the leaders that helped oversee this amazing AI competition we’re going to talk to. So let me start off, Andrew, welcome to the show. Thanks for being here.

Andrew Carney (00:57)
Thank you for having me so much, CRob. Really appreciate it.

CRob (00:59)
Yeah, so maybe for our audience that might not be as familiar with you as I am, could you maybe tell us a little bit about yourself, kind of where you work and what types of problems are you trying to solve?

Andrew Carney (01:12)
Yeah, I’m a vulnerability researcher. That’s been the core of my career for the last 20 years. And part of that has had me at DARPA. And now I’m at DARPA and ARPA-H, where I sort of work on cybersecurity research problems focused on national defense and/or health care. So it’s sort of the space that I’ve been living in for the past few years.

CRob (01:28)
That’s an interesting collaboration between those two worlds.

Andrew Carney (01:43)
Yeah, it’s, you know, it’s, I think the vulnerability research and reverse engineering community is, pretty tight, you know, pretty, pretty small. And, a lot of folks across lots of different industries and sectors have similar problems that, you know, we’re able to help with. So, yeah, it’s, it’s exciting to kind of see, see how, how, you know, folks in finance or automotive industry or the energy sector kind of all deal with similar-ish problems, but different scales with different kind of flavors of concerns.

CRob (02:20)
That’s awesome. And so as I mentioned, we were introduced through the AIxCC competition. Maybe for our audience that might not be as familiar, could you maybe give us an overview of AIxCC, the competition, and kind of why you felt this effort was so important and we’ve spent so much time working through this, years.

Andrew Carney (02:42)
Absolutely. I mean, AIxCC, uh, is a competition to create autonomous systems that can find and patch vulnerabilities in source code. Uh, a big part of this competition was focusing on open source software, um, because of how critical it is kind of across our tech ecosystem. It really is sort of like the font of all software.

And so DARPA and ARPA-H and other partners across the federal government, we saw this kind of need to support the open source community and also leverage kind of new technologies on the scene like LLMs. So how do we take these new technologies and apply them in a very principled way to help solve this massive problem? And working with the Linux Foundation and OpenSSF has been a huge piece of that as well. So I really appreciate everything you guys have done throughout the competition.

CRob (03:41)
Thank you.

CRob (03:48)
And maybe could you give us just a little history of when did the competition start and kind of how it was structured?

Andrew Carney (03:54)
Yeah. So the competition was announced at Black Hat in August of 2023. The competition was structured into two main sections. We had a qualifying event at DEF CON in 2024. And then we had our final event this past DEF CON, August 2025. And throughout that two-year period, we designed a competition that kept pushing the competitors sort of ahead of wherever the current models, the current kind of agentic technologies were, whatever that bar they were setting, we continued to push the competitors past that. So it’s been a really dynamic sort of competition because that technology has continued to evolve.

CRob (04:44)
I have to say when I initially heard about the competition, I’ve been doing cybersecurity a very long time. I was very skeptical about what the results will be, not to bury, to bury the lead, so to speak. But I was very surprised with the results that you all shared with the world this summer in Las Vegas. We’ll get to that in a minute. But again, this competition went over many years and as it progressed, could you maybe share what you learned that maybe surprised you, you didn’t expect from when this all kicked off.

Andrew Carney (05:21)
Yeah, think so. I think there have been a lot of surprises along the way. And I’ll also say that, you know, skepticism, especially from, you know, informed experts is a really good sign for a DARPA challenge. So for a lot of projects at DARPA generally, you know, if you’re kind of waffling between this is insanely hard and there’s no way we’ll be successful and this is kind of a much easy, like, you know, there’s an easy solution to this. If you’re constantly in that space of uncertainty, like, no, I really think this is really, really hard. And I’m getting skepticism from people that know a lot about this space. For us, that’s fuel. That’s okay. There is, you know, there’s a question to answer here. And so that really was part of driving us, even competitors, competitors that ended up making it to finals themselves were skeptical even as they were competing.

So I love that. I love that. Like, you know, we want to try to do really hard things and, you know, criticism helps us improve. Like that’s super beneficial.

CRob (06:33)
Yeah, it was, and I’ve had the opportunity to talk with many of the teams and now we’re in the phase post-competition where we’re actually starting to figure out how to share the results with the upstream projects and how to build communities around these tools. you assembled a really amazing group of folks in these competitive teams, some super top-notch minds. again,

You made me a believer now, where I really do believe that AI does have a place and can legitimately offer some real value to the world in this space.

Andrew Carney (07:11)
Yeah, think one of the biggest surprises for me was the efficiency. I think a lot of times, especially with DARPA programs, we expect that technical miracles will come with a pretty hefty price tag. And then you’ll have to find a way to scale down, to economize, to make that technology more useful, more more widely kind of distributable.

With AIxCC, we found the teams pushing so hard on the core kind of research questions, but at the same time, sort of woven into that was using their resources efficiently. And so even the competition results themselves were pleasantly surprising in terms of the compute costs for these systems to run. We’re talking tens to hundreds of dollars.

vulnerability discovered or patch emitted, which is really quite amazing.

CRob (08:15)
Yeah, so maybe could you just give me some highlights of kind of what the competition discovered, what the competitors achieved?

Andrew Carney (08:24)
Yeah. So I think when we’re trying to tackle these really challenging research questions and we’re examining it from all angles and being extremely critical of even our own approach, as well as the competitors’ approaches, that initially back in August of 2024, we had this amazing proof of life moment where the teams demonstrated with only a few hundred dollars in total compute budget.

that they were able to analyze large open source projects and find real issues. One of the teams found a real issue in SQLite that we had disclosed at the time to the maintainers. And they found that, once again, with this very limited compute budget across multiple millions of lines of code in these projects. So that was sort of the OK, there’s a there there, like there’s something here and we can keep pushing. So that was a really exciting moment for everyone. And then over the following year, up to August 2025, we had a series of these non-scoring events where the teams would be given challenges that looked very similar to what we’d give them for finals with an increasing level of scale and difficulty.

So you can think of these as like extreme integration events where we’re still giving the teams hundreds of thousands or millions of lines of code. We’re giving them, you know, eight to 12 hours per kind of task. And we’re seeing what they can do. This was important to ensure that the final competition went off without a hitch. And also because the models they were leveraging continue to evolve and change.

So it was really exciting. In that process, the teams found and disclosed hundreds of vulnerabilities and produced hundreds of potential patches that they would offer up to maintainers of the projects that they were doing their own internal kind of development on. So that was really exciting just to see that the SQLite bug wasn’t a fluke and that the teams could consistently kind of perform and keep pushing as we push them to move further and faster and deal with more complex code, they were able to adapt and find a way forward.

CRob (11:02)
That’s awesome. And I know you had, it was a long journey that you and the team and all the support folks went through, but is there any particular moment that kind of you smile on when you reflect on over the course of the competition?

Andrew Carney (11:20)
Oh, man, so many. I think there’s an equal number of like those smiling moments and also, you know, premature gray hairs that the team and myself have created. But I think one of the big moments, there were a number of just outstanding kind of experts in the field on social media.

in talks that would, the way that they talked about kind of AI powered program analysis was very skeptical. near the end, leading up to semi-finals, we had this lovely moment where the Google project zero team and the Google deep mind teams penned a blog post that said that they were inspired by one of the teams, by the SQL light bug, by one of the team’s discoveries. And that was huge, I think both for that team and just the competition as a whole. And then after that, seeing people’s opinions change and seeing people that had held, that were, like I said, top tier experts in the field, change their perspective pretty drastically, which that was, you know, that was helpful signal for us to demonstrate that we were being successful. Like converting a critic, I think, is one of the best kind of victories that you can have. Because now they can be a collaborator, right? Like now we can still kind of spar over different perspectives or ideas, but now we’re working together. That’s very exciting.

CRob (13:09)
That’s awesome. So what’s next? The hard work of the competition is over and now we’re in kind of the after action phase where we’re trying to integrate all this great work and kind of get these projects out to the world to use. So from your perspective or from DARPA or the competition, what’s next for you?

Andrew Carney (13:29)
Yeah, so one of the biggest challenges with DARPA programs is when you’re successful, sometimes you have that technological miracle, you have that accomplishment, and maybe the world’s not entirely ready for it yet. Or maybe there’s additional development that needs to happen to get it kind of into the real world. With AIxCC, we made the competition as realistic as possible. The automated systems, these cyber reasoning systems, were being given bug reports, they’re being given patch diffs, they’re being given artifacts that we would consume and review as human developers. So we modeled all the tasks very closely to the real things that we would want these systems to do. And they demonstrated incredible kind of performance. Collectively, the teams were able to find over 80 % of the vulnerabilities that we’d synthetically kind of inserted. And they patched nearly 70 % of those vulnerabilities. And that patching piece is so critical. What we didn’t want to do was create systems that made open source maintainers lives more problematic.

CRob (14:54)
Thank you.

Andrew Carney (14:56)
We wanted to demonstrate that this is a reachable bug and here’s a candidate patch. And in the months after the competition, we’ve incentivized the teams further than just the original prize money to go out into the open source community and support open source maintainers with their tools. And we’ve had folks come back and literally in their kind of reports, document that the patch they suggested to a maintainer was nearly identical to what the maintainer actually committed. Yeah. And those reports are coming in daily. So we’re getting, we have this constant feed of engagement and the tools are still obviously being improved and developed. But it’s really exciting to see it. So when I think about what’s next is like we’re already in the what’s next like getting the technology out there, using government funding to support open source maintainers wherever we can, especially if their code is part of widely used applications or code used in critical infrastructure. So that’s where we find ourselves now. And then we’re thinking a lot about how we supercharge that effort to the…

there have been, you the federal government supports a lot of actively used open source projects, right? And we’ve been working with all these partner agencies across the federal government and just making sure that we’re supporting the existing programs when we find them. And then where we see a gap, kind of figuring out what it would take to fill that gap that community that could use more support.

CRob (16:55)
So on a slightly different note, we’re both technologists and we love the field, but as I was going through this journey, kind of on the sidelines with you all, I was reflecting, do you have a a favorite tale of robots gone bad? Like Terminator’s Skynet or HAL 9000 or the Butlerian Jihad?

Andrew Carney (17:22)
That’s a, you know, I think I, I’ll, I don’t know that this is my favorite, but it is one of the most recent ones that I’ve read. There’s a series called Dungeon Crawler Carl. Yeah. And it’s been really like entertaining reading. And I just think the tension between the primal AIs and the corporations that rely on said independent entities, but also are constantly trying to rein them in is, I don’t know, it’s been really interesting to see that narrative evolve.

CRob (18:08)
I’ve always enjoyed science fiction and fantasy’s ability to kind of hold a mirror up to society and kind of put these questions in a safe space where you can kind of think about 1984 and Big Brother or these other things, but it’s just in paper or on your iPad or whatever. So it’s a nice experiment over there. And we don’t want that to be happening here.

Andrew Carney (18:29)
Yes, yes. Yeah, the fiction as thought experimentation, right?

CRob (18:37)
Right, exactly. So as we wind down, do you have a particular call to action or anything you want to highlight to the audience that they should maybe investigate a little further or participate in?

Andrew Carney (18:50)
Yeah, I think so a big one is, you know, we would love for open source maintainers to reach out to us directly. AIXCC at DARPA.mil. That’s the email address that our team uses. And we’ve been looking for more maintainers to connect with so that we can make sure that if we can provide resources to them, one, that they’re right sized for the challenges that those maintainers are having, or maintainer, right? Sometimes it’s just one person. And then two, that we’re engaging with them in the way that they would prefer to be engaged with. We want to be helpful help, not unhelpful help. So that’s a big one. And then I think in more generally, I would love to see more patching added into the kind of vulnerability research lifecycle. I think there’s so many opportunities for commercial and open source tools that have that discovery capability and that’s really their big selling point. And now with AIxCC and with the technology that the competitors open source themselves, since all of their systems were open sourced after the competition, there’s this real potential, I think that we haven’t seen it realized the way that it really could be. And so that’s, I would love to see more of that kind of automated patching added to tools and kind of development workflows.

CRob (20:29)
I’ll say my personal favorite experience out of all this is now that the competition, the minute the competition was over, then there was an ethical wall up between, you your administrators and us and the different competition teams. But now I’ve, we’ve observed the competitors, like looking at each other’s work and asking questions to each other and collaborating. that is, I’m so super excited to see what comes next. Now that all these smart people have proven themselves. and they found kind of connected spirits and they’re gonna start working together for even more amazing things.

Andrew Carney (21:07)
Absolutely. I think we’re expecting a state of knowledge paper with all the teams as authors. That’s something they’ve organized independently, to your point. And yeah, I cannot wait to see what they come out with collaboratively.

CRob (21:23)
Yeah. And anyone that’s interested to learn more or potentially directly interact with some of these competition experts, whether they’re in academia or industry, the OpenSSF is sponsoring as part of our AI ML working group. We’ve created a cyber reasoning special interest group specifically for the competition, all the competitors, and just to have public discussions and collaboration around these things. And we would invite everybody to show up and listen and participate as they feel comfortable and learn.

Well, Andrew and the whole DARPA and ARPA-H team, everyone that was involved in the competition, thank you. Thank you to our competitors. And we actually are going to have a series of podcasts talking to the individual competitors, kind of learning a little bit of the unique flavors and challenges these had. But thank you for sponsoring this and kind of really delivering something I think is going to have a ton of utility and value to the ecosystem.

Andrew Carney (21:47)
Thank you for working with us on this journey and we definitely look forward to more collaboration in the future.

CRob (21:54)
Well, and with that, we’ll wrap it up. I just want to tell everybody happy open sourcing. We’ll talk to you soon.

What’s in the SOSS? Podcast #50 – S3E2 Demystifying the CFP Process with KubeCon North America Keynote Speakers

By Podcast

Summary

Ever wondered what it takes to get your talk accepted at a major open source tech conference – or even land a keynote slot? Join What’s in the SOSS new co-host Sally Cooper, as she sits down with Stacey Potter and Adolfo “Puerco” GarcĂ­a Veytia, fresh off their viral KubeCon keynote “Supply Chain Reaction.” In this episode, they pull back the curtain on the CFP review process, share what makes a strong proposal stand out, and offer honest advice about overcoming imposter syndrome. Whether you’re a first-time speaker or a seasoned presenter, you’ll learn practical tips for crafting compelling abstracts, avoiding common pitfalls, and why your unique voice matters more than you think.

Conversation Highlights

00:00 – Introduction and Guest Welcome
01:40 – Meet the Keynote Speakers
05:27 – Why CFPs Matter for Open Source Communities
08:29 – Inside the Review Process: What Reviewers Look For
14:29 – Crafting a Strong Abstract: Dos and Don’ts
21:05 – From Regular Talk to Keynote: What Changed
25:24 – Conquering Imposter Syndrome
29:11 – Rapid Fire CFP Tips
30:45 – Upcoming Speaking Opportunities
33:08 – Closing Thoughts

Transcript

Music & Soundbyte 00:00
Puerco: Stop trying to blend or to mimic what you think the industry or your community wants from you. Represent – always show up who you are, where you came from – that is super valuable and that’s why people will always want to have you as part of their program.

Sally Cooper (00:20)
Hello, hello, and welcome back to What’s in the SOSS, an OpenSSF podcast. I’m Sally and I’ll be your host today. And we have a very, very special episode with two amazing guests and they are returning guests, which is my favorite, Stacey and Puerco. Welcome back by popular demand. Thank you for joining us for a second time on the podcast.

And since we last talked, you both delivered one of the most talked about keynote at KubeCon. Wow. So today’s episode, we’re going to talk to you about CFPs. And this is really an episode for anyone who has ever hesitated to submit a CFP, wondered how to get their talk reviewed through the CFP process. Asked themselves, am I ready to speak? Or dreamed about what it might take to keynote a major event.

We’re gonna focus on practical advice, what works, what doesn’t, and how to show up confidently. And I’m just so excited to talk to you both. So for anyone who’s listening for the first time, Stacey, Puerco, can you tell us a little bit about yourselves? and about the keynote. Stacey

Stacey (01:48)
Hey everyone, I’m Stacey Potter. I am the Community Manager here at OpenSSF. And my job, I mean, in a nutshell is basically to make security less scary and more accessible for everyone at open source, right? I’ve spent the last six or seven years in open source community building across mainly CNCF projects, Flux, Flagr, OpenFeature, Captain to name a few.

And now focusing on open source security here at OpenSSF. Basically helping people connect, learn, and just do cool things together. And yeah, and I delivered a keynote at KubeCon North America that was honestly, it’s still surreal to talk about. It was called Supply Chain Reaction, a cautionary tale in case security, and it was theatrical. It was…slightly ridiculous. And it was basically a story of a DevOps engineer who I played the DevOps engineer, even though I’m not a DevOps engineer, frantically troubleshooting a compromised deployment. And Puerto literally kaboomed onto the stage as a Luchador superhero to save the day. had him in costume and we had drama.

And then we taught people a little bit about supply chain security through like B-movie antics and theatrics. But it turns out people really responded to making security fun and approachable instead of terrifying.

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (03:23)
Yeah. Well, hi, and thanks everybody for listening. My name is Adolfo GarcĂ­a-Veytia. I am a software engineer working out of Mexico City. I’ve been working on open source security for, I don’t know, the past eight years or so, mainly on Kubernetes, and I maintain a couple of the technical initiatives here in the OpenSSF.

I am now part of the Governing Board as starting of this year, which is a great honor to have been voted into that position. But my real passion is really helping build tools that secure open source while being unobtrusive to developers and also raising awareness in the open source community about why security is important.

Because sometimes you will see that especially executives, CISOs, and they are compelled by legal frameworks or other requirements to make their products or projects secure. And in open source, we’re always so resource constrained that security tends to be not the first thing on people’s minds. But the good news is that here in the OpenSSF and other groups, we’re working to make that easy and transparent for the real person as much as possible.

Sally Cooper (04:57)
Wow, thank you both so much. Okay, so getting back to call for proposals, CFPs. From my perspective, they can seem really intimidating, but they’re also one of the most important ways for new voices to enter community. So I just have a couple questions. Basically, like, why are they important? So not just about like going to a conference, but why is it important to get

Why would a CFP be important to an open source community and not just a conference? Stacy, maybe you could kick that off.

Stacey (05:32)
Sure, I think this is a really important question. I think CFPs aren’t just about filling conference slots. They’re really about who gets to shape the narrative in our communities and within these conferences. So when we hear the same voices over and over and they show up repeatedly, right, you get the same perspectives, the same solutions, the same energy, which, you know, is also great. You know, we love our regular speakers, they’re brilliant, but

communities always need new and fresh perspectives, right? We need the people who just solved a weird edge case that nobody’s talking about. We need like a maintainer from a smaller project who has insights that maybe big projects haven’t considered, or, you know, we need people from different backgrounds, different use cases and different parts of the world as well. CFPs are honestly one of the most democratic ways we have to surface new leaders, right?

Sometimes someone doesn’t need to be well-connected or have a huge social media following. They just need a good idea and the courage to submit a talk about it, right? And that’s really powerful. And I think when someone gives their first talk and does well, they often become a mentor, a maintainer, a leader in that community, right? CFPs are literally how we build the next generation of contributors and speakers. So every talk is a potential origin story for someone’s open source journey.

Sally Cooper (07:08)
Puerco, what are your thoughts on that?

Sally Cooper (07:11)
And the question again is call for proposals can feel really intimidating, but they’re also one of the most important ways for new voices to enter a community.

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (07:20)
Yeah. So, I would say that intimidating is a very big word, especially for new people. maybe, Sometimes it’s difficult to ramp up the courage and I don’t want to mislead people into thinking it’s going to be easy. The first ones that you do, you will get up there, sweat, stutter, and basically your emotions will control your delivery and your body, so be prepared for that.

But it’s going to be fine. The next times you’ll do it, it will get better. And most importantly, people will not be judging you. In fact, it’s sometimes even more refreshing to see new voices getting up on stage.

Sally Cooper (08:13)
That’s really helpful. Thank you. I love it. The authenticity that you bring really helps and helps demystify the CFP process. But now let’s pull back the curtain on the review process. How does that work? And Stacey, have you been on a review panel before? Maybe you could talk about like, when you’re reviewing a CFP, what are you actually looking for?

Stacey (08:39)
Yeah, I’ve been on program committees. I’ve been on a program chair or co-chair on different programs and things like that. yeah, it’s a totally different experience, but I think it gives you lot of insight on how to prepare a talk once you’ve reviewed 75, 80 per session, right? It’s sometimes these calls are really big. I know KubeCon has really huge calls, right? But I would say, you know what we’re actually looking for:

So first, is this topic relevant and useful to our audience? Like, will people learn something they can actually apply? And second, like, can this person deliver on what they’re promising? And honestly, we’re looking we’re not looking for perfection, right? We’re looking for clarity and genuine expertise or experience like with that topic.

I would say be clear, be specific with your value proposition in the first two sentences of a CFP. When the program committee can read your abstract and immediately think, “oh that’s exactly what our attendees need,” right? That’s like gold, right? Also, when somebody shows that they understand the audience, that they’re they’re submitting to, right? Are you speaking to beginners or experienced practitioners and being explicit about that?

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (10:16)
Yeah, I think it’s important for applicants to understand who is going to be reviewing your papers. There are many kinds of conferences and I would… So ours, even though, of course, there’s commercial behind it because you have to sustain the event, like everybody involved in… Especially in the Linux Foundation conferences, I feel…

we put a lot of effort into making the conferences really community events. And I would like to distinguish the difference, like really make a clear cut between what is academic conferences, like purely trade show conferences and these community events. And especially in academia, there’s this hierarchical view of peers.

assessing what you’re doing. In pure trade show conferences, it’s mostly pay to play, I would say. And when you get down to community, especially if you ever applied to present or submit papers to the other kinds of conferences, you will be expecting completely different things. It’s easy to forget that people looking at your work, at your proposals, at your ideas is very, very close and very, very similar to you.

So don’t expect to be talking to some higher being that understands things much better than you. First of all, it’s not one person. It’s all of us reading your CFPs. keeping that in mind, what you need to keep like consider when submitting is what makes my proposal unique. I think that’s a key question. And we can talk more about that in the later topics, but I feel, to me, when I understood that it was sometimes even my friends reviewing my proposal made it so much easier.

Stacey (12:20)
Yeah, I think that’s a really, really good point Peurco makes is knowing that whatever conference you’re submitting for typically, and I say this like if it’s a Linux Foundation event, right? Because those are the ones that I’ve been most involved with. The program committee members are from within the community. They are, they submit an application to say, hey, yes, I would love to review talks. This is like me volunteering my time to help out this conference. Maybe they’re not able to make the conference.

Maybe they are, maybe they’re also submitting a talk. But usually the panel of reviewers is like five, six, up to 10 people, I would say, depending on the size of the conference. So you’re getting a wide range of perspectives reading through your submissions. And I think that’s really important. When I’m trying to select the program committee, I think it’s really important to diversify as well, right? So have voices from all over – different backgrounds, different expertise, different genders, just as much variance as you can have within the program committee panel, I think also makes a difference with the CFP reviews themselves, right?

But that’s kind of how it’s set up, is you pick these five to 10 people to review all of these CFPs, they have usually, it’s like a week or something like that to review everything, and then they rate it on a scale. And then that’s kind of how the program chairs then arrange the schedule is based off of all that feedback. You can make notes in each of the talks that you’re reviewing, you know, put those in there and then, and that’s basically how they’re all chosen. They’re ranked and they have notes, right, within that system.

Sally Cooper (14:08)
Wow, this is really educational. Thank you so much. For folks that are staring at a CFP right now, because there’s some coming up, and I think we’re going to get into that. Let’s get practical. What makes a strong abstract? How technical is too technical? How much storytelling belongs in a CFP? And what are some red flags that you might see in submissions?

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (14:34)
So, the first big no-no in community events is don’t pitch your product. Even if you trying to disguise it as a community event, the reviewers will … You have to keep in mind that reviewers have a lot of work in front of them. I am sure people, there are all sorts of reviewers, but usually as a reviewer, you see that folks put a lot of effort into crafting their proposals.

If you pitch your product, which is against the rules in most conferences, in the community conferences, the reviewer will instantly mark your proposal down. We can sniff it right away. You have to understand that for us, the more invalid proposals we can get out of the way as soon as possible, that will happen. If it is a product pitch, just don’t.

And then the next one is you have to be clear and concise in the first paragraph or sentence even. So when a reviewer reads your proposal, make sure that the first paragraph gives you an idea of, so this is going to be, I’ll talk about this and it’s gonna like…inspect the problem from this side or whatever, but give me that idea. And then you can develop the idea a little bit more on the next couple of paragraphs, but make sure that the idea of the talk is delivered right away. I have more, but I don’t know, Stacey, if you want to.

Stacey (16:20)
Yeah, no, I think that’s really good advice. would say whatever conference that you’re submitting, being on so many different program committees, I’ve seen the same talk submitted to every conference that has an Open CFP, regardless of the talk being specific to that conference or not. So think that’s key number one is make sure that what you’re submitting fits within the conference itself.

I think not doing a product pitch is key – especially within an open source community, open CFP, right? Those are only for open source, for non-product pitches. I think Puerco makes a really good point with that. But, you know, like, is this conference that I’m submitting this talk to higher level? Is it super technical and adjusting for those differences, right? A lot of times you’ll find in the CFPs that there is room to submit a beginner level, an intermediate level, an advanced level, but typically the conference description and the categories and things like this, you want to be very specific when you’re writing your CFP. You could sometimes you reuse the same CFP you’ve submitted to another conference, but you want to tailor it to each specific conference that you are submitting for.

Don’t just submit the same talk to five different conferences because they are unique, they are specific and you want to make sure that if you want your talk accepted, these are the little changes that make a big difference on really getting down to the brass tacks of what that conference is about and what they’re really looking for. So I always have to, when I’m writing something and when I’m looking at a conference to write it for, I have the CFP page up, I have the about page up for that conference and I’m making sure that it fits within what they’re asking me for, really.

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (18:20)
Yeah. And I just remember another one. And this is mostly, this happens most in the bigger ones, like the Cubicums and so on. Don’t try to slop your way into the conference. if you, I mean, it’s like, I’d rather see a proposal with bad English-ing or typos than something that was generated with AI. And I’ll tell you why.

It’s not because like, pure hates of AI or whatever. no. The problem with running your proposal into an LLM is that most of the time, so you have to keep in mind, especially in the big conferences, you will be submitting a proposal about the subject that probably then other people will be trying to talk about the same thing. And what will get you picked is your capability of expressing like…getting into the problem from a unique way, your personality, all of those things.

When you run the proposal through the LLM, it just erases them. All sorts of personal, like the uniqueness that you can give it will just be removed. And then it’ll be just like looking at the hollow doll of some of the person and you will not stand out.

Stacey (19:38)
Yeah, I agree completely – and…is it a terrible thing to have AI help you with some of the editing? No, not at all. But write your proposal first. Write it from your heart. Write it from your point of view. Write it from your angle. But do not create it in AI, in the chatbots. Create it from yourself first, and then ask for editing help. That’s fine.

I think a lot of us do that and a lot of people out there are using it for that extra pair of eyes. Do I sound crazy here? Does this make any sense? I don’t know how to word this one particular sentence. That’s fine. But yeah, don’t start that way.

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (20:19)
Exactly. mean, and just to make it super clear, it’s not that, especially people whose first language is not English like me. I of course use help of some of those things to like at least don’t like introduce many types or whatnot, but just as Stacey said, don’t create it there.

Sally Cooper (20:41)
This is great advice. Thank you both so much. Okay. How about getting accepted for a keynote? Like your KubeCon keynote really stood out. It was technical. It was really funny. memorable, engaging. How does someone prepare a keynote that differs from a regular talk?

Stacey (21:03)
Well, I want to start off by saying that we didn’t know, we weren’t submitting our talk for a keynote, right? We didn’t even know that that was like in the realm of possibility that could happen for KubeCon North America. We just submitted a talk that we thought would be fun, would be good, would give like, you know, some real world kind of vibes and that we wanted to have fun and we wanted to, you know, create a fun yet educational talk.

We had literally no idea that we could possibly have that talk accepted as a keynote. I didn’t know that. And this was my first real big talk. So it was a complete shock to me. I don’t know if you have other thoughts about that, but…

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (21:50)
Yeah, it sort of messes your plans because you had the talk planned for say 35 minutes and then you have 15 and you already had like 10 times more jokes that could fit into the 35 minutes. So, well…and then there’s also, course, like all of those things that we talked about, like getting nervous. Well, they not only come back, but they multiply in a huge way. I mean, you’ve been there. I don’t know. You get over it.

Stacey (22:28)
I would also say that once we found out that our talk was accepted first, were like, yay, our talk got accepted. And then I think it was like a few days later, they were like, no, no, your talk is now a keynote. So we freaked out, right? We had our little moment of panic. But then we just worked on it. And we worked on it, and we worked on it, and we worked on it, right? So not waiting till the last minute, I would say, to prep your talk.

But we…I think my main goal with this talk, and I have to give so much credit to Puerco because he’s such a good storyteller and he does it in such a humorous, but really technical and sound way. And we worked on this script. We wrote out an entire script because we only had 15 minutes. We went from a 25 minute talk to a 15 minute talk.

And so…pacing was really important, storytelling was really important, but also being funny was like something that I really wanted us to have, which Puerco was really good at too. And I think all of these things trying to squash it down into this 15 minutes was really tough, but I think that’s important to remember about keynotes versus talks is I think keynotes are more like, what is this experience of the talk about? Versus like, let’s get down to really technical details, right? You can do a technical talk that’s 25, 35, 45 minutes, but it’s a keynote. People aren’t going to remember anything from a keynote if you’re digging too, getting too deep in the weeds, right? So that was my focus. And I don’t know, Puerco, if you have anything else to add to that.

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (24:10)
Yeah, the other is that the audience is so much bigger that your responsibility just grows, especially to deliver, right? So as Stacey said, we actually wrote the script, rehearsed online, in person before the conference. And the experience also in the conference is very different because you have to show up early, you have to do a rehearsal in the prior days before your actual talk. And that’s said – nothing like it didn’t go perfect.
Like we still fumbled here and there and like messed up some of the details and the pacing and whatnot. it’s, I don’t know, at least in our case, it was about having fun and trying to get some of that fun into the attendees.

Sally Cooper (25:01)
Yeah, you really did. It was so fun. I think that’s what stood out.

Okay, one of the biggest barriers to submitting a CFP isn’t skill, it’s confidence. So what would you say to someone who feels like, I’m not expert enough. I don’t know if I have permission to do this. What you know, how do they deal? How do you personally deal with imposter syndrome? And why is it important to make sure that those new and diverse voices do submit at CFP?

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (25:27)
Oh, I’m an expert. So the first thing to remember, kids, is that Impostor Syndrome will never go away. In fact, you don’t want it to ever go away. Because Impostor Syndrome tells you something very, very important. And that is you are being critical of yourself, of your work, of your ideas. And if you ever stop doing that,

It means one, you don’t really understand the problem or the vastness of the problem that you’re trying to speak about and to talk about in your talk. And the other is you will stop looking for new and innovative ideas. So no matter where you get to, that imposter syndrome will ever be with you.

Stacey (26:20)
I agree. I don’t think it ever goes away. I feel like, you know, I was an imposter at the keynote. Absolutely was, right? Like, I didn’t know what the heck I was doing. I didn’t know what the heck I was saying half the time. I mean, I tried to memorize my lines and do the right thing and come off as this expert. I never, ever feel like an expert about anything, right? Unless I’m talking, I guess, about my cats or my kid or something.

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (26:47)
Yeah, exactly.

Stacey (26:49)
But yeah, think that’s, yeah, you’re pushing yourself to grow and that’s a good thing, right? So if you feel like an imposter, you know, that’s okay. And we all feel like that.

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (27:04)
Yeah. And the other, yeah, the other very important thing is think about what you are proposing to, to, to talk about in your talk. it’s supposed to be like new cutting edge stuff, like it’s something interesting, something unique. so it’s okay to feel about that because it’s, it’s a problem that you’re still researching that you’re trying to understand, that – especially think about – think about it this way.
If you propose any subject for your talk, anybody that goes there is more or less assuming that they want to know and learn more about it. if you feel confident enough to speak about it, like people will respond by willingness to attend your talk. That means you are already one little bit of a level above because you’ve done that research, you’ve done that in-depth dive into the subject. So it’s fine.

It’s fine to feel it. I realized that it’s a natural thing.

Stacey (28:05)
And most of the people in the audience are there to support you, to cheer you on, and are not gonna harp on you or say, oh gosh, you messed up this thing or that thing. They’re really there to give you kudos and really support you and be willing to hear and listen to what you have to say.

Sally Cooper (28:25)
Love that. Okay, let’s close the advice portion with a quick round of CFP tips rapid fire style. I’m going to go back and forth so each person can answer. Stacey will start with you. One thing every CFP should do.

Stacey (28:43)
I mean, get to the point as quickly as you possibly can. That would be my thing, right?

Sally Cooper (29:48)
Love it. Puerco, one thing people should stop doing in CFPs.

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (28:55)
Stop trying to blend or to mimic what you think the industry or your community wants from you. Represent. Always show off who you are, who you came from. That is super valuable and that’s why people will always want to have you as part of a program.

Sally Cooper (29:13)
Stacy, one piece of advice you wish you’d received earlier.

Stacey (29:18)
gosh, would say rejection is normal and not personal. I wish someone had told me that earlier, but that is one big, experience. Speakers get rejected all the time, right? It’s not about your worth. It’s about program balance, timing, and fit. So keep submitting.

Sally Cooper (29:39)
Okay, Puerco and Stacey, both got famous after this Puerco selfie or autograph?

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (29:44)
Selfie with a crazy face, at least get your tongue out or something.

Sally Cooper (29:50)
Stacey. KubeCon or KoobCon?

Stacey (29:54)
Oh gosh, I feel like this is like JIFF or GIF. And I’m in the GIF camp, by the way. I say KubeCon, even though I know it’s “Coo”-bernetes, I still say CubeCon, so.

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (30:07)
CubeCon, please.

Sally Cooper (30:09)
Okay, before we wrap up, Stacey, as the OpenSSF Community Manager, can you share some upcoming CFPs and speaking opportunities people should keep an eye on?

Stacey (30:19)
Yeah, so Open Source Summit North America is a pretty large event. I think it’s taking place in Minneapolis in May this year. There’s multiple tracks and there’s lots of opportunities for different types of talks. The CFP is currently open right now, but it does close February 9th. So go and check out the Linux Foundation Open Source Summit North America for that one.

We also have OpenSSF Community Days, which are co-located events at Open Source Summit North America, typically. And these are our events that we hold kind of around the world, but honestly, they’re perfect for first-time speakers as well. They’re smaller, they’re more intimate, and the community is super supportive. Our CFP for Community Day North America is February 15th. So go ahead and…search for that online. You can find them, and we’ll put the links in the description of this podcast so you can find that.

And then be on the lookout for key conferences later on in the year as well. KubeCon North America will be coming up later. Open Source Summit Europe is coming up later in the year. So be on the lookout for those. There’s also within the security space, I know there’s a lot of B-sides conferences and KCDs, which are Kubernetes community days and DevOps days.

If you’re in our OpenSSF Slack, we have a #cfp-nnounce channel that we try and promote and try and put out as many CFPs as we can to let people know that if you’re in our community and you want to submit talks regarding some of our projects or working groups or just OpenSSF in general, that CFP Announce channel is really a great place to keep checking.

Sally Cooper (32:13)
Amazing. Thank you both so much, not just for the insights, but for really making the CFP process feel more approachable and human. If you’re listening to this and you’ve been on the fence about submitting a CFP, let this be your sign. We really need your voice and thank you both so much.

Stacey (33:32)
Thank you.

Adolfo GarcĂ­a Veytia (@puerco) (33:33)
Thank you.

OpenSSF Newsletter – January 2026

By Newsletter

Welcome to the January 2026 edition of the OpenSSF Newsletter. This issue highlights new research, community priorities, and upcoming events across the open source security ecosystem.

TL;DR:

📊 2026 Cyber Resiliency Survey → Measure the awareness of CRA

🧭 OpenSSF 2026 Themes → What’s ahead and how to get involved

🔎 OSS Africa, VEX, AI & OSPS Baseline → Practical blogs and podcast highlights

🌍 Events & Community → GVIP Summit, EU Policy Summit, FOSDEM, Open Source SecurityCon Europe, CFPs, and project updates

OpenSSF and Linux Foundation Research: 2026 Cyber Resiliency Survey

As cybersecurity legislation such as the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) takes effect, open source communities are beginning to feel its impact, from maintainers and contributors to organizations that rely on open source every day. Building on last year’s inaugural study, Linux Foundation Research and OpenSSF are again inviting the community to share perspectives through a new survey focused on awareness and readiness for cybersecurity regulation.

Your perspective matters. By participating, you help strengthen shared understanding, surface real community needs, and support the open source ecosystem as it navigates emerging regulatory challenges. Take the Survey.

OpenSSF at FOSDEM 2026: From Policy to Practical Security

OpenSSF is heading to Brussels for FOSDEM 2026 and Open Source Week, building on last year’s momentum around practical open source security, CRA readiness, and community-driven solutions. Expect strong presence across policy and technical devrooms, a joint booth with Linux Foundation Europe (K2-A-03), and active participation in key events like the GVIP Summit and EU Open Source Policy Summit. The focus this year: turning regulation and security best practices into real, usable tooling and guidance for maintainers and projects. Read the blog.

OpenSSF’s 2026 Themes: A Community Roadmap for Securing the Future of Open Source

Curious about what security topics will shape the open source world in 2026 and how you can be part of it? Read about OpenSSF’s quarterly themes from AI and ML security to vulnerability transparency, global policy alignment, and Baseline adoption. This blog also highlights key events, community activities, and how to get involved. Read more.

Signal in the Noise: An Industry-Wide Perspective on the State of VEX

Key stakeholders, Aubrey Olandt (Red Hat), Brandon Lum (Google), Charl de Nysschen (Google), Christoph Plutte (Ericsson), Georg Kunz (Ericsson), Jonathan Douglas (Microsoft), Jautau “Jay” White (Microsoft), Martin Prpič (Red Hat), and Rao Lakkakula (Microsoft) look at how VEX is developing across the software industry. VEX provides structured, machine-readable statements about whether a vulnerability affects a product. It can reduce false positives and cut down the workload for security teams, but adoption is still uneven. This report reviews the main VEX formats CSAF, OpenVEX, CycloneDX, and SPDX and highlights gaps in tooling, trust, and distribution. Read more.

Catching Malicious Package Releases Using a Transparency Log

In this guest blog from Trail of Bits, learn how transparency logs like Rekor, combined with tools such as rekor-monitor, help package maintainers spot tampering and unauthorized signatures in real time. With support from OpenSSF, new improvements make monitoring easier, more reliable, and ready for production, an important step toward securing the open source software supply chain.

Read the full blog to see how transparency logs work, why they matter, and what’s coming next.

AI, Software Development, Security, Tips, and the Future (Part 1 & 2)

How is AI really changing software development today? In “AI, Software Development, Security, Tips, and the Future (Part 1)”, David A. Wheeler notes that AI use during software development has become the norm because “productivity is king,” even though AI-generated results are frequently wrong, and discusses the security risks around development environments and insecure generated code. In Part 2, he continues by offering practical tips on how developers can better use AI, touches on licensing and “vibe coding,” and looks toward the future, explaining that AI won’t replace developers anytime soon, but will increase both attack and defense capabilities in software security. If you haven’t read both blogs yet, they provide a clear, realistic view of how AI is affecting software today and what developers should be thinking about next.

Your Guide to the OpenSSF OSPS Baseline for More Secure Open Source Projects

BaselineGuideWhat does good security actually look like for open source projects? This new blog walks through the community-developed OSPS Baseline, a catalog of practical security controls that helps projects understand expectations, improve over time, and meet users where they are. With FOSS in up to 96% of modern codebases and relied on across nearly every industry, the blog explains why shared security practices matter and how the Baseline connects to standards like NIST SSDF, the EU Cyber Resilience Act, and ISO 27001. It also links to keynotes, a tech talk, a podcast, a real project case study, and FAQs so you can see how the Baseline works in practice. Read the blog.

Collecting Badges, Building Bridges: Representing OpenSSF and Linux Foundation Across Europe

How does it feel to represent a global open source security community across Europe? In his blog, Madalin Neag reflects on attending key open source, cybersecurity, and standardization meetings on behalf of OpenSSF throughout 2025. He describes how each conference badge represents conversations, collaboration, and the growing understanding that open source security is becoming an essential part of Europe’s cybersecurity future. The blog highlights the connections formed between maintainers, policymakers, standards groups, and community leaders, and shows how work in open source security bridges policy and practice across many different environments. Read more.

Strengthening Open Source Security Through Community: Introducing OSSAfrica

OSSAfrica is a new community-led initiative working to strengthen open source security across Africa by connecting contributors, maintainers, developers, and security practitioners. Operating as a Special Interest Group under the OpenSSF BEAR Working Group, OSSAfrica focuses on community building, security awareness, locally relevant solutions, and creating clear pathways for African contributors to engage in global open source security efforts. Learn why this work matters, what’s being built, and how you can get involved. Read the blog.

Preserving Open Source Sustainability While Advancing CRA Compliance

This blog looks at how voluntary security attestation models under the EU Cyber Resilience Act could unintentionally shift risk and responsibility onto open source developers. It argues that CRA compliance should stay focused on downstream manufacturers and rely on automation and verifiable security metadata rather than upstream attestations that could undermine open source sustainability.

What’s in the SOSS? An OpenSSF Podcast:

#47 – S2E24 Teaching the Next Generation: Software Supply Chain Security in Academia with Justin Cappos

This episode goes inside academia with NYU’s Justin Cappos, who explains why universities struggle to teach software supply chain security and how his course is producing highly skilled professionals. He and Yesenia Yser talk about curriculum, real-world open source collaboration, and how the Linux Foundation’s Academic Computing Acceleration Program could reshape security education.

#48 – S2E25 2025 Year End Wrap Up: Celebrating 5 Years of Open Source Security Impact!

CRob and Yesenia close out the year with a special wrap-up celebrating OpenSSF’s fifth anniversary and a huge year in open source security. They look back at new free training courses, highlights from the DARPA AI Cyber Challenge, standout interviews, major projects such as, OSPS Baseline and AI model signing, and community conversations across SBOMs and supply chain security. With nearly 12,000 downloads and big plans for Season 3, this episode is a fun look at how far the community has come and what’s ahead in 2026.

#49 – S3E1 Why Marketing Matters in Open Source: Introducing Co-Host Sally Cooper

In this Season 3 premiere, What’s in the SOSS? welcomes Sally Cooper as an official co-host. Sally shares her path from technical training and documentation to marketing leadership at OpenSSF, and explains why marketing matters in open source communities. Joined by CRob and Yesenia Yser, the conversation explores personas, personal branding, trust, and how marketing helps great projects get discovered, supported, and sustained. The episode also offers a preview of OpenSSF’s 2026 marketing themes and practical ways for newcomers to get involved.

News from OpenSSF Community Meetings and Projects:

In the News:

Meet OpenSSF at These Upcoming Events!

Connect with the OpenSSF Community at these key events:

Ways to Participate:

There are a number of ways for individuals and organizations to participate in OpenSSF. Learn more here.

You’re invited to…

See You Next Month! 

We want to get you the information you most want to see in your inbox. Missed our previous newsletters? Read here!

Have ideas or suggestions for next month’s newsletter about the OpenSSF? Let us know at marketing@openssf.org, and see you next month! 

Regards,

The OpenSSF Team