Hannah Braswell and Jenn Power, Security Engineers from Red Hat and contributors to the OpenSSF, join host Sally Cooper to discuss the Gemara project. Gemara, an acronym for GRC Engineering Model for Automated Risk Assessment, is a seven-layer logical model that aims to solve the problem of incompatibility in the GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) stack. By outlining a separation of concerns, the project seeks to enable engineers to build secure and compliant systems without needing to be compliance experts. The speakers explain how Gemara grew organically to seven layers and is leveraged by other open source initiatives like the OpenSSF Security Baseline and Finos Common Cloud Controls. They also touch on the ecosystem of tools being built, including Queue schemas and a Go SDK, and how new people can get involved.
00:00 Welcome music + promo clip
00:22 Introductions
02:17 What is Gemara and what problem does it address?
03:58 Why do we need a model for GRC engineering?
05:50 The seven-layer structure of Gemara
07:40 How Gemara connects to other open source projects
10:14 Tools available to help with Gemara model adoption
11:39 How to get involved in the Gemara projects
13:59 Rapid Fire
16:03 Closing thoughts and call to action
Sally Cooper (00:22)
Hello, hello, and welcome to What’s in the SOSS, where we talk to amazing people that make up the open source ecosystem. These are developers, security engineers, maintainers, researchers, and all manner of contributors that help make open source secure. I’m Sally, and today I have the pleasure of being joined by two fantastic security engineers from Red Hat. We have Hannah and Jenn.
Thank you both so much for joining me today and to get us started, can you tell us a little bit about yourselves and the work that you do at Red Hat? I’ll start with Jenn.
Jenn Power (00:58)
Sure. I am Jenn Power. I’m a principal product security engineer at Red Hat. My whole life is compliance automation, let’s say that. And outside of Red Hat, I participate in the OpenSSF Orbit Working Group, and I’m also a maintainer of the Gemara project.
Sally Cooper (01:18)
Amazing. Thank you, Jenn and Hannah. How about you? Hi.
Hannah Braswell (01:21)
Hey, Sally. Thanks for the nice introduction. I’m Hannah Braswell, and I’m an associate product security engineer at Red Hat. And I work with Jenn on the same team. And I primarily focus on compliance automation and enablement for compliance analysts to actually take advantage of that automation. Then within the OpenSSF, I’m involved in the Gemara project. I’m the community manager there. And then
I’m kind of a fly on the wall at a lot of the community meetings, whether it be the Gemara meeting or the orbit working group. I like to go to a lot of them.
Sally Cooper (02:01)
we love to hear that. I heard Orbit working group from both of you. That’s exciting. And I also really want to dive in to the project Gemara. So before we do dive into those details, let’s make sure that everyone’s starting from the same place. So for listeners who are hearing about Gemara for the first time, what is Gemara and what problem is it designed to address?
Jenn Power (02:23)
Sure, can start there. It’s actually secretly an acronym. So it stands for GRC Engineering Model for Automated Risk Assessment. So that’s kind of a mouthful, so we just shorten it to Gemara. And the official description I’ll give, and then I can go into it like a little bit more of a relatable example, is that it provides a logical model for describing categories of compliance activities, how they interact,
And it has schemas to enable automated interoperability between them. So like, what does that mean? I think a good, if we anchor this in an analogy, we could call Gemara like the OSI model for the GRC stack. In fact, that was one of the kind of primary inspirations for the categorical layers of Gemara. And Gemara also happens to have seven categorical layers, just like the OSI model.
So if you think about it in networking, if I want to send an email, I don’t have to understand like packet routing. I can just send my email. So in GRC, we can’t really do that today. We have security engineers that also have to be compliance experts to be successful. And so with Gemara, we want to outline the separation of concerns within the GRC stack to make sure that like each specialist can contain their complexity in their own layer while allowing them to exchange information with different specialists completing activities in different layers.
So like if I could give one takeaway, we want to make it so engineers can build secure and compliant systems without having to understand the nuance of every single compliance framework out
Sally Cooper (04:14)
I love that. So we have a baseline now. Let’s talk about the problem and get a little bit deeper into that. So Gemara is responding to a problem that you touched upon. Why do we need a model for GRC engineering and what incompatibility issue are you trying to solve? If you could go a little deeper.
Jenn Power (04:34)
Sure. So I think sharing resources in GRC is just really hard today. Sharing content, sharing tools, none of those tools and content, it doesn’t work together today, if I could say that. engineers are typically having to reinterpret security controls. They’re having to create a lot of glue code to make sure that a tool like a GRC system and a vulnerability scanner can actually talk to each other.
So we’re trying to solve that incompatibility issue on the technical side. But this is also a human problem. And I think that’s kind of the sneakiest part about it. A lot of times, we’re not even saying the same things when we use the same terms. And so that’s another thing that we’re trying to solve within the Gemara project.
This one comes up all the time. Take the word policy. If you say that to an engineer, you’re thinking immediately, policy as code, like a rego file or something you’re going to use with your policy engine. But if you’re talking to someone in the compliance space, they’re thinking like, this is like my 40 page document that outlines my organizational objectives. So we created definitions within the Gemara project to go along with the model to solve the human problem while we’re also trying to solve the technical problem.
Sally Cooper (06:05)
That’s interesting. Okay, I heard you say something about a seven-layer structure. Can you tell me why you chose a seven-layer structure for Gemara?
Jenn Power (06:17)
So this actually stemmed from an initiative under the CNCF called the Automated Governance Maturity Model. And that started as four concepts actually, policy, evaluation, enforcement, and audit. And that established the initial kind of lexicon that the project had been using.
And it initially got some adoption in the ecosystem, specifically in projects under the Linux Foundation, like FINOS Common Cloud Controls (CCC) and the Open Source Project Security Baseline (OSPS Baseline). And through the application of that lexicon, we found that there needed to be more granularity within that policy layer. So it expanded to two new layers called guidance and controls.
And I didn’t mention that we were creating a white paper yet, but we do have a white paper. And through the creation of that white paper, which Eddie Knight did so much work to create that initial draft there, we actually found that we were missing a layer. We had a seventh layer, and it was something that we had called sensitive activities. And it’s something kind of sandwiched in the middle of the Gemara layer. And so with that, we kind of organically grew to seven layers. So that I think is the kind of origin story on how the layers got to seven.
Sally Cooper (07:54)
I love that. And you’re really talking about how Gemara is not built in isolation, that you’re working with other open source projects. For example, you mentioned Baseline and the FINOS Common Cloud Controls. Can you tell me how Gemara connects to those projects?
Hannah Braswell (08:09)
Yeah. So in terms of Gemara connecting to the other open source projects, the first thing that comes to mind is really the CRA because of how prominent it is right now and just the future of its impact. And I really think that Gemara is going to be a catalyst for open source projects in general that are in need of some kind of mechanism to, you know, implement security controls and align with potential compliance requirements.
And the good thing about Gemara is that you don’t have to be a compliance expert to make sure that your open source project is secure. And so I would say that the OSPS Baseline is a great example of Gemara’s layer two, because it provides a set of security controls that engineers can actually implement. So in that case, other projects can reuse the baseline controls and then fit them to their needs.
And I think it also goes to say that, anyone that is actually building a tool they want to sell or distribute in the European Union market that’s using the open source components, they’re gonna have to think about what’s in scope and having something like the OSPS Baseline to understand how to effectively assess your open source components and their risks is really, really valuable and just gonna be super useful. And then in terms of the FINOS Common Cloud Controls, I think that’s
Also another great example, just in terms of the use case and implementation of Gemara, because they have their core catalog, which has its own definitions of threats and controls that’s then imported to their technology specific catalogs. And yeah, so that’s a great implementation within the financial sector.
And then where we’re trying to expand the ecosystem for Gemara, as in the Cloud Native Security Controls catalog refresh. And that’s actually an initiative that Jenn is leading. I’ve done a few contributions to it, but it’s essentially an effort to take the controls catalog that currently exists as a spreadsheet and make it available as a Gemara layer one machine readable guidance document. So Gemara is really connecting to projects that are all great to have on your radar, especially with the CRA coming up.
Sally Cooper (10:26)
Wow, that sounds great. But I’m just thinking about our listeners. They’re probably wondering, like, what does this look like in practice? And I’m curious if there are any tools available to help with the Gemara model adoption.
Jenn Power (10:39)
So we’re actually working on an ecosystem of tools. So we want to bridge that theory that we’re creating within the Gemara white paper to things that are actually implementable just to make sure that you don’t have to start from scratch if you’re trying to implement the Gemara model.
So we have a couple tools within the ecosystem. One would be our implementation of the model. We’re using queue schemas to allow users to create the models like in YAML, for instance, if you wanted to create your layer two, you would create YAML, you could use our queue schemas to validate that your document is in fact a Gemara compliant document. And then we’re also building SDKs. Right now we have a Go SDK, so you can build tooling around the programmatic access and manipulation of Gemara documents. A tool in the ecosystem that’s using this currently is a tool called Privateer that automates the layer five evaluations.
Sally Cooper (11:47)
Wow, that’s great. And of course, none of this works without the people. So I know you mentioned a few of them. How can new people get involved in the Gemara project?
Hannah Braswell (11:58)
So anyone that’s new and interested in getting involved in the Gemara project, my first piece of advice would just be to jump in a community meeting and listen in on what’s happening. I know I started out just by joining those meetings and I, you know, I didn’t necessarily have much to say, but I appreciated the culture and the open discussion, just like bouncing ideas back and forth off of one another.
And there’s also plenty of times when I joined a community meeting and still trying to understand the project if there was some kind of group opinion trying to be formed. Like I think it’s perfectly fine to say, you know, I don’t have the information right now. I don’t have an opinion. I’m still trying to learn about the project. But if something piques your interests and you want to contribute, then volunteer for it or show you’re interested because people are not going to forget about your willingness to step up and be part of the community.
But I started joining those meetings before we were rolling out the white paper. So that kind of brings me back to my first piece of advice. So I’d really suggest reading the white paper first, because it describes the problem and the trajectory of the project so well, and in a really clear way that I think is super important context for anyone that wants to start contributing. And I mean, from there, I mean, I’m the community manager, but I started with small contributions.
that ended up supporting the community in terms of documentation and some other aspects of the project I was excited about and that I could contribute to. So I really think the contributions are dependent on what you’re interested in. And even if there’s some difference in opinion and perspective or background, all of that can make a huge difference for the community and anything from documentation to code or discussion and collaboration will count as valid contribution and effort. So I’d say to anyone that’s wanting to join the Gemara community and start contributing, I think you should just find an area that truly interests you and makes you excited and get involved.
Sally Cooper (14:02)
Oh, that’s great. Well, thanks so much. And before we wrap, we’re going to do rapid, rapid fire. So I hope you’re ready because this is the fun part. No overthinking, no explanations, just the first instinct, okay, that comes to you. And I’m going to bounce. Yes, exactly. I’m going to bounce back and forth and ask you both some questions. Ready?
Jenn Power (14:17)
I’ll close my eyes then.
Sally Cooper (14:25)
Okay, Hannah, you’re up first. Star Wars or Star Trek?
Hannah Braswell (14:29)
Star Wars.
Sally Cooper (14:30)
Nice, I love it.
And Jenn, same question, Star Wars or Star Trek?
Jenn Power (14:335)
Star Wars.
Sally Cooper (14:36)
Okay, we’re all friends here.
Okay, back to Hannah, coffee or tea?
Hannah Braswell (14:42)
Definitely coffee.
Sally Cooper (14:43)
Yay, cheers. That’s solid.
Jenn, morning person or night owl?
Jenn Power (14:49)
Night Owl.
Sally Cooper (14:50)
Ohh that tracks. Hannah, beach vacation or mountains?
Hannah Braswell (14:56)
Hmm beach vacation.
Sally Cooper (14:58)
Nice choice. Jenn, books or movies?
Jenn Power (15:02)
Movies.
Sally Cooper (15:03)
Nice. All right, last round. Hannah, favorite open source mascot?
Hannah Braswell (15:08)
Oh…Zarf. I think that looks like an axolotl. I used to be obsessed with axolotls. And I mean, ever since I saw that, I was like, that’s the mascot.
Sally Cooper (15:18)
I love Zarf too. Cool. Okay. That’s a really strong pick.
Jenn, I’m going to give you the same question. Favorite open source mascot?
Jenn Power (15:26)
actually love the OpenSSF goose. I think it’s so cute.
Sally Cooper (15:30)
Teehee, Honk, he’s the best. Okay, let’s bring it home, Hannah, sweet or savory.
Hannah Braswell (15:38)
Savory.
Sally Cooper (15:39)
interesting. Okay, and Jenn? Spicy or mild?
Jenn Power (15:46)
mild. I can’t handle any spice. I’m a baby.
Sally Cooper (15:51)
love it. That’s amazing. Well, thank you both so much for playing along. And as we wind things down, do you have any other calls to action for our audience if someone’s listening, and they want to learn more or get involved? What is like the best next step for them?
Jenn Power (16:05)
I would say read the white paper. We are looking for feedback on it and that is really a way to understand the philosophy and the architectural goals of Gemara. And if you’re looking to just like, hey I want to learn GRC, that’s a good first step. So I think that’s what I would say.
Sally Cooper (16:28)
Fantastic. Hannah, Jenn, thank you so much for your time today and for the work you’re doing for the open source security community. We appreciate you both. And to everyone listening, happy open sourcing and that’s a wrap.
🇳🇱 Open Source SecurityCon Europe → Agenda live and registration open
🎙️ Securing Agentic AI in Practice → March 17 Tech Talk on AI/ML security in action
📖 Compiler Annotations Guide → Practical C/C++ hardening without rewrites
🏆 Security Slam 2026 → 30-day challenge to level up project security
🇪🇺 CRA in Practice @ FOSDEM → Turning regulation into actionable steps
📦 Package Repository Security Forum → Cross-ecosystem collaboration in action
🎙️ What’s in the SOSS? → CFP tips and a 4-part AIxCC deep dive
6 min read
Planning to attend KubeCon + Cloud Native Con Europe in March? Don’t miss OpenSSF’s co-located 1-day event! This gathering will bring together a diverse community, including software developers, security engineers, public sector experts, CISOs, CIOs, and tech pioneers, to explore challenges and opportunities in modern security. Collaborate with peers and discover the essential tools, knowledge, and strategies needed to ensure a safer, more secure future.
The agenda is live! Read the blog to learn what not to miss in Amsterdam and to see highlights from SecurityCon North America.
Read the blog | Register now | View the agenda
Join us for the first OpenSSF Tech Talk of the year, focusing on agentic artificial intelligence (AI) security.
In this session, we will explore how the OpenSSF AI/ML Security Working Group is developing open guidance and frameworks to help secure AI and machine learning systems, and how that work translates into real-world practice. Using SAFE MCP and other solutions from OpenSSF member companies as examples, we will highlight community-driven efforts to improve the security of agentic AI systems, the problems they address, the design tradeoffs involved, and the lessons learned so far.
We will also feature OpenSSF’s free course, Secure AI/ML Driven Software Development (LFEL1012), which gives attendees a clear path to build practical skills and contribute to this rapidly evolving field.
Register and mark your calendar for March 17 at 1:00 p.m. ET. Additional speaker information will be shared soon.
OpenSSF has released a new Compiler Annotations Guide for C and C++ to help developers improve memory safety, diagnostics, and overall software security by using compiler-supported annotations. The guide explains how annotations in GCC and Clang/LLVM can make code intent explicit, strengthen static analysis, reduce false positives, and enable more effective compile-time and run-time protections. As memory-safety issues continue to drive a significant share of vulnerabilities in C and C++ systems, the guide offers practical, real-world guidance for applying low-friction hardening techniques that improve security without requiring large-scale rewrites of existing codebases.Â
Security Slam 2026 is a 30-day security hygiene challenge running from February 20 to March 20, culminating in an awards ceremony at KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Europe. Hosted by OpenSSF in partnership with CNCF TAG Security & Compliance and Sonatype, the event encourages projects to use practical security tools, including OpenSSF resources, to strengthen their security posture based on their maturity level. Participants can earn recognition, badges, and plaques for completing milestones, reinforcing a community-driven effort to improve open source software security at scale.Â
Read the blog to learn more | Register now to receive reminders and instructions
At FOSDEM 2026, the CRA in Practice DevRoom brought together open source and industry leaders to turn the EU Cyber Resilience Act from policy discussion into practical action. Through case studies and panels, speakers shared concrete approaches to vulnerability management, SBOMs, VEX, risk assessment, and the steward role.Â
On February 2, OpenSSF convened the Package Manager Security Forum, bringing together maintainers and registry operators from major ecosystems to address shared challenges in package repository security. Discussions highlighted common concerns around identity and account security, governance and abuse handling, transparency, and long-term sustainability. The session reinforced that package ecosystem risks are interconnected and that improving security requires cross-ecosystem coordination, shared frameworks, and continued collaboration through OpenSSF’s neutral convening role.
Is your open source project meeting the “minimum definition” of security? The OpenSSF has officially integrated the Open Source Project Security Baseline (OSPS Baseline) into its Best Practices Badge Program.
In our latest blog, David A. Wheeler explains how you can quickly identify and meet essential security requirements to earn a Baseline Badge.
#50 – S3E2 Demystifying the CFP Process with KubeCon North America Keynote Speakers
Stacey Potter and Adolfo “Puerco” GarcĂa Veytia share practical, behind-the-scenes advice on submitting conference talks, fresh off their KubeCon keynote. They break down how CFP review committees work, what makes an abstract stand out, common mistakes to avoid, and why authenticity matters more than polish. The episode also tackles imposter syndrome and encourages new and diverse voices to shape the future of open source through speaking.
#51 – S3E3 AIxCC Part 1: From Skepticism to Success with Andrew Carney
Andrew Carney from DARPA explains the vision and results behind the two-year AI Cyber Challenge (AIxCC), which tasked teams with building AI systems that can automatically find and patch vulnerabilities in open source software. Despite early skepticism, competitors identified more than 80% of seeded vulnerabilities and generated effective patches at surprisingly low compute costs. The episode looks at what comes next as these cyber reasoning systems move from competition to real-world adoption.
#52 – S3E4 AIxCC Part 2: How Team Atlanta Won by Blending Traditional Security and LLMs
Professor Taesoo Kim of Georgia Tech describes how Team Atlanta combined fuzzing, symbolic execution, and large language models to win AIxCC. Initially skeptical of AI, the team shifted its strategy mid-competition and discovered that hybrid approaches produced the strongest results. The conversation also covers commercialization efforts, integration with OSS-Fuzz, and how the experience reshaped academic security research.
#53 – S3E5 AIxCC Part 3: Trail of Bits’ Hybrid Approach with Buttercup
Michael Brown of Trail of Bits discusses Buttercup, the second-place AIxCC system that pairs large language models with conventional software analysis tools. The team focused on using AI for well-scoped tasks like patch generation while relying on fuzzers for proof-of-vulnerability. Now fully open source and able to run on a laptop, Buttercup is actively maintained and positioned for broader enterprise and community use.
#54 – S3E6 AIxCC Part 4: Cyber Reasoning Systems in the Real World
CRob and Jeff Diecks wrap up the AIxCC series by exploring how competition teams are applying their systems to real open source projects such as the Linux kernel and CUPS. They introduce the OSS-CRS initiative, which aims to standardize and combine components from multiple cyber reasoning systems, and share lessons learned about responsibly reporting AI-generated findings. The episode highlights how collaboration through OpenSSF’s AI/ML Security Working Group and Cyber Reasoning Systems SIG is shaping the next phase of AI-driven security.
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…
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!Â
Regards,
The OpenSSF Team
By David A. Wheeler
Many open source software (OSS) projects aim to securely develop software and have an easy way to communicate their security posture to others.
The OpenSSF developed the Open Source Project Security Baseline (OSPS Baseline) to act as a “minimum definition of requirements for a project relative to its maturity level”. It’s a three-level checklist (baseline-1 through baseline-3) to help OSS projects improve their security. The OpenSSF Best Practices Badge Program now supports the baseline criteria, making it easier for OSS projects to determine what they’ve already accomplished and what remains. OSS projects can then display their badge on their web pages, demonstrating what they’ve accomplished and making it easy for potential users to learn more.
This post introduces how to earn an OpenSSF baseline badge through the OpenSSF Best Practices Badge System.
First, visit https://www.bestpractices.dev. The site currently supports nine locales, and this URL automatically redirects you to your preferred language (e.g., https://www.bestpractices.dev/en for English).
Click on “Login” to add information. You can use your GitHub account to log in. Most users prefer this method. You must grant permission during your first visit. You can also create an account specifically for the site.
Click on the “Projects” tab to see projects currently pursuing badges, then click either the “+ Add” tab or the “Add New Project” button. The “New badge” form allows you to enter your project’s repository URL and/or home page URL. You can also decide whether to begin with the “metal” series or the “baseline” series. The baseline series is a focused checklist that includes only MUST security requirements and draws in part from global cybersecurity regulations and frameworks. The metal series is a larger set of criteria that includes suggestions and quality issues impacting security derived in part from the experiences of secure Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects. Both focus on security, and we encourage projects to eventually complete both; simply choose a starting point. For the purposes of this blog post, we’ll assume you chose the “baseline” series.
When you click on “Submit Project”, the system assigns a unique numeric ID to the project. The system will pause to examine the repository and attempt to automatically determine the answers to various questions. For many, this automation can save a lot of time. Once that’s done, you’ll see a form to update project information. Information highlighted in yellow with the robot symbol 🤖 indicates data entered by automation. We recommend double-checking automation results for accuracy.
Understanding and Completing the Baseline CriteriaYou can now fill in the form. Each criterion can be “?” (unknown), “N/A” (not applicable), Unmet, or Met. By default, each is marked “?” (unknown). As you identify more and more items that are Met (or N/A), the % completion bar will increase. We’ve intentionally gamified this; when you reach 100% in baseline-1, you’ve earned a baseline-1 badge. You can also provide justification text; we recommend including it (even when it’s not required) to help others understand the project’s current status. Badge claims are mostly self-assertions. In some cases, automation can override false claims. The answers given are presented for public scrutiny, incentivizing correct answers.
The form shows the criterion requirements; click “show details” for more information. For example, baseline-1 criterion OSPS-AC-01.01 requires that, “When a user attempts to read or modify a sensitive resource in the project’s authoritative repository, the system MUST require the user to complete a multi-factor authentication process.” Any project hosted on GitHub automatically meets this requirement. GitHub has required multi-factor authentication since March 2023, and the system automatically fills in the required information. Not all projects are hosted on GitHub. Those projects must ensure they meet this criterion.
When you’re done, you can select “Save and Continue” or “Save and Exit” to save your work to the website. The “Save and Continue” option not only lets you continue, but also reruns automations to fill in currently unknown information.
The Best Practices Badge site currently supports version v2025.10.10, but it will soon integrate the recently released v2026.02.19. New requirements wil initially appear as “future” criteria, allowing maintainers to address updates without losing their current badge status. There is no reason to wait; projects should begin the process now, as the system will provide ample time to adapt to new criteria.
Once you’ve met the baseline-1 criteria, you can add some code to your repository to show off your badge. The site shows the code to add, and it follows the usual badge conventions. For example, in Markdown you would add this:
[]
(https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/ID)
If you’ve earned the baseline-1 badge, this Markdown code would show an image like this:
We support various mechanisms to rapidly get information in and out of the badge system (replace “ID” with the project’s numerical ID), for example:
You can also include a “.bestpractices.json” file in the repository that contains proposed values for a badge. If present, these values will be treated as automation results and highlighted during editing so users can decide whether or not to accept them. The .bestpractices.json documentation provides more details.
Our goal is to help OSS projects identify next steps to improve security and provide clear guidance. These capabilities help projects demonstrate measurable progress.
If you maintain an OSS project, visit https://www.bestpractices.dev and start working on a badge. If you use OSS, support those projects on which you depend as they strengthen their security practices.
Dr. David A. Wheeler is an expert on developing secure software and on open source software. He created the Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) courses “Developing Secure Software” (LFD121) and “Understanding the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA)” (LFEL1001), and is completing creation of the OpenSSF course “Secure AI/ML-Driven Software Development” (LFEL1012). His other contributions include “Fully Countering Trusting Trust through Diverse Double-Compiling (DDC)”. He is the Director of Open Source Supply Chain Security at the Linux Foundation and teaches a graduate course in developing secure software at George Mason University (GMU).
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.
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
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.
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.
📊 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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What 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.
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.
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.
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.
#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.
Connect with the OpenSSF Community at these key events:
There are a number of ways for individuals and organizations to participate in OpenSSF. Learn more here.
You’re invited to…
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!Â
Regards,
The OpenSSF Team