Abnormal Security Software Engineer interview typically runs 4 rounds: recruiter screen, OA, technical screen, hiring manager. Timeline is a few calls over several weeks, with a notably candid and structured process.
$149K
Avg. Base Comp
$156K
Avg. Total Comp
4-5
Typical Rounds
2-4 weeks
Process Length
Our candidates report a company that cares less about polished performance and more about whether you can communicate clearly under pressure. A recurring theme is the contrast between the two experiences: one candidate described a rigid, yes-or-no screening style and a technical round that felt almost one-sided, while another said the process was candid, upfront, and explicitly framed around mutual fit. That tells us Abnormal is sensitive to signal quality early — they want to quickly separate people who can stay crisp and direct from those who need a lot of interviewer hand-holding.
What stands out most is how much weight they seem to place on ownership of the conversation. In the technical round, one candidate felt the interviewer stayed mostly silent, which means candidates who wait for heavy prompting may struggle. By contrast, the accepted candidate noted that the hiring manager clearly explained what each person would evaluate and invited questions early. We’ve seen that this company responds well to people who can narrate their thinking, connect past work to real outcomes, and make the discussion feel collaborative even when the interviewer is reserved.
The other non-obvious pattern is that Abnormal appears to reward straightforwardness over theatrics. The strongest feedback came from the candidate who said the process felt like a real conversation and that the team valued honesty throughout. That suggests the bar is not just technical competence, but whether your communication style feels calm, direct, and trustworthy — especially in a cybersecurity context where precision matters.
Synthesized from 2 candidate reports by our editorial team.
Had an interview recently?
Share your experience. Unlock the full guide.
Real interview reports from people who went through the Abnormal Security process.
My tech screen at Abnormal Security was a disaster, and not in the way I expected. The interviewer wanted me to solve a relatively straightforward coding problem, but there was a huge catch: they insisted I use AI tools—specifically Cursor with its auto-complete—to write the solution. In theory, that sounds modern and practical. In reality, I spent the entire time fighting with the AI's suggestions. The auto-complete kept rewriting what I'd typed, pulling me in different directions, and I couldn't get a clean train of thought going. I'd try to explain my approach, but the constant interruptions from the tool made it nearly impossible to articulate my reasoning clearly. The interviewer kept nudging me to keep talking, to keep using the AI, but it felt like the tool itself was becoming a barrier rather than a help. Afterward, I was frustrated—it wasn't even a LeetCode-style problem, just something simple that got needlessly complicated by the setup. The rejection came quickly with vague feedback. In hindsight, I think the real issue was communication: I wasn't able to think out loud effectively because I was distracted by the tool. But the whole experience felt like a mismatch between what the company was trying to test and how they set it up.
Prep tip from this candidate
If Abnormal asks you to code with AI tools in the interview, practice extensively with that specific setup beforehand and focus on narrating your thinking out loud continuously—don't let the tool's auto-complete derail your explanation of your approach.
Share your own interview experience to unlock all reports, or subscribe for full access.
Sourced from candidate reports and verified by our team.
Topics based on recent interview experiences.
Featured question at Abnormal Security
Select the 2nd highest salary in the engineering department
| Question | |
|---|---|
| Merge Sorted Lists | |
| Empty Neighborhoods | |
| Top Three Salaries | |
| Closest SAT Scores | |
| Subscription Overlap | |
| Monthly Customer Report | |
| Random SQL Sample | |
| String Shift | |
| Rolling Bank Transactions | |
| Customer Orders | |
| Top 3 Users | |
| Comments Histogram | |
| Raining in Seattle | |
| Minimum Change | |
| Find the First Non-Repeating Character in a String | |
| Bagging vs Boosting | |
| Flight Records | |
| Prime to N | |
| Upsell Transactions | |
| Download Facts | |
| First Touch Attribution | |
| Job Recommendation | |
| Daily Retention Summary | |
| Find the Missing Number | |
| Recurring Character | |
| Scrambled Tickets | |
| Hurdles In Data Projects | |
| P-value to a Layman | |
| Find Bigrams |
Synthesized from candidate reports. Individual experiences may vary.
The process often begins with a recruiter call that can feel like a rapid-fire screening. Candidates reported a series of direct yes-or-no questions, and in at least one case the call was recorded by a Zoom bot.
Some candidates, especially at more senior levels, had a few candid conversations before the formal loop started. These calls were used to confirm mutual fit and to clarify what the process would look like, including who would be involved and what each interviewer would evaluate.
After the initial screen, candidates may be given an online assessment before moving on to the technical interview. One experience specifically mentioned an OA as the next step after the recruiter call.
The technical round is described as a live coding session where the interviewer mostly watches while the candidate codes. It can feel fairly passive, with limited back-and-forth or guidance, so candidates may need to drive the explanation themselves.
This round is a more traditional conversation focused on resume deep-dives, past work, and projects. Candidates described it as the most normal and conversational part of the process, with behavioral questions about experience, leadership, and fit.
