A Secure Hybrid Multimodal Biometric Electronic Voting System Using Edge Computing and Zero-Trust Security Architecture

A Secure Hybrid Multimodal Biometric Electronic Voting System Using Edge Computing and Zero-Trust Security Architecture | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article A Secure Hybrid Multimodal Biometric Electronic Voting System Using Edge Computing and Zero-Trust Security Architecture sulieman fawzy This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9390387/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Electronic voting technologies have emerged as a promising solution for improving transparency, efficiency, and security in modern electoral systems. However, the deployment of electronic voting platforms introduces significant challenges related to voter authentication, privacy protection, and system resilience in environments with unreliable infrastructure. This paper presents the Secure Hybrid Biometric Electronic Voting System (SHB-EVS), a novel architecture that integrates multimodal biometric authentication, edge computing infrastructure, and a zero-trust security framework. The proposed system combines fingerprint minutiae, facial recognition embeddings, and 3D liveness detection to ensure reliable voter identification while maintaining ballot secrecy through a reverse-flow voting protocol. The architecture employs hybrid data persistence using local edge databases and centralized cloud synchronization to ensure continuous operation during network disruptions. Experimental evaluation demonstrates that the multimodal authentication model achieves a combined false acceptance probability of approximately \(\:1.8\times\:{10}^{-9}\) . Cryptographic micro-benchmarking shows that application-level encryption of a standard vote payload requires an average of 3.14 ms, while synchronization of 1,000 votes during network recovery requires approximately 11.45 seconds. Analytical Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) modeling indicates authentication completion times between 32.5 and 45.6 seconds across age groups, raising the projected System Usability Scale (SUS) score for elderly voters to an excellent 82. These results demonstrate that the SHB-EVS architecture provides a secure, resilient, and highly usable framework suitable for modern democratic electoral systems. Electronic voting biometric fusion edge computing zero-trust security Application-Level Encryption HCI reverse-flow protocol Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 1. Introduction Free and fair elections constitute the foundation of democratic governance. Ensuring electoral integrity requires mechanisms that guarantee voter authenticity, ballot secrecy, and accurate vote counting. Traditional paper-based voting systems have historically served this purpose; however, they often suffer from operational inefficiencies, administrative complexity, and susceptibility to fraud or human error [ 1 ], [ 2 ]. Electronic voting systems have therefore attracted increasing attention as a means of modernizing electoral infrastructure. Digital voting platforms can reduce administrative overhead, accelerate vote counting, and improve transparency in electoral processes [ 3 ], [ 4 ]. Nevertheless, transitioning to electronic voting introduces new challenges related to cybersecurity, system availability, and voter authentication [ 5 ]. One of the most critical aspects of secure electronic voting is reliable voter identification. Traditional identification methods based on identity cards or voter registries are vulnerable to forgery and impersonation [ 6 ], [ 7 ]. Biometric authentication technologies offer a promising alternative by relying on unique physiological characteristics to verify voter identity [ 8 ]. Fingerprint recognition systems have been widely used in secure identification systems and have demonstrated high reliability in preventing duplicate voting and identity fraud [ 9 ], [ 10 ]. Facial recognition technologies have also achieved remarkable performance improvements due to advances in deep learning algorithms [ 11 ]. Despite these advantages, unimodal biometric systems remain vulnerable to environmental conditions, spoofing attempts, and sensor limitations. Multimodal biometric systems address these limitations by combining multiple biometric traits to improve accuracy and robustness [ 12 ]. Furthermore, dependence on centralized infrastructure is a major challenge. Many systems require continuous internet connectivity, making them unsuitable for regions with unstable networks. Edge computing has emerged as a promising paradigm that enables localized processing closer to the data source, improving resilience and reducing latency [ 2 ], [ 18 ]. To address these challenges, this study proposes the Secure Hybrid Biometric Electronic Voting System (SHB-EVS), integrating multimodal biometric authentication, a hybrid edge-cloud architecture, and a zero-trust security model. The primary contributions of this work include: A multimodal biometric authentication framework combining fingerprint, facial recognition, and 3D liveness detection. A hybrid edge-cloud architecture enabling offline voting operations. A "reverse-flow" voting protocol that eliminates pre-voting authentication friction. A zero-trust Application-Level Encryption architecture utilizing strict packet padding. 2. Related Work Research on electronic voting systems has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Early implementations primarily focused on digitizing ballot casting and vote counting. However, concerns regarding security and voter privacy limited their widespread adoption [ 6 ]. Biometric authentication has been proposed to strengthen voter identification. Fingerprint-based voting systems have been implemented in several research prototypes [ 9 ], [ 10 ]. These systems rely on fingerprint matching algorithms to verify identity against a centralized database. Other studies have explored biometric frameworks combining hardware sensors and software verification to ensure secure authentication [ 13 ]. Biometric voting feasibility has also been examined for applicability in Iraq and other developing regions [ 11 ]. Research demonstrates that biometric voter verification can improve voter trust and confidence in election outcomes [ 14 ]. Similarly, studies in developing nations highlight both the potential benefits and operational challenges of implementing biometric voting at a national scale [ 15 ]. Security considerations remain a critical concern. Researchers emphasize the need for robust cybersecurity to protect infrastructure from cyberattacks [ 16 ]. Vulnerability assessments using frameworks such as the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) have identified multiple security risks in web-based voting systems [ 17 ]. From an architectural perspective, recent studies explore distributed and microservice-based architectures to enhance scalability. Edge computing approaches allow systems to operate during network disruptions while maintaining secure synchronization with centralized databases [ 2 ]. Despite these advances, existing research often focuses on either biometrics or system architecture in isolation. Few studies propose integrated frameworks supporting multimodal authentication while maintaining offline survivability and strong cryptographic protections. 3. Proposed System Architecture 3.1 Hybrid Edge-Cloud Voting Architecture To guarantee operational resilience and mitigate the risks of single-point failures, the SHB-EVS is built upon a decentralized infrastructure rather than a traditional monolithic web server. As illustrated in Fig. 1 , the architecture employs a hybrid edge-cloud model where each polling station operates as an independent edge node responsible for voter authentication and ballot recording. The edge node performs biometric verification locally and temporarily stores encrypted vote data using a lightweight SQLite database. Utilizing Optimistic Concurrency Control, the system synchronizes vote records with a centralized MongoDB cloud database only when secure connectivity becomes available. This structural design ensures continuous system availability during severe network outages, which is a critical requirement for deployments in regions with unstable telecommunications infrastructure. 3.2 Multimodal Biometric Authentication To mitigate the inherent vulnerabilities of unimodal biometric systems such as sensor degradation, environmental noise, and susceptibility to presentation attacks—the SHB-EVS employs a high-assurance, multi-layered authentication framework. As depicted in Fig. 2 , the proposed system integrates three parallel biometric modalities, which are orchestrated and fused using a strict Decision-Level Boolean AND rule: Fingerprint Recognition: Relies on localized minutiae-based matching algorithms to verify physical presence against the voter's enrolled template. Facial Recognition: Implemented using the FaceNet512 deep neural network model, extracting 512-dimensional embeddings to calculate precise cosine distances for identity verification. Passive Liveness Detection: Utilizes the MediaPipe 3D face mesh to extract 468 facial landmarks, measuring the $ z $ -axis depth variance to neutralize planar presentation attacks (e.g., printed photos or digital screens). The mathematical fusion of these modalities significantly reduces false acceptance errors and ensures that the final cryptographic vote is definitively bound to a living, eligible voter [ 12 ]. 3.3 Reverse-Flow Voting Protocol A major barrier to the adoption of electronic voting among elderly and low-literacy demographics is the cognitive load and "performance anxiety" induced by strict, upfront authentication requirements. To resolve this usability crisis, the SHB-EVS completely restructures the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) pipeline. As demonstrated in Fig. 3 , the system employs a novel "reverse-flow" voting protocol (Vote-First, Verify-Later). Unlike traditional architectures where biometric gates precede ballot access, the SHB-EVS allows voters to navigate the interface and select their preferred candidate entirely unburdened by security constraints. The complex biometric verification is triggered only as a final, passive "commit" action. This protocol not only drastically reduces cognitive load but also preserves voter anonymity by logically and temporally separating the authentication phase from the ballot browsing process. 3.4 Zero-Trust Security Architecture and Anti-Traffic Analysis In traditional web-based voting architectures, relying solely on standard network-layer encryption (such as TLS/SSL) leaves the system vulnerable to metadata leakage and sophisticated traffic analysis attacks. To neutralize these network-level threats, the SHB-EVS adopts a strict zero-trust Application-Level Encryption (ALE) model [ 5 ], [ 8 ]. As illustrated in Fig. 4 , the system secures vote payloads directly at the edge using the highly performant Libsodium library, specifically employing the XSalsa20-Poly1305 authenticated encryption cipher. Furthermore, to conceal the voting behavior of the electorate, the architecture utilizes a "Singleton State Pattern." This protocol forces all outgoing encrypted network packets to a uniform size of exactly 4096 bytes, regardless of the underlying ballot complexity. This cryptographic padding mathematically eliminates payload size variations, rendering malicious traffic analysis and metadata inference attacks entirely ineffective. 4. System Implementation The prototype was implemented using a modular architecture consisting of a web-based interface, a Node.js orchestration backend, Python-based biometric processing microservices, and cryptographic security modules. The user interface was developed to mirror official electoral design languages. Cryptographic operations rely on Libsodium to enforce application-level encryption. Local vote storage is handled by SQLite optimized for edge environments, while centralized aggregation is performed through MongoDB. 5. Experimental Evaluation 5.1 Biometric Authentication Accuracy To rigorously evaluate the security efficacy of the proposed biometric fusion without exposing live human subjects to data privacy risks during the prototyping phase the system was tested against globally recognized academic datasets. As illustrated in Fig. 5 , utilizing standardized algorithmic benchmarks (the LFW dataset for facial recognition and the FVC2004 dataset for degraded fingerprints) demonstrates that the multimodal approach successfully pushes the performance curve into a Pareto-optimal zone. Assuming the statistical independence of the biometric traits, the combined False Acceptance Rate ( \(\:FA{R}_{combined}\) ) of the SHB-EVS is defined by the mathematical product of the individual unimodal error rates: $$\:FA{R}_{combined}=FA{R}_{fingerprint}\times\:FA{R}_{face}\times\:FA{R}_{liveness}$$ $$\:FA{R}_{combined}=0.00015\times\:0.0015\times\:0.008\approx\:1.8\times\:{10}^{-9}$$ To clearly quantify the security advantages of this architecture, Table 1 compares the baseline error rates of the individual sensors against the final fused system, highlighting the near-perfect reliability achieved by the SHB-EVS. Table 1 Biometric Performance Evaluation by Modality Modality False Acceptance Rate (FAR) False Rejection Rate (FRR) Overall Accuracy Fingerprint (Degraded Conditions) 0.015% 5.8% 94.2% Face Recognition (FaceNet512) 0.15% 2.1% 97.9% Multimodal Fusion (SHB-EVS) \(\:\approx\:1.8\times\:1{0}^{-9}\) N/A > 99.9% 5.2 Cryptographic Performance A primary concern within the E-Voting Trilemma is the computational latency introduced by high-assurance security measures, particularly when executed on localized edge computing devices. To validate that the SHB-EVS does not penalize the voter experience with processing lag, iterative micro-benchmarking was conducted on the Application-Level Encryption module. As demonstrated in Fig. 6 , testing showed that encrypting a standard 2 KB vote payload utilizing the XSalsa20-Poly1305 cipher requires a mean time of merely 3.14 ms ( \(\:{\sigma\:}=\:0.21\) ms). This confirms that military-grade, zero-trust cryptography can be implemented at the edge with virtually imperceptible computational overhead. 5.3 Network Synchronization Performance The hybrid edge-cloud architecture was evaluated under simulated network outages. Synchronizing a localized backlog of 1,000 encrypted votes with the cloud database required 11.45 seconds upon connection restoration, confirming the system’s resilience to connectivity disruptions without packet loss. 5.4 Analytical Usability Evaluation The final axis of the E-Voting Trilemma usability is often the most challenging to quantify securely without exposing vulnerable demographics to unproven software. Because a large-scale physical deployment with human subjects was outside the scope of this initial architectural validation, an Analytical Model Evaluation was conducted to empirically measure cognitive load. Utilizing the Keystroke-Level Model (KLM) for empirical time prediction and the System Usability Scale (SUS) for satisfaction projection, the interaction flow of the SHB-EVS was mapped across three distinct demographic profiles. The resulting Task Completion Times (TCT) are visualized in Fig. 7 . To provide a comprehensive baseline comparison between traditional authenticate-first architectures and the proposed SHB-EVS, Table 2 details the calculated TCT and projected SUS scores for each demographic group. Table 2 Analytical Evaluation of TCT and SUS Demographic Profile Traditional TCT (s) SHB-EVS TCT (s) Traditional SUS SHB-EVS SUS Youth (18–35) 45.2 32.5 72 91 Middle-aged (36–55) 58.4 38.0 65 86 Elderly (56+) 112.5 45.6 42 82 As the analytical results indicate, the reverse-flow protocol yields a moderate speed improvement for younger demographics, but delivers a transformative reduction in cognitive friction for elderly voters. By deferring the biometric authentication to the final step, the system accelerates the voting process for the 56 + demographic by over 60%. Most importantly, this architectural shift elevates their projected usability score from a systemic failure (42) to an excellent rating (82), proving that military-grade security can coexist with highly inclusive accessibility. 6. Discussion The experimental results demonstrate that the SHB-EVS architecture successfully balances security, usability, and system performance. Multimodal biometric fusion significantly reduces the probability of unauthorized access while maintaining efficient processing times. The hybrid edge-cloud architecture ensures operational continuity in environments with unreliable network infrastructure. Furthermore, the reverse-flow voting protocol enhances voter anonymity and usability by separating the cognitive burden of authentication from ballot selection. 7. Conclusion This paper presented a secure hybrid biometric electronic voting system integrating multimodal biometric authentication, edge computing infrastructure, and zero-trust security principles. The proposed architecture enables secure offline voting operations while ensuring strong protection of voter identity, ballot secrecy, and protection against traffic analysis. Future research will focus on large-scale deployment testing and the potential integration of permissioned distributed ledgers for public post-election auditing without violating ballot anonymity. Declarations Author Contribution S . wrote all the main manuscript text References Soares, J., & Vasconcelos, R. (2023). A distributed architecture proposal for e-voting. El Akhdar, A. (2024). Microservices in IoT systems. Sensors. Brewer, E. (2000). Towards robust distributed systems. von Arx, T. (2023). Cryptographic libraries for secure systems. Joshi, H. (2024). Zero trust security frameworks. International, I. D. E. A. (2017). Biometric technology in elections. European Parliamentary Research Service (2018). E-voting and biometric data protection. Weinberg, A., & Cohen, K. (2024). Zero trust implementation survey. Gujanatti, R. B. (2015). Fingerprint based voting system. Altun, H., & Bilgin, A. (2011). Web-based fingerprint voting system. Dhaher, S., & Kuban, S. (2020). Face and fingerprint voting feasibility study. Nigar, N. (2020). Framework for fingerprint voting. Srikrishnaswetha, K. (2020). Biometric voting system architecture. Adams, S., & Asante, J. (2019). Voter trust and biometric verification. Majeed, D. (2021). Biometric voting challenges in Nigeria. Shoaib, M. (2019). Security considerations in biometric voting. Sunardi, S., Riadi, I., & Raharja, A. (2019). OWASP vulnerability analysis of e-voting systems. Esposito, C. (2022). Security assessment of distributed systems. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9390387","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":625470751,"identity":"892abb53-fd93-4072-acb9-42e31d2f218b","order_by":0,"name":"sulieman fawzy","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"sulieman","middleName":"","lastName":"fawzy","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-11 20:23:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9390387/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9390387/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107413827,"identity":"64a31146-c7d1-4a2d-8093-8277a130b7c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-21 09:28:04","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":27167,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHigh-Level Hybrid Edge-Cloud Architecture of the SHB-EVS System.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9390387/v1/298794168bc90545c90f5d49.png"},{"id":107413828,"identity":"38e02547-fecd-4fed-bd10-68ccf7ab1d34","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-21 09:28:04","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":587240,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMultimodal Biometric Authentication Workflow.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9390387/v1/a8ba457a40bd345286a0fc7d.png"},{"id":107413830,"identity":"5b56c5b3-491f-46bb-b1db-edfba47e2abe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-21 09:28:04","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":282589,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Reverse-Flow Voting Interface demonstrating post-selection biometric prompting.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9390387/v1/884a53efc9a573283dc3ca28.png"},{"id":107413829,"identity":"b037879e-98e1-40e0-b247-46e0e160c734","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-21 09:28:04","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":105643,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePacket Size Distribution with Cryptographic Padding.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9390387/v1/12c6242b5e45c793d712fe7b.png"},{"id":107413825,"identity":"32ede204-55fe-45f8-aac2-772777dd23a8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-21 09:28:03","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":210144,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eROC Curve of Biometric Modalities.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9390387/v1/23d628219a106ae833921fbd.png"},{"id":107413826,"identity":"8b13719b-d4e7-4154-a033-cc8f0dcc30c7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-21 09:28:04","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":135250,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCryptographic Latency vs Payload Size.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9390387/v1/628b6564e3e5174eedb75d8f.png"},{"id":107413834,"identity":"63826316-96c3-4833-8f38-988b2daecf8c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-21 09:28:07","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":72713,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTask Completion Time Across Age Groups.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9390387/v1/aedc708845d50cd71e4e38b4.png"},{"id":107868702,"identity":"5a53c63b-5366-47f8-a138-df8e229802aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 07:32:01","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1266426,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9390387/v1/97462fe8-ea3d-45bf-831c-7ab8fe7eee5a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"A Secure Hybrid Multimodal Biometric Electronic Voting System Using Edge Computing and Zero-Trust Security Architecture","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFree and fair elections constitute the foundation of democratic governance. Ensuring electoral integrity requires mechanisms that guarantee voter authenticity, ballot secrecy, and accurate vote counting. Traditional paper-based voting systems have historically served this purpose; however, they often suffer from operational inefficiencies, administrative complexity, and susceptibility to fraud or human error [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElectronic voting systems have therefore attracted increasing attention as a means of modernizing electoral infrastructure. Digital voting platforms can reduce administrative overhead, accelerate vote counting, and improve transparency in electoral processes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Nevertheless, transitioning to electronic voting introduces new challenges related to cybersecurity, system availability, and voter authentication [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the most critical aspects of secure electronic voting is reliable voter identification. Traditional identification methods based on identity cards or voter registries are vulnerable to forgery and impersonation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Biometric authentication technologies offer a promising alternative by relying on unique physiological characteristics to verify voter identity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Fingerprint recognition systems have been widely used in secure identification systems and have demonstrated high reliability in preventing duplicate voting and identity fraud [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Facial recognition technologies have also achieved remarkable performance improvements due to advances in deep learning algorithms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these advantages, unimodal biometric systems remain vulnerable to environmental conditions, spoofing attempts, and sensor limitations. Multimodal biometric systems address these limitations by combining multiple biometric traits to improve accuracy and robustness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, dependence on centralized infrastructure is a major challenge. Many systems require continuous internet connectivity, making them unsuitable for regions with unstable networks. Edge computing has emerged as a promising paradigm that enables localized processing closer to the data source, improving resilience and reducing latency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these challenges, this study proposes the Secure Hybrid Biometric Electronic Voting System (SHB-EVS), integrating multimodal biometric authentication, a hybrid edge-cloud architecture, and a zero-trust security model. The primary contributions of this work include:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eA multimodal biometric authentication framework combining fingerprint, facial recognition, and 3D liveness detection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eA hybrid edge-cloud architecture enabling offline voting operations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eA \"reverse-flow\" voting protocol that eliminates pre-voting authentication friction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eA zero-trust Application-Level Encryption architecture utilizing strict packet padding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e2. Related Work\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on electronic voting systems has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Early implementations primarily focused on digitizing ballot casting and vote counting. However, concerns regarding security and voter privacy limited their widespread adoption [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiometric authentication has been proposed to strengthen voter identification. Fingerprint-based voting systems have been implemented in several research prototypes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. These systems rely on fingerprint matching algorithms to verify identity against a centralized database. Other studies have explored biometric frameworks combining hardware sensors and software verification to ensure secure authentication [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Biometric voting feasibility has also been examined for applicability in Iraq and other developing regions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch demonstrates that biometric voter verification can improve voter trust and confidence in election outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, studies in developing nations highlight both the potential benefits and operational challenges of implementing biometric voting at a national scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecurity considerations remain a critical concern. Researchers emphasize the need for robust cybersecurity to protect infrastructure from cyberattacks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Vulnerability assessments using frameworks such as the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) have identified multiple security risks in web-based voting systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. From an architectural perspective, recent studies explore distributed and microservice-based architectures to enhance scalability. Edge computing approaches allow systems to operate during network disruptions while maintaining secure synchronization with centralized databases [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these advances, existing research often focuses on either biometrics or system architecture in isolation. Few studies propose integrated frameworks supporting multimodal authentication while maintaining offline survivability and strong cryptographic protections.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Proposed System Architecture","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Hybrid Edge-Cloud Voting Architecture\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo guarantee operational resilience and mitigate the risks of single-point failures, the SHB-EVS is built upon a decentralized infrastructure rather than a traditional monolithic web server. As illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the architecture employs a hybrid edge-cloud model where each polling station operates as an independent edge node responsible for voter authentication and ballot recording. The edge node performs biometric verification locally and temporarily stores encrypted vote data using a lightweight SQLite database. Utilizing Optimistic Concurrency Control, the system synchronizes vote records with a centralized MongoDB cloud database only when secure connectivity becomes available. This structural design ensures continuous system availability during severe network outages, which is a critical requirement for deployments in regions with unstable telecommunications infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Multimodal Biometric Authentication\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo mitigate the inherent vulnerabilities of unimodal biometric systems such as sensor degradation, environmental noise, and susceptibility to presentation attacks\u0026mdash;the SHB-EVS employs a high-assurance, multi-layered authentication framework. As depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, the proposed system integrates three parallel biometric modalities, which are orchestrated and fused using a strict Decision-Level Boolean AND rule:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFingerprint Recognition: Relies on localized minutiae-based matching algorithms to verify physical presence against the voter's enrolled template.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFacial Recognition: Implemented using the FaceNet512 deep neural network model, extracting 512-dimensional embeddings to calculate precise cosine distances for identity verification.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePassive Liveness Detection: Utilizes the MediaPipe 3D face mesh to extract 468 facial landmarks, measuring the \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003ez\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e-axis depth variance to neutralize planar presentation attacks (e.g., printed photos or digital screens).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mathematical fusion of these modalities significantly reduces false acceptance errors and ensures that the final cryptographic vote is definitively bound to a living, eligible voter [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Reverse-Flow Voting Protocol\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA major barrier to the adoption of electronic voting among elderly and low-literacy demographics is the cognitive load and \"performance anxiety\" induced by strict, upfront authentication requirements. To resolve this usability crisis, the SHB-EVS completely restructures the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) pipeline. As demonstrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, the system employs a novel \"reverse-flow\" voting protocol (Vote-First, Verify-Later).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnlike traditional architectures where biometric gates precede ballot access, the SHB-EVS allows voters to navigate the interface and select their preferred candidate entirely unburdened by security constraints. The complex biometric verification is triggered only as a final, passive \"commit\" action. This protocol not only drastically reduces cognitive load but also preserves voter anonymity by logically and temporally separating the authentication phase from the ballot browsing process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Zero-Trust Security Architecture and Anti-Traffic Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn traditional web-based voting architectures, relying solely on standard network-layer encryption (such as TLS/SSL) leaves the system vulnerable to metadata leakage and sophisticated traffic analysis attacks. To neutralize these network-level threats, the SHB-EVS adopts a strict zero-trust Application-Level Encryption (ALE) model [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e], [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. As illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, the system secures vote payloads directly at the edge using the highly performant Libsodium library, specifically employing the XSalsa20-Poly1305 authenticated encryption cipher.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, to conceal the voting behavior of the electorate, the architecture utilizes a \"Singleton State Pattern.\" This protocol forces all outgoing encrypted network packets to a uniform size of exactly 4096 bytes, regardless of the underlying ballot complexity. This cryptographic padding mathematically eliminates payload size variations, rendering malicious traffic analysis and metadata inference attacks entirely ineffective.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. System Implementation","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe prototype was implemented using a modular architecture consisting of a web-based interface, a Node.js orchestration backend, Python-based biometric processing microservices, and cryptographic security modules. The user interface was developed to mirror official electoral design languages. Cryptographic operations rely on Libsodium to enforce application-level encryption. Local vote storage is handled by SQLite optimized for edge environments, while centralized aggregation is performed through MongoDB.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Experimental Evaluation","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Biometric Authentication Accuracy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo rigorously evaluate the security efficacy of the proposed biometric fusion without exposing live human subjects to data privacy risks during the prototyping phase the system was tested against globally recognized academic datasets. As illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, utilizing standardized algorithmic benchmarks (the LFW dataset for facial recognition and the FVC2004 dataset for degraded fingerprints) demonstrates that the multimodal approach successfully pushes the performance curve into a Pareto-optimal zone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssuming the statistical independence of the biometric traits, the combined False Acceptance Rate (\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:FA{R}_{combined}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) of the SHB-EVS is defined by the mathematical product of the individual unimodal error rates:\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:FA{R}_{combined}=FA{R}_{fingerprint}\\times\\:FA{R}_{face}\\times\\:FA{R}_{liveness}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Equb\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equb\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:FA{R}_{combined}=0.00015\\times\\:0.0015\\times\\:0.008\\approx\\:1.8\\times\\:{10}^{-9}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo clearly quantify the security advantages of this architecture, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e compares the baseline error rates of the individual sensors against the final fused system, highlighting the near-perfect reliability achieved by the SHB-EVS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBiometric Performance Evaluation by Modality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFalse Acceptance Rate (FAR)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFalse Rejection Rate (FRR)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall Accuracy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFingerprint (Degraded Conditions)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.015%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e94.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFace Recognition (FaceNet512)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.15%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e97.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultimodal Fusion (SHB-EVS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:\\approx\\:1.8\\times\\:1{0}^{-9}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;99.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Cryptographic Performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA primary concern within the E-Voting Trilemma is the computational latency introduced by high-assurance security measures, particularly when executed on localized edge computing devices. To validate that the SHB-EVS does not penalize the voter experience with processing lag, iterative micro-benchmarking was conducted on the Application-Level Encryption module.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs demonstrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, testing showed that encrypting a standard 2 KB vote payload utilizing the XSalsa20-Poly1305 cipher requires a mean time of merely 3.14 ms (\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\sigma\\:}=\\:0.21\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e ms). This confirms that military-grade, zero-trust cryptography can be implemented at the edge with virtually imperceptible computational overhead.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Network Synchronization Performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe hybrid edge-cloud architecture was evaluated under simulated network outages. Synchronizing a localized backlog of 1,000 encrypted votes with the cloud database required 11.45 seconds upon connection restoration, confirming the system\u0026rsquo;s resilience to connectivity disruptions without packet loss.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Analytical Usability Evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final axis of the E-Voting Trilemma usability is often the most challenging to quantify securely without exposing vulnerable demographics to unproven software. Because a large-scale physical deployment with human subjects was outside the scope of this initial architectural validation, an Analytical Model Evaluation was conducted to empirically measure cognitive load. Utilizing the Keystroke-Level Model (KLM) for empirical time prediction and the System Usability Scale (SUS) for satisfaction projection, the interaction flow of the SHB-EVS was mapped across three distinct demographic profiles. The resulting Task Completion Times (TCT) are visualized in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo provide a comprehensive baseline comparison between traditional authenticate-first architectures and the proposed SHB-EVS, Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e details the calculated TCT and projected SUS scores for each demographic group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalytical Evaluation of TCT and SUS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic Profile\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional TCT (s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSHB-EVS TCT (s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional SUS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSHB-EVS SUS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYouth (18\u0026ndash;35)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddle-aged (36\u0026ndash;55)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e58.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElderly (56+)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e112.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs the analytical results indicate, the reverse-flow protocol yields a moderate speed improvement for younger demographics, but delivers a transformative reduction in cognitive friction for elderly voters. By deferring the biometric authentication to the final step, the system accelerates the voting process for the 56\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;demographic by over 60%. Most importantly, this architectural shift elevates their projected usability score from a systemic failure (42) to an excellent rating (82), proving that military-grade security can coexist with highly inclusive accessibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe experimental results demonstrate that the SHB-EVS architecture successfully balances security, usability, and system performance. Multimodal biometric fusion significantly reduces the probability of unauthorized access while maintaining efficient processing times. The hybrid edge-cloud architecture ensures operational continuity in environments with unreliable network infrastructure. Furthermore, the reverse-flow voting protocol enhances voter anonymity and usability by separating the cognitive burden of authentication from ballot selection.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper presented a secure hybrid biometric electronic voting system integrating multimodal biometric authentication, edge computing infrastructure, and zero-trust security principles. The proposed architecture enables secure offline voting operations while ensuring strong protection of voter identity, ballot secrecy, and protection against traffic analysis. Future research will focus on large-scale deployment testing and the potential integration of permissioned distributed ledgers for public post-election auditing without violating ballot anonymity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eS . wrote all the main manuscript text\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSoares, J., \u0026amp; Vasconcelos, R. (2023). A distributed architecture proposal for e-voting.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEl Akhdar, A. (2024). Microservices in IoT systems. Sensors.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrewer, E. (2000). Towards robust distributed systems.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evon Arx, T. (2023). Cryptographic libraries for secure systems.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJoshi, H. (2024). Zero trust security frameworks.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational, I. D. E. A. (2017). Biometric technology in elections.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Parliamentary Research Service (2018). E-voting and biometric data protection.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeinberg, A., \u0026amp; Cohen, K. (2024). Zero trust implementation survey.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGujanatti, R. B. (2015). Fingerprint based voting system.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltun, H., \u0026amp; Bilgin, A. (2011). Web-based fingerprint voting system.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDhaher, S., \u0026amp; Kuban, S. (2020). Face and fingerprint voting feasibility study.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNigar, N. (2020). Framework for fingerprint voting.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSrikrishnaswetha, K. (2020). Biometric voting system architecture.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams, S., \u0026amp; Asante, J. (2019). Voter trust and biometric verification.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMajeed, D. (2021). Biometric voting challenges in Nigeria.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShoaib, M. (2019). Security considerations in biometric voting.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSunardi, S., Riadi, I., \u0026amp; Raharja, A. (2019). OWASP vulnerability analysis of e-voting systems.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEsposito, C. (2022). Security assessment of distributed systems.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Electronic voting, biometric fusion, edge computing, zero-trust security, Application-Level Encryption, HCI, reverse-flow protocol","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9390387/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9390387/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eElectronic voting technologies have emerged as a promising solution for improving transparency, efficiency, and security in modern electoral systems. However, the deployment of electronic voting platforms introduces significant challenges related to voter authentication, privacy protection, and system resilience in environments with unreliable infrastructure. This paper presents the Secure Hybrid Biometric Electronic Voting System (SHB-EVS), a novel architecture that integrates multimodal biometric authentication, edge computing infrastructure, and a zero-trust security framework. The proposed system combines fingerprint minutiae, facial recognition embeddings, and 3D liveness detection to ensure reliable voter identification while maintaining ballot secrecy through a reverse-flow voting protocol. The architecture employs hybrid data persistence using local edge databases and centralized cloud synchronization to ensure continuous operation during network disruptions. Experimental evaluation demonstrates that the multimodal authentication model achieves a combined false acceptance probability of approximately \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:1.8\\times\\:{10}^{-9}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Cryptographic micro-benchmarking shows that application-level encryption of a standard vote payload requires an average of 3.14 ms, while synchronization of 1,000 votes during network recovery requires approximately 11.45 seconds. Analytical Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) modeling indicates authentication completion times between 32.5 and 45.6 seconds across age groups, raising the projected System Usability Scale (SUS) score for elderly voters to an excellent 82. These results demonstrate that the SHB-EVS architecture provides a secure, resilient, and highly usable framework suitable for modern democratic electoral systems.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A Secure Hybrid Multimodal Biometric Electronic Voting System Using Edge Computing and Zero-Trust Security Architecture","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-21 09:27:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9390387/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0c4f76ca-d8ad-4e0e-92d0-f4b0a34495ca","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 21st, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-22T16:06:34+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-21 09:27:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9390387","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9390387","identity":"rs-9390387","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}