Skip to content
Use case 080

Election Results Transmission Gateways

A deployment concept for electoral commissions, returning officers, government networks and independent observers.

Proposed deployment · Compatibility assessment required
Government, Public Safety and Defence

Why this environment matters

The platform for election results transmission gateways collects signed counts from polling places and transmits them to central tally systems. The operational risk is specific: a compromised gateway could delay, substitute or misroute result files even when local counting remains correct. NØNOS could provide a smaller, memory-safe base for dividing that workflow into signed, least-privilege components and restoring it from a known state after each sensitive session or incident.

The security challenge

The practical concern is that a compromised gateway could delay, substitute or misroute result files even when local counting remains correct. Public-sector systems hold authoritative records and powers that affect identity, liberty, property, emergency response and national security. Endpoint compromise can therefore create consequences far beyond data loss. The attack surface may include remote support, software updates, removable media, third-party libraries, public input or misused operator credentials. The security design therefore needs containment as well as prevention.

How the capsule model could help

The proposed deployment pattern is to separate media ingestion, signature validation, network transfer and operator review, preserving a verifiable chain of custody. NØNOS would use disposable trusted sessions and signed application allow-lists as the trust foundation, then apply purpose-bound data access and attestation for privileged actions around higher-risk functions. Logs or proofs could record which approved capsule performed a privileged action without retaining unnecessary user data.

Separate address spaces and capability checks can limit cross-process reach. They cannot stop harmful use of legitimate permissions, prove AI decisions correct or substitute for domain-specific safety controls.

Deployment requirements

Government deployment would require formal accreditation, identity and records integration, accessibility testing, procurement assurance and controls appropriate to the information classification and public function.

Current public-beta limitations, hardware support and application availability must be assessed before any pilot. Neither this use case nor an industry source establishes NONOS certification or a current customer deployment.

Who could buy or integrate it?

  • Election commissions commissioning results collection and transmission systems
  • Voting-system vendors integrating reporting gateways with tally software
  • Government network contractors implementing connectivity and operational support

Industry examples: Election Systems & Software, Hart InterCivic. Organisations shown illustrate the industry. No NONOS customer, partner or endorsement relationship is implied.

Market opportunity

Market benchmarks and device scenarios.

Published industry benchmark
US$45 million

US HAVA election security appropriation

United States and US territories · 2026 · annual budget appropriation

FY2026 federal funding appropriated for state and territorial election administration and security. Budget authority, not actual annual outlays, vendor sales, or total election spending. Excludes state matching funds.

Modelled global devices
50K–600K

Candidate OS endpoints

Hypothetical planning range · 2025

Low confidence: planning assumptions. Hardware compatibility, procurement and adoption have not been validated.

Illustrative annual licensing
$2M–$120M

USD / year at full model coverage

Device scenario × assumed US$40–$200 per device / year.

Not a revenue forecast, announced price or measured serviceable market.

Device calculation

Hypothetical global planning range, 2025 scenario: assume 50,000–300,000 election reporting and tabulation locations × 1–2 candidate OS endpoints per site/asset = 50,000–600,000 endpoints. Counting unit: results transmission/security gateways; voting machines excluded. Site and asset counts, and devices per site, are planning assumptions. The installed base has not been measured. Coverage is limited to the defined equipped subset; includes all candidate endpoints within that assumed subset. Hardware eligibility, certification, adoption and achievable NØNOS share are unverified; overlaps other cases.

Election Security Grant ↗

Market context only; separate from device and site population estimates. Original monetary-market scope and geography are preserved in benchmark. This source does not establish the assumed worldwide site count or endpoint density.

How to interpret the figures

Adjacent or broader commercial market benchmark; not the NØNOS OS market, licensable-device count or revenue forecast.

Modelled candidate endpoints multiplied by an assumed annual USD price per endpoint. Pricing is a planning assumption, not a vendor quote. This illustrates the full scenario range, not revenue or total addressable market. It excludes adoption timing, procurement, certification, support costs, channel economics and achievable market share. Use cases can overlap, so their totals do not represent unique devices.

Research from 2026. Publisher estimates have not been independently audited.

Read the full methodology

Explore NONOS

Choose your
NONOS experience.

Discover the platform for your organisation or explore the software.

You can reopen this chooser from the footer at any time.