[nikisweeting]

ArchiveBox open source does not, but I have set it up for paying clients in the past using TLSNotary. This is actually a very hard problem and is not as simple as saving traffic hashes + original SSL certs (because HTTPS connections use a symmetric key after the initial handshake, the archivist can forge server responses and claim the server sent things that it did not).

There is only 1 reasonable approach that I know of as of today: https://tlsnotary.org/docs/intro, and it still involves trusting a third party with reputation (though it cleverly uses a zk algorithm so that the third party doesn't have to see the cleartext). Anyone claiming to provide "verifyable" web archives is likely lying or overstating it unless they are using TLSNotary or a similar approach. I've seen far to many companies make impossible claims about "signed" or "verified" web archives over the last decade, be very critial any time you see someone claiming that unless they talk explicitly about the "TLS Non-Repudiation Problem" and how they solve it: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/103645/does-ssl...

[giancarlostoro]

If web pages were signed the way emails were, it would authenticate if an archived copy of a web page is indeed authentic, but good luck getting such a major change all the way across the entire web. Why would anyone who would gladly retract / redact information on a whim even subscribe to this technology? Would be nice if they all did though.

[galaxy_gas]

Have you see this before? https://web.dev/articles/signed-exchanges

Its not for authenticity but instead to prevent tampering of adblock,ad and tracking removals more if there is history in search many complains in this