I don&#x27;t understand the rationale - SHA-1 gets sunset as broken crypto, indicating that with time a motivated attacker can find a collision and forge a cert for a SHA-1 secured site. Serving a SHA-1 cert to users whose browsers cannot understand newer cryptography seems like you&#x27;d be claiming that the security of those users&#x27; connections is not something you consider meaningful, as those users are still vulnerable to SHA-1 attacks. This just raises the barrier for entry to attack those users (compared to plaintext), except those users will potentially be unaware anything is wrong.<p>As the article states, 37 million visitors were using outdated crypto - that&#x27;s 37 million potential sets of private information I could skim with a forged cert. Does protecting those users not matter?